Regardless of what *your* phone has, feature phones without wifi or a data plan still made up the majority of phones until 2-3 years ago, so that's nowhere near a "90s" situation
So you agree then, and feel like arguing about the precise date your argument became obsolete.
most adults don't store all of their pics/music/etc. solely in the cloud,
Most adults don't store that on their phone either.
, and wifi file transfers can be enough of a PITA that often a cable is faster -- so the existence of data connections or wifi are somewhat irrelevant.
usb 2 vs wireless N is about the same. Call wifi a "PITA" if you like and your welcome to choose USB capable phones, but its a tradeoff I'd be willing to make for waterproof.
My argument isn't really that USB should be abolished; but that it would be tragic if it were mandated.
Sometimes people do have to go away from home for more than one day, and the charging pad takes valuable space in the bag.
A trade off i'm willing to make.
I'm not suggesting they pass a law outlawing USB for people like you. Just that I object to a law MANDATING USB for people like me. I'd trade a usb port for a waterproof phone in heartbeat.
The Telco vendors love that sort of thing. I remember my old 'feature phone' that had a camera, but there was no data path to the outside world, so you could transfer a single photo out of the phone by paying $0.99 to send a message with photo attachment.
Yeah, the 90s are over; my smartphone has wifi and a data plan. And not that I've ever used it, but unlimited picture messaging too.
No thanks. Keep a usb connector on the thing.
If you want a phone with one that's fine with me, but don't force it by law on the rest of us. I'd trade a usb port for a water proof phone in a heartbeat.
The way to do it would be to require a micro-USB, but they can also use any other charging method you want. How many phones are going to have wireless charging ONLY?
Hopefully all of them.
Bluetooth for the headphone, wireless charging for the battery, and you have the ability to EASILY make a waterproof phone because there are now no electrical interfaces that need to pass from the interior to the exterior. That makes the engineering dead simple. (Buttons are a non issue because you can have a waterproof membrane between the physical button and the switch (or whatever) beneath it. The mic and speaker are slightly harder but is a solved problem.
Nearly all water damage currently comes in via the headphone or charging port.
I know, but Obama approved and took ownership of the name, so it is often reported as obamacare even by neutral and pro-democrat sources now, planting the name much more firmly.
Had it been left only as the term used by the extreme right-wing mouth breathers as a term of derision it would be more likely to fade away, especially if the act itself gains popularity in the future.
Its not just sensitivity that makes a mouse superior - its the ability to stop or hold a fixed position.
Its very easy to put a cross hair in the expected path of a target with the mouse, and then wait for the target.
Its much much harder to do the same with a stick. With a thumb-trackpad... I'm not sure. it should be eaiser than a stick, but it still would require you to hold your thumb absolutely still. I imagine attempting to lift your thumb off the pad will be nearly impossible to do without moving the cursor -- something that is pretty easy with a mouse (and physically impossible with an autocentering thumbstick)
In hindsight letting it be called obamacare is probably the only mistake the democrats made.
The teapartiers will never carry a placard with a pro-statement next to a democrat president's name.
Obama should have named the Reagan Memorial Health Care Act, shortended to ReaganCare... now that's something tea partiers can get behind 5 years from now.
"In February, dark pools matched an average of 908 million shares per day, accounting for roughly 14 percent of all U.S. stock trading volume, according to data from Tabb."
If a brokerage clears transactions internally, that is more efficient than using an external exchange, and is a good thing.
1. Why?
No, its not. A brokerage doing that gets inside information about demand for a stock not made available to the public. Indeed part of the whole HFT game is probing dark pools for invisible supply/demand to help them predict the direction things are going to go. You can't possibly sit there with a straight face and tell me giving the brokers participating in that game that access to information like that is a good thing that benefits the market.
Any the "efficiency" gains realized are mitigated by the damage the above causes coupled with the fact that the average investor doesn't benefit from those efficiencies -- Blankfein just takes them home in his pocket. That's hardly a benefit to the market.
Trying to outlaw or over-regulate... 2. How?
Just treat shares like stock certificates literally. Sign them at the exchange with who they belong to - if they change ownership, that change needs to be signed by the exchange via trade executed by the exchange. A brokerage can't so easily bypass the exchange effectively if it literally can't change the ownership of a share without the exchange.
