-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use Trading Days v.s. Block Height for Expiration? #19
Labels
documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation
Comments
CarboClanC
changed the title
Use physical system time for expiration
Use Trading Days v.s. Block Height for Expiration?
Jul 6, 2019
I propose use the phasical system time. At a setting schema at #30 |
Pyasical system time is accepted by governance meeting July 14th 2019. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The origin design of hashrate contract is using a block chain height for expiration. Beacuse the mining difficulty is relative to the the block height only, using block height makes the contract much more predictable.
In Market Protocol, the contracts are expired at physical time usually. It is possible to implement this by stopping updating the index at the from Oracle at the target block height. However, this approach requires maintaining independent indexes for contracts expired at different time, which may lead to a more difficult Oracle design.
On the other hand, in order not to affect the predictability of the index, we could make the expiration time between two BTC mining diffculty adjustments.
As a result, maybe phasical system time is better??
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: