1

I am now working on the smart contract for secondary market, which is the stock negotiation. For example, user A wants to buy a stock, user sets the acceptable price and the amount. The order will be put into the "Buy array", waiting for the match price. If user A wants to sell a stock, just as the procedure of buying a stock, user sets the price and the amount to sell. What I am thinking now is creating a struct Order as follow:

struct Order {
        uint256 orderno;
        uint256 time;
        address from;
        uint256 price;
        uint256 amount;
    }

Using struct, we can have the instance of Buy and Sell strcut

Order[] public Buy
Order[] public Sell

and we can create function of Buy and Sell. //user put buy order

  function buy(address _from,uint256 _price, uint256 _amount) onlyOwner public {



        uint256 dealamount;
        uint256 dealprice;

        for(uint256 count = 0;count <s.length;count++)
        {
            if(_amount==0) {
                break;
            }
            if(_price>=s[count].price)
            {
                dealprice = s[count].price;
                if(_amount >= s[count].amount){
                    dealamount = s[count].amount;
                }
                else {
                    dealamount = _amount;
                }
                s[count].amount-= dealamount;
                _amount-=dealamount;
                sectransfer(this,_from,dealamount,dealprice);
                deal(this,s[count].from,_from,now,dealamount,dealprice);//event
                sellmatch[s[count].price]-=dealamount;
            }
        }
        removezerosell();
        //no deal, push into buy struct
        if (_amount > 0)
        {
            insertbuy(Order(orderno,now, _from, _price, _amount));
            //b.push(Order(orderno,now, _from, _price, _amount));
            //sortbuy();
            buymatch[_price] += _amount;
            orderno++;
        }
    }


function sell(address _from,uint256 _price, uint256 _amount) onlyOwner public{

    //if(msg.sender != owner) return;
    //check user have enough token
    if(balanceOf[_from] < _amount ) return;
    temptransfer(_from,this,_amount);

    uint256 dealamount;
    uint256 dealprice;

    for(uint256 count=0;count<b.length;count++)
    {
        if(_amount==0){
            break;
        }
        if(_price <= b[count].price){
            dealprice = _price;
            if(_amount >= b[count].amount){
                dealamount = b[count].amount;
            }
            else {
                dealamount = _amount;
            }
            b[count].amount -= dealamount;
            _amount -= dealamount;
            sectransfer(this,b[count].from,dealamount,dealprice);
            deal(this,_from,b[count].from,now,dealamount,dealprice);
            buymatch[b[count].price]-=dealamount;
        }
    }
    removezerobuy();
    if (_amount > 0)
    {
        insertsell(Order(orderno,now, _from, _price, _amount));
        //s.push(Order(orderno,now, _from, _price, _amount));
        sellmatch[_price] += _amount;
        orderno++;
    }
}

Is there a better way of doing the concept of trading stock and the secondary market? Or what can I improve the buy and sell function?

2

If I read that right (from just eyeballing it), you are iterating over the order book. This is going to fail at some number of orders because the overall cost will exceed the block gasLimit.

You could consider linked lists or some form of indexing to make the search more efficient, but that wouldn't be my first choice. Instead, I'd consider inverting control and completely changing how data flows.

Given a contract that

  • holds orders and
  • emits events for every important state change (LogNewOrder, LogOrderFilled, etc),

there is no reason an informed software client should need this much help.

You can presume clients already know the entire book, and require them to inspect the logs (or the state) to gather the big picture.

Once they can reasonably be expected to see the picture, they can match orders. They can't fill orders, but they can submit well-organised proposals that specify the exact order numbers/UID (both sides) so no iterative search is needed.

A minimalist approach would be preferable, in my opinion. https://blog.b9lab.com/the-joy-of-minimalism-in-smart-contract-design-2303010c8b09

In practice, it can be helpful to think of traditionally server-side concerns migrating to smarter clients, and a smart contract that proves they can't misbehave.

Hope it helps.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.