Yeah there's a lot more to it than that, and more attacks, and more ways to head them off. Sorry a complete implementation strategy for a fully functional stock exchange isn't going to fit in a slashdot post.
just to satisfy your pointless desire to ban something that you don't understand.
If cheaper and deeper markets (using empirical evidence) does not convince you what do you need?
What do I care about fake depth? People who want to buy and sell do so, if they don't they won't. I'm at a loss as to why we would so highly value liquidity and volume beyond what the market generates naturally, or how it helps the market itself.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "cheaper markets" -- cheaper in the sense that transactional costs are way down? To which I credit the computer age and say it's inevitable, while simultaneously pointing out that zeroing out transactional costs have led to some of the problems HFT etc cause. Some transactional drag on the system prevents abuse.
So you are not so much eliminating a problem as switching from one set of problems to another.
Is there a specific problem which you think is intractable?
First, dark pools are not informal. Most are independent and all have a formal structure.
Fair point; I didn't mean to suggest they weren't structured; just that they were invisible to the public and unregulated. There is no legitimate reason for them to exist. If large illiquid orders are being made, there is an advantage to the pool operator and participants to be aware of it, and advantage other people do not have, and that undermines the proper functioning of the publicly traded market, where transactions are supposed to be public.
Stats for 2010 put 10%-12% of all market volume in dark pools. That's quite a lot of activity. More over the private pools between brokers were to bypass exchange fees and the split difference -- essentially creating new sources of revenue by bypassing the system everyone else had to use again contrary to the public interest.
Thanks for that information. I think the main counterpoint though is that modern computer systems and global reach of the internet basically render the need for dual listed stocks obsolete.
The only real point now is convenience and access to foreign retail markets (eg. canadian stocks that like to be dual listed on the TSE along with the NYSE for better exposure to american markets), and we could easily support listing stocks on multiple exchanges but have the orders for 'non-home' listings still all be forwarded and processed by the home exchange.
The problem is that it is harder to be a market maker in an order books system so you get a narrower shallower market.
The real challenge is convincing me that this is really a "problem" at all.:)
But you can't regulate the trade of tomatoes for milk. It won't work, and you can't build enough guns or hire enough thugs to make it work. Ever. So don't even try.
The dark pools I refer to are informal stock markets run internally to brokerage houses, or between brokerage houses outside the actual regulated exchange.
Thus for example if jp morgan wants to buy shares of X, it can do so on the exchange or it can just go and make a deal directly with with Chase bank bypassing the exchange. If a jp morgan customer wants to buy shares of Y, jp morgan doesn't have to forward that order out to the exchange -- it can just sell them some of its own, perhaps that it got slightly cheaper by buying them directly from chase bank... while still charging the customer the market price instead of the price it actually obtained them at, and all kinds of other stuff.
That should all be eliminated.
But it has nothing to do with the barter of tomatoes and milk.
No, your methods all assume things that would not be true.
There would be no placing and cancelling orders in milliseconds. The market resolution is 10 minutes. There would be a fee for placing an order, and once placed it would not be cancel-able until after the next interval because THAT is the market resolution.
The orders go into the black box at the exchange, and every 10 minutes they get matched.
The order depth on bid/ask etc would just be what's still in the queue that didn't execute 10 minutes ago. And that's still going to give you a very good idea what the price is. Like a thinly traded OTC for example... where bid and ask are usually within a nickle until someone comes in and either buys at the ask or sells at the bid.)
Think of it as the "clock" only ticks every 10 minutes; there is no "real-time" game taking place between the 10 minutes. *Nobody* gets information faster than once every 10 minutes. There is nothing to 'game' in the interval because there's NOTHING to see in the interval; nothing happens. You are between ticks of the clock.
HFT brings absolutely nothing of value to the table. It doesn't help the traded companies, it doesn't help the market, it doesn't help any country economies. In fact, all it does is give the same hedge fund bozos who trashed the US and EU's economies another way to scarf income without adding anything.
HFT isn't merely neutral adding no value; the income they "scarf" is income the rest of the stake holders lose. (To the extent that one can lose something one never got, at least.)
Either only allow trades each 15 seconds
I propose 10 minutes or even longer, and even that's more than fast enough. A company's fundamental value doesn't change 6 times an hour.
