Wie ist das Interesse fuer so eine Platform?  Mit Bitcoins (oder einer der anderen Alt CurrencieS) auf die "echten" 6 aus 49 setzen und gewinnen?

Vermutlich gibts es schon die eine oder andere Wepage die diesen Service anbietet, falls ja postet doch mal einen Link.

Ja, es ist moeglich alle Waehrungskombinationen zu handeln, die Platform ist hinsicht sehr flexibel. Wir haben (derzeit) das Handeln zwischen echten Waehrungen (USD, EUR, etc.) unterbunden da solch ein Handel mit aller Wahrscheinlichkeit besondere Lizenzen erfordert.

Ein paar Worte zu dem Handel zwischen allen Waehrungspaaren: das Volumen ist sehr sehr gering, da ist kaum ein Markt vorhanden, abgesehen von dem erheblich komplexeren Trading Code.

Spread your buys and sells between btc-e and Vircurex.com

We have expanded to support Devcoin as well as Litecoin and in addition, since 15 Minutes, there is also a RSS feed available showing security listings, share issues, dividend payments, trades and bond buy backs.

Maybe Syria and Iran are using Bitcoins to circumvent Banking Sanctions or save their assets so they cant be frozen? Will the OPEC countries sell oil in Bitcoins in the future in order to avoid any possible international monetory sanctions when their governments fall out of favour?

Schneeballsystem? Hier zum Nachlesen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

Schneeballsysteme sind auch als Ponzi-Schemes bekannt, und laut Artikel ist er Schuld: Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi
Schaut mal genau hin: aus dem Namen koennte man PPT ableiten (Pietro Ponzi Tebaldo) , wenn das mal kein Zufall ist.

Zwar nicht der Hersteller, aber FPGA Miner: https://cryptostocks.com/securities/9 und hier auf Bitcointalk https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90881.0

Though having the any-to-any trading possibility is nice, it looks as the only substantial trades are to and from BTC. Makes me wonder whether we need the any-2-any trade at all.
 

Any coin to any coin already there ->  Vircurex.com

But be warned, the volume is low.

+1 

I hate all that premine trolling. The premining is public knowledge, Dont' like premining? Then stay away form the coin, and move on in life.

Do you guys think there is sufficient volume to open a LTC Exchange? Extending Cryptostocks to LTC would take a few days only, question is only whether there is sufficient LTC volume available on the various exchanges (Bitparking, BTC-e, Vircurex, any others out there?) to handle the potential load of LTC coins that are going to come.

My favourite, GMP listed on https://cryptostocks.com

The are yet to start the mining, but once the new version of the boards are available I believe this to be a good investment, "real" ASICs will still take a while to appear on the market, in the meanwhile go with the FPGAs.

Eine weitere Crowdfunding Platform:   https://cryptostocks.com   Derzeit noch in Englisch, aber laut Developer's Log bald auch in Deutsch.

Warum nicht auf einer der Börsen plazieren? AurumXchange nimmt SEPA Übersweisungen an und von dort kannst du dann an die anderen Börsen Überweisen, Beispiel, per SEPA die VouchX von AurumXchange kaufen und bei Vircurex gebührenfrei einlösen.

We are observing the price development and trading volume and will then consider wether to add LTC as an additional currency to the exchange, open a new exchange (i.e. maintain a single currency per Exchange setup) or offer the source code to someone who wants to operate the LTC exchange.

Verification? Lets all step back and ask ourselves, what is the objective of verification? What is it that I am expecting to gain?

I would expect that most of us dont invest more than 50BTC into a stock, with investing I mean buying newly issued shares and not gambling via trading. Lets assume a full verification, you know the name, the address, the telephone number, etc., etc.  and now the issuer's business idea fails or worst case runs away with the money. Will you be initiating legal proceedings because of that small amount lost? Who of you still remembers Enron? We all knew who the CEO was, the CFO, the address of their headquarter, their financial reports, etc. Who had Enron stocks when they collapsed? How much did you get back from any legal actions, did you even bother triggering any?

For those of you who are willing to invest larger amounts, I doubt that you would just rely on an Exchange telling you who the person is and his personal details (if that is allowed, personal data is subject to data protection laws of different flavour around the world). Wouldn't you do your own research on the project and the persons involved. Send an email, organize a Skype Video chat, etc, etc. There are so many ways of building up trust and verify the legitimacy of the business idea.

Though a basic verification will probably reduce the scammers, it'll never completely eliminate them. Lets not use the Verification process as a scapegoat for our failure to perform our own background check.

I see the largest culprit being the people issuing stocks. They tend to underestimate the efforts required to "sell" ones business idea. Just putting the stocks up for sale on GLBSE or Cryptostocks and paying the fees for listing the company is not enough. They should be held more accountable for not providing more information on their projects. How can it be that people wanting to raise amounts greater than 10K USD, cant even bother to put up a basic web page? Don't just put 10 lines of description on the exchange and another 20 lines of text on Bitcointalk. They need to show more indepth information about their team, their project, timeline, financials, etc.
It is things such as these that build trust and will also attract investors after the IPO.

3rd party service? I like the idea, it'll let the exchanges focus on their core business.

Exactly what I did, though took quite a while. Everything is back to normal.

When running
  litecoind getinfo
I see:
  "errors" : "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct!  You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."

What is this about? I downloaded the latest version from https://github.com/coblee/litecoin and compiled it but the error still appears.

The daemon refuses to run any command, it always drops the message:
  error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct!  You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}


Version shows:
   "version" : 60003,

This article will be a bit longer a might be difficult to understand (probably cause me explaining it isn't that straight forward) but this question is important to us to and we hope to get your feedback on what you think would be the right logic. Here is a scenario that has been bothering as since a while for which we have multiple solutions.

If you look at the Vircurex's orderbook you will at times find two entries with the same unit price. Impossible you would say, how can that be, when looking at the orderbook you would expect to see the total number of orders for a specific unitprice to be accumulated, e.g.:

You will see as of today:
Buy Orders:
   Qty      Unitprice
   10      0.00029017    BTC/IXC
   20      0.00029017    BTC/IXC
   5      0.00029100    BTC/IXC

But you were expecting:
   30      0.00029017    BTC/IXC
   5      0.00029100    BTC/IXC

Right? Obviously there is a logical explanation. Here is where the things get tricky. This seems to be a unique scenario to Vircurex because we allow traders to enter their orders in any currency combination, hence you can enter either
   SELL   BTC, BUY IXC
or
   BUY IXC, SELL BTC

Lets make this clearer on a concrete example:
User 1 places an order:  Buy 1 BTC at 0.00029017 BTC/IXC
User 2 places an order:  Sell 1 IXC at 3446.25564322 IXC/BTC

When showing the order book for the currency pair BTC/IXC we will need to convert User 2s order into BTC/IXC, so his order will look:
   