I wouldn't hold my breath for him to return the BTC 'donated' to him so he could work on development either.

Works great for me - now just need BTC-E to start working again and I can make the spread on the LTC asset a lot smaller.

It's supposedly a fund.  You don't price based on what people "believe they are worth".  You price based on the value of the held assets.  If supply is unlimited (i.e. you'll sell as many as you can) then you sell at NAV/U.  If supply is limited (you only sell X per month) you sell at a MINIMUM of NAV/U - with the market setting a premium if they believe it's warranted (demonstrated by orders exceeding supply and the price being bid up prior to release of each batch).

Issue doesn't appear to be a memory leak to me - I've had the monitor up during the lag and theres no real increase in memory usage by the process.  Sometimes nothing seems to be happening, but a lot of the time it appears to be waiting for a response from either google analytics or raw.github.

I didn't look at the graphs at all - as I had BTC-E open already.  I just scrolled down to orders area, put some orders in, waited 10 seconds for page to load between each one, then cancelled them as LTC can move a few percent in 10 seconds and the lag was preventing me keeping my BTC-E orders updated.

Just tried Chrome and can confirm there was zero lag of any significance there - so problem does seem to be Firefox related.

Also just tried looking at the BTC-E graph for the LTC asset.  Once the graph has initially loaded it's fine for swapping between tabs.  Problem is that I spend more time loading pages then sitting on them - I go to an asset to do trades.

Unfortunately I can't really swap to Chrome as that has problems with Flash which is used on other websites I tend to have open.  Could keep multiple browsers open at once I guess, but have had problems when doing that before.

Probably, yeah - but he said it in response to my question of how he provided liquidity.

110%?

So I could buy a laod of your shares - getting the recent trading price to what I paid.  Then sell them back to you for 110% of what I bought them for?  We could just simplify it and you send me 10% of some arbitrary amount and save all the hassle ...

Surely he'd need to buy calls, not puts - and the premium on those would exceed his supposed profits anyway.

Can confirm that the graphs are still an absolute nightmare - often locking up for a few seconds on page loads.  Only had one long locku (20 secs+) recently though.

I also notice it delaying on accessing Google analytics at times - not sure why we need google tracking our very movement, but have found that to be a bit of a bottle-neck on some other sites as well.

An option to disable the graphs would be nice - I never use them anyway (I have a memory to remember what's happened in the past - and find transaction lists faster for finding out specific data anyway).  Some profile option to totally disable them would be great.

I deposited some LTC with the intention of market-making on your LTC asset, but with the graphs making pages take so long there's just no way I can set prices in a fast-moving market.

What doesn't make sense with your fund (and ONE of the reasons I was - and am - sure that it's either a scam or a disaster) is that you sell BTC-denominated shares/units, invest in USD-denominated assets but your share/unit price doesn't alter when the BTC/USD exchange-rate changes.

If your fund sells units at 1 BTC each, converts that to USD and then buys shares, then BTC doubles vs USD.  Guess what?  Your units are each now only backed by 0.5 BTC of assets and should be priced accordingly.  But nowhere have you been reporting such changes, let alone reflecting them in your selling price.

Which makes you either utterly incompetent or a scammer.  I'm open-minded on which - if you have a preference or would like to argue the case for one or the other.

Your old .pdf, when you launched the fund had a list of monthly results going back a year or two (percentage profit per month) - yet totally failed to say in what currency this supposed growth was measured.  If you're asking people to invest BTC then you need to show BTC results - it's entirely profit (indeed, likely) to make a profit in USD but a loss in BTC.  Paying out dividends whilst losing NAV/U at a faster rate is NOT making a profit (no matter what most mining companies think).

Are you seriously going to set the price of a unit at 1 BTC - when the assets held are valued in USD?  You should either float the price based on most recent valuation OR define the price in USD, update it (in BTC) as exchange-rate moved and dividend our any extra profit from growth of the held assets (or retain part of the profit from options if the underlieing asset value changes) to keep the price fixed.  You CAN'T set a fixed price in BTC without ending up doing some mix of diluting existing units when new ones are bought OR over-charging new purchasers so they immediately take a loss (in terms of asset value compared to investment) when they buy in).

Oh - and what is your policy on buying back units?  A fund should provide liquidity by buying back units at somewhere near selling price - otherwise it isn't a fund, it's a black hole which sucks in BTC.

Best you tell us what percentage dividend/month it is that you think is the barrier below which something is totally unthinkable.  Becasue from where I'm standing if we took that .25/share in 9 months and instead made it .25 a year (i.e. taking out 25% of mined coins for costs and development/expansion) investors still get 2%+ per month on a share price of 1 BTC and not far short of 4% on a share price of .6 BTC.  Which to most people is pretty decent.  Do you want to try making a list of companies returning more than that?   It would be a pretty small list.