10 minutes lets news hit, lets people think and consider what they value the stock at, and even people not day trading for a living can react and put in a trade order without being 100 million trades "too late".
or tack a very small surcharge per transaction which wouldn't affect normal transactions, but penalize HFT enough to not make it worth the bother.
Not just every transaction -- every ORDER. HFT spams millions of orders to probe, guide, bait, etc, most of them never close and are cancelled; within milliseconds of being placed.
Those need to be 'taxed' as well.
Finally eliminate "dark pools". All trades MUST go through regulated markets. There should be no dark pools of unregulated trade.
Yeah, EA has their own in-house wannabe-steam-clone: Origin Everything you dislike about steam, and then worse. I don't use it.
I used to have a direct2drive account, and its now "gamefly" some of the EA stuff is there, I honestly don't know much about how it stacks up at all.
And Ubisoft... yeah... I don't buy Ubisoft anymore either.
The other really big name I guess is Blizzard, but StarCraft 2, Diablo III are all "always-on" tied to BattleNet so really steam really is the least of all evils for getting access to some of the new stuff.
These days, I pick stuff up on steam during the sales, pick up classics on GOG.com (truly DRM free), and patronize the humble bundle for (which is usually but not always DRM free; and often dual "drm free + steam key" which is nice).
The following is why this law is bogus. [...] Historically, and continuing to the present the courts -- on up to the Supreme Court -- have ruled that when any kind of "transaction" is taking place, it takes place in the state of the place of business of the vendor
Yes yes, all true.
So if you have a website in Poughkeepsie, Gov. Jerry Brown has no legal authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your website.
Yes, but what if you are in California?
Facebook Inc: 1601 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025 Google Inc, Mountain View, CA Apple: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA, 95014 Twitter: 1355 Market St, San Francisco, CA, 94103 MySpace: 349 - 8391 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048
I'm sensing a trend here.
Microsoft: Ok... that one is based in Redmond, WA But they have offices: here: 100 - 300 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA, 95814 here: 700 - 835 Market Street, San Franciso, CA, 94103 and here: 1065 La Avenida, Mountain View, CA, 94043
I haven't bought a disc based game since 2007. First portal 1 bit me (but that's a valve game), and then Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Capcom and a port from Xbox)
Here's some more Including some pretty big stuff
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim -- Bethesda XCOM - Enemy Unknown -- (Firaxis/2K) Warhammer 40k -- (Relic/THQ) Total War: series -- Sega Serious Sam 3 - Croteam/Devolver
There's also stuff from Square Enix, Activision, etc
"This is a list of games that require Steam authentication, regardless of whether they are purchased at retail or through other digital distribution services..."
Just insert a random delay on all trades. The delay shall range from 20 minutes to 2 hours. That would make automated trading useless.
Sorry, that's worthless. Delaying everything by at least 20 minutes means that orders 0.002 seconds after my trade are still at least 20.002 seconds after the earliest chance my trade has to hit. Yeah, there's good odds his trade will be before mine, but statistically I still have a slight advantage by being first. And the race is still on.
Further, I'd just submit duplicate orders to increase the odds of getting lucky with the RNG, and then cancel the others.
Finally, the RNG itself would be under attack, with companies looking for any variation from absolute perfect randomness to leverage an advantage from.
I believe to fix the market we need to slow it down -- 10 minute trade intervals, so that all orders passed in are evaluated every 10 minutes. Beating someone else by a few microseconds doesn't matter.
I'd also institute a 1 cent fee per ORDER (whether it completes or not) that will make spamming millions of orders to "probe" or "bait" or whatever other games the HFT algorithms play prohibitively expensive. If 1 cent is too low... fine... make it a nickel, or even a dollar, but i suspect 1 cent will be enough.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet most phones aren't waterproof, corrosion is common at the connectors, and most water ingress is via the data and headphone ports.
If it were -that- easy, why don't we have it?
Regardless of what *your* phone has, feature phones without wifi or a data plan still made up the majority of phones until 2-3 years ago, so that's nowhere near a "90s" situation
So you agree then, and feel like arguing about the precise date your argument became obsolete.
most adults don't store all of their pics/music/etc. solely in the cloud,
Most adults don't store that on their phone either.
, and wifi file transfers can be enough of a PITA that often a cable is faster -- so the existence of data connections or wifi are somewhat irrelevant.
usb 2 vs wireless N is about the same. Call wifi a "PITA" if you like and your welcome to choose USB capable phones, but its a tradeoff I'd be willing to make for waterproof.
My argument isn't really that USB should be abolished; but that it would be tragic if it were mandated.
Exactly, "waterproof" not waterproof.
Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?
You mean this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
Yes it can and has been adapted for that situation.
Sometimes people do have to go away from home for more than one day, and the charging pad takes valuable space in the bag.
A trade off i'm willing to make.
I'm not suggesting they pass a law outlawing USB for people like you. Just that I object to a law MANDATING USB for people like me. I'd trade a usb port for a waterproof phone in heartbeat.
The Telco vendors love that sort of thing. I remember my old 'feature phone' that had a camera, but there was no data path to the outside world, so you could transfer a single photo out of the phone by paying $0.99 to send a message with photo attachment.
Yeah, the 90s are over; my smartphone has wifi and a data plan. And not that I've ever used it, but unlimited picture messaging too.
No thanks. Keep a usb connector on the thing.
If you want a phone with one that's fine with me, but don't force it by law on the rest of us. I'd trade a usb port for a water proof phone in a heartbeat.
The way to do it would be to require a micro-USB, but they can also use any other charging method you want. How many phones are going to have wireless charging ONLY?
Hopefully all of them.
Bluetooth for the headphone, wireless charging for the battery, and you have the ability to EASILY make a waterproof phone because there are now no electrical interfaces that need to pass from the interior to the exterior. That makes the engineering dead simple. (Buttons are a non issue because you can have a waterproof membrane between the physical button and the switch (or whatever) beneath it. The mic and speaker are slightly harder but is a solved problem.
Nearly all water damage currently comes in via the headphone or charging port.
Yeah, but they don't know that.
I know, but Obama approved and took ownership of the name, so it is often reported as obamacare even by neutral and pro-democrat sources now, planting the name much more firmly.
Had it been left only as the term used by the extreme right-wing mouth breathers as a term of derision it would be more likely to fade away, especially if the act itself gains popularity in the future.
Its not just sensitivity that makes a mouse superior - its the ability to stop or hold a fixed position.
Its very easy to put a cross hair in the expected path of a target with the mouse, and then wait for the target.
Its much much harder to do the same with a stick. With a thumb-trackpad... I'm not sure. it should be eaiser than a stick, but it still would require you to hold your thumb absolutely still. I imagine attempting to lift your thumb off the pad will be nearly impossible to do without moving the cursor -- something that is pretty easy with a mouse (and physically impossible with an autocentering thumbstick)
In hindsight letting it be called obamacare is probably the only mistake the democrats made.
The teapartiers will never carry a placard with a pro-statement next to a democrat president's name.
Obama should have named the Reagan Memorial Health Care Act, shortended to ReaganCare... now that's something tea partiers can get behind 5 years from now.
Why would you eliminate dark pools?
They hide information from the public markets for the benefit of the pool participants, and thus implicitly at the expense of the public market.
Where are you getting your stats? I would be interested to know.
Misc news articales on the subject.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dark-pool-trading-reaches-record-levels-in-europe-2013-08-12
Saying it's hit 10% in Europe
This article... says its hit 14% in the US now.
"In February, dark pools matched an average of 908 million shares per day, accounting for roughly 14 percent of all U.S. stock trading volume, according to data from Tabb."
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/credit-suisse-making-dark-pools-even-darker
If a brokerage clears transactions internally, that is more efficient than using an external exchange, and is a good thing.
1. Why?
No, its not. A brokerage doing that gets inside information about demand for a stock not made available to the public. Indeed part of the whole HFT game is probing dark pools for invisible supply/demand to help them predict the direction things are going to go. You can't possibly sit there with a straight face and tell me giving the brokers participating in that game that access to information like that is a good thing that benefits the market.
Any the "efficiency" gains realized are mitigated by the damage the above causes coupled with the fact that the average investor doesn't benefit from those efficiencies -- Blankfein just takes them home in his pocket. That's hardly a benefit to the market.
Trying to outlaw or over-regulate...
2. How?
Just treat shares like stock certificates literally. Sign them at the exchange with who they belong to - if they change ownership, that change needs to be signed by the exchange via trade executed by the exchange. A brokerage can't so easily bypass the exchange effectively if it literally can't change the ownership of a share without the exchange.
Yeah there's a lot more to it than that, and more attacks, and more ways to head them off. Sorry a complete implementation strategy for a fully functional stock exchange isn't going to fit in a slashdot post.
just to satisfy your pointless desire to ban something that you don't understand.
I'm not sure you understand them.
If cheaper and deeper markets (using empirical evidence) does not convince you what do you need?
What do I care about fake depth? People who want to buy and sell do so, if they don't they won't. I'm at a loss as to why we would so highly value liquidity and volume beyond what the market generates naturally, or how it helps the market itself.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "cheaper markets" -- cheaper in the sense that transactional costs are way down? To which I credit the computer age and say it's inevitable, while simultaneously pointing out that zeroing out transactional costs have led to some of the problems HFT etc cause. Some transactional drag on the system prevents abuse.
So you are not so much eliminating a problem as switching from one set of problems to another.
Is there a specific problem which you think is intractable?
First, dark pools are not informal. Most are independent and all have a formal structure.
Fair point; I didn't mean to suggest they weren't structured; just that they were invisible to the public and unregulated. There is no legitimate reason for them to exist. If large illiquid orders are being made, there is an advantage to the pool operator and participants to be aware of it, and advantage other people do not have, and that undermines the proper functioning of the publicly traded market, where transactions are supposed to be public.
Stats for 2010 put 10%-12% of all market volume in dark pools. That's quite a lot of activity. More over the private pools between brokers were to bypass exchange fees and the split difference -- essentially creating new sources of revenue by bypassing the system everyone else had to use again contrary to the public interest.
Thanks for that information. I think the main counterpoint though is that modern computer systems and global reach of the internet basically render the need for dual listed stocks obsolete.
The only real point now is convenience and access to foreign retail markets (eg. canadian stocks that like to be dual listed on the TSE along with the NYSE for better exposure to american markets), and we could easily support listing stocks on multiple exchanges but have the orders for 'non-home' listings still all be forwarded and processed by the home exchange.
The problem is that it is harder to be a market maker in an order books system so you get a narrower shallower market.
The real challenge is convincing me that this is really a "problem" at all. :)
But you can't regulate the trade of tomatoes for milk. It won't work, and you can't build enough guns or hire enough thugs to make it work. Ever. So don't even try.
The dark pools I refer to are informal stock markets run internally to brokerage houses, or between brokerage houses outside the actual regulated exchange.
Thus for example if jp morgan wants to buy shares of X, it can do so on the exchange or it can just go and make a deal directly with with Chase bank bypassing the exchange. If a jp morgan customer wants to buy shares of Y, jp morgan doesn't have to forward that order out to the exchange -- it can just sell them some of its own, perhaps that it got slightly cheaper by buying them directly from chase bank... while still charging the customer the market price instead of the price it actually obtained them at, and all kinds of other stuff.
That should all be eliminated.
But it has nothing to do with the barter of tomatoes and milk.
No, your methods all assume things that would not be true.
There would be no placing and cancelling orders in milliseconds. The market resolution is 10 minutes. There would be a fee for placing an order, and once placed it would not be cancel-able until after the next interval because THAT is the market resolution.
The orders go into the black box at the exchange, and every 10 minutes they get matched.
The order depth on bid/ask etc would just be what's still in the queue that didn't execute 10 minutes ago. And that's still going to give you a very good idea what the price is. Like a thinly traded OTC for example... where bid and ask are usually within a nickle until someone comes in and either buys at the ask or sells at the bid.)
Think of it as the "clock" only ticks every 10 minutes; there is no "real-time" game taking place between the 10 minutes. *Nobody* gets information faster than once every 10 minutes. There is nothing to 'game' in the interval because there's NOTHING to see in the interval; nothing happens. You are between ticks of the clock.
I agree with you, but go further.
HFT brings absolutely nothing of value to the table. It doesn't help the traded companies, it doesn't help the market, it doesn't help any country economies. In fact, all it does is give the same hedge fund bozos who trashed the US and EU's economies another way to scarf income without adding anything.
HFT isn't merely neutral adding no value; the income they "scarf" is income the rest of the stake holders lose. (To the extent that one can lose something one never got, at least.)
Either only allow trades each 15 seconds
I propose 10 minutes or even longer, and even that's more than fast enough. A company's fundamental value doesn't change 6 times an hour.
10 minutes lets news hit, lets people think and consider what they value the stock at, and even people not day trading for a living can react and put in a trade order without being 100 million trades "too late".
or tack a very small surcharge per transaction which wouldn't affect normal transactions, but penalize HFT enough to not make it worth the bother.
Not just every transaction -- every ORDER. HFT spams millions of orders to probe, guide, bait, etc, most of them never close and are cancelled; within milliseconds of being placed.
Those need to be 'taxed' as well.
Finally eliminate "dark pools". All trades MUST go through regulated markets. There should be no dark pools of unregulated trade.
These companies are mostly incorporated in Delaware, the same laws as tax would apply so California's laws still don't apply.
Not true. All that's required is a 'significant physical presence' in the state, which these all have.
Yeah, EA has their own in-house wannabe-steam-clone: Origin
Everything you dislike about steam, and then worse. I don't use it.
I used to have a direct2drive account, and its now "gamefly" some of the EA stuff is there, I honestly don't know much about how it stacks up at all.
And Ubisoft ... yeah... I don't buy Ubisoft anymore either.
The other really big name I guess is Blizzard, but StarCraft 2, Diablo III are all "always-on" tied to BattleNet so really steam really is the least of all evils for getting access to some of the new stuff.
These days, I pick stuff up on steam during the sales, pick up classics on GOG.com (truly DRM free), and patronize the humble bundle for (which is usually but not always DRM free; and often dual "drm free + steam key" which is nice).
The following is why this law is bogus. [...] Historically, and continuing to the present the courts -- on up to the Supreme Court -- have ruled that when any kind of "transaction" is taking place, it takes place in the state of the place of business of the vendor
Yes yes, all true.
So if you have a website in Poughkeepsie, Gov. Jerry Brown has no legal authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your website.
Yes, but what if you are in California?
Facebook Inc: 1601 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025
Google Inc, Mountain View, CA
Apple: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA, 95014
Twitter: 1355 Market St, San Francisco, CA, 94103
MySpace: 349 - 8391 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048
I'm sensing a trend here.
Microsoft: Ok... that one is based in Redmond, WA
But they have offices:
here: 100 - 300 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA, 95814
here: 700 - 835 Market Street, San Franciso, CA, 94103
and here: 1065 La Avenida, Mountain View, CA, 94043
Care to explain again why this law is bogus?
I haven't bought a disc based game since 2007. First portal 1 bit me (but that's a valve game), and then Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Capcom and a port from Xbox)
Here's some more Including some pretty big stuff
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim -- Bethesda
XCOM - Enemy Unknown -- (Firaxis/2K)
Warhammer 40k -- (Relic/THQ)
Total War: series -- Sega
Serious Sam 3 - Croteam/Devolver
There's also stuff from Square Enix, Activision, etc
"This is a list of games that require Steam authentication, regardless of whether they are purchased at retail or through other digital distribution services..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
Just insert a random delay on all trades. The delay shall range from 20 minutes to 2 hours. That would make automated trading useless.
Sorry, that's worthless. Delaying everything by at least 20 minutes means that orders 0.002 seconds after my trade are still at least 20.002 seconds after the earliest chance my trade has to hit. Yeah, there's good odds his trade will be before mine, but statistically I still have a slight advantage by being first. And the race is still on.
Further, I'd just submit duplicate orders to increase the odds of getting lucky with the RNG, and then cancel the others.
Finally, the RNG itself would be under attack, with companies looking for any variation from absolute perfect randomness to leverage an advantage from.
I believe to fix the market we need to slow it down -- 10 minute trade intervals, so that all orders passed in are evaluated every 10 minutes. Beating someone else by a few microseconds doesn't matter.
I'd also institute a 1 cent fee per ORDER (whether it completes or not) that will make spamming millions of orders to "probe" or "bait" or whatever other games the HFT algorithms play prohibitively expensive. If 1 cent is too low... fine... make it a nickel, or even a dollar, but i suspect 1 cent will be enough.