Add an amendment to allow gateways to set a "tick size"
for assets they issue. There are no changes unless the
amendment is enabled (since the tick size option cannot
be set).
With the amendment enabled:
AccountSet transactions may set a "TickSize" parameter.
Legal values are 0 and 3-15 inclusive. Zero removes the
setting. 3-15 allow that many decimal digits of precision
in the pricing of offers for assets issued by this account.
For asset pairs with XRP, the tick size imposed, if any,
is the tick size of the issuer of the non-XRP asset. For
asset pairs without XRP, the tick size imposed, if any,
is the smaller of the two issuer's configured tick sizes.
The tick size is imposed by rounding the offer quality
down to nearest tick and recomputing the non-critical
side of the offer. For a buy, the amount offered is
rounded down. For a sell, the amount charged is rounded up.
Gateways must enable a TickSize on their account for this
feature to benefit them.
The primary expected benefit is the elimination of bots
fighting over the tip of the order book. This means:
- Quicker price discovery as outpricing someone by a
microscopic amount is made impossible. Currently
bots can spend hours outbidding each other with no
significant price movement.
- A reduction in offer creation and cancellation spam.
- More offers left on the books as priority means
something when you can't outbid by a microscopic amount.
Add a new algorithm for finding the liquidity in a payment path. There
is still a reverse and forward pass, but the forward pass starts at the
limiting step rather than the payment source. This insures the limiting
step is completely consumed rather than potentially leaving a 'dust'
amount in the forward pass.
Each step in a payment is either a book step, a direct step (account to
account step), or an xrp endpoint. Each step in the existing
implementation is a triple, where each element in the triple is either
an account of a book, for a total of eight step types.
Since accounts are considered in pairs, rather than triples, transfer
fees are handled differently. In V1 of payments, in the payment path
A -> gw ->B, if A redeems to gw, and gw issues to B, a transfer fee is
changed. In the new code, a transfer fee is changed even if A issues to
gw.
Very small payment could fail when STAmount::mulRound underflowed
and returned zero, when it should have rounded up to the smallest
representable value.