Well, in fairness situation could be different.  From BitFunder's message I'd assume they received no deposits during the split - so have absolutely zero risk.  if BTC.CO received a fair bunch of deposits then I guess halting all activity could be easier than manually disabling/rescinding deposits for all the recipients.  Even messier if some of them already spent (or transferred) BTC that are now in the wrong fork and hence could be double-spent.

Yeah - we like to try things out on our test system (Bitcoin) before deploying them

Trading shouldn't be an issue.  Only possible problem would be with any deposits made to the site that were processed since the split (as potentially, if on the wrong side of chain) they could be double-spent on the right side.  Unless you received deposits in that hour or two everything should be fine (withdrawals are fine - unless YOU double-spend them).

Withdrawals/Deposits need to be disabled for now - but no reason for trading to be (if anyone DID receive a deposit then you could remove it from their account temporarily).

It should cause it to rise by less.  It will also mean next difficulty change will take longer to reach - so more blocks mined at the current difficulty.  To that limited extent it helps ASICMINER - but that's offset if BTCguild were previously mining on the v0.8, as all work done on the (soon to be) orphaned part of the chain will be lost.  Depends a bit on the pool's policy for paying for orphaned blocks as well.

I think you'll find that if they added another 56 TH then network hashpower would also rise by 56 TH.  No way they'd be able to do that for a month without difficulty rising.  Having 10 times the hashpower suddenly only gives 10 times the income until next difficulty adjustment.

Think even Solidcoin may have got there once - probably a better coin to compare NVC with anyway.

Just had a look at NVC/BTC and not seeing a wall anywhere.

Think OP is getting confused - the "Total BTC: 274.27363826" at the top is NOT a wall, it's the total of all bids in the entire order book (including ones at tiny values which will be cancelled WHEN the price gets down near them).  If they all cancelled their bids and placed them at same price THEN there'd be a bit of a wall.  But then they might end up having to actually buy some.

That would be a good thing.  New investors could get their first share(s) by transfer (payment would be off-exchange anyway) then thereafter trade with one another.  It would reduce clutter for the rest of us - and prevent anyone trying to get listed with the intention to sell to the public by claiming it was just for private management of shares.

Only shareholders should also see news-releases from it.  If the issuer wants to market to the public then they can give disclosure sufficient to make informed investment decisions like most of the other companies do.

Well an exchange COULD go down that route - but Bitfunder wasn't.  Ukyo has already he said he's rejected a lot more listing applications than were accepted.  So clearly some level of information IS required - the problem, in your case, is that he may have that information but investors don't.  So listing yours whilst rejecting a load of others netiher meets what you'd like OR what I'd like.

You'd apparently like an exchange where anyone who paid the fee could list, correct?  

I actually DON'T oppose that.  What I oppose is one where a significant number of assets are rejected due to meeting unspecified qualifications then a couple that fail to meet any reasonable set of requirements to allow informed decisions by investors are listed.

Either have no critieria for listing (other than paying the fee) OR have a consistently applied set.  Once some restrictions ARE applied that it's important to apply them consistently - as investors KNOW there's a barrier to being listed and so being listed at all gives some degree of credibility.  When the information on which that credibility was formed is not disclosed (Ukyo refers to himself knowing information that the public doesn't have) then some investors are going to invest purely on the basis that they believe Ukyo in way endorses the offering (as he rejected a load - so clearly only accepts one he believes are OK).

Let's just look briefly at what would happen if things went the way you say you'd like - where the operator of the exchange made no judgment on submissions for listing.  There'd be a TON more listings on Bitfunder (pretty sure Ukyo said he's rejected more than he accepted) and most of them would be utter crap.  And when people see uttercrap getting listed, every scammer/HYIP/ponzi merchant would be running their own.  So you'd have page after page of listings with no useful information provided.  At that stage the ONLY things that would trade would be ones giving full disclosure - as with 50 listings like yours (no identification and no proof of anything) none would get any significant investment.  It would NOT help legitimate businesses that didn't want to diclose information - it would help scammers (as ANY sales is fine for them).  And legitimate businesses with proper disclosure would be buried amongst page after page of junk - though would still get a decent amount of trade no doubt.

IF Ukyo had intended that to be how Bitfunder was, then I absolutely would NOT have made this thread.  As there'd have been dozens or scores of assets with as bad or worse information provided.  And at that stage it would be obvious to even the most stupid investor that there was a lot of crap around they shouldn't touch with a barge-pole.  This thread was necessary (in my view) because there's only TWO such listings that have managed to get listed (the other one is so obviously a scam that it didn't even deserve a thread).

The reason I still believe yours is a scam is NOT because I'm sure you don't have a business (I'm by no means sure of that -and have said so earlier in this thread).  It's because by being for sale amongst a bunch of securities it's falsely being portrayed as an investment opportunity - when, to those who know nothing about it, it's at best a gamble not an investment.  Plus there ARE rather scam-like aspects of it (such as the accounting - where you may have some reason for doing it, but it no way then meets your claims of transparency anyway: shuffling funds between your own wallets is NOT transparent even if it were representative of actual economic activity elsewhere.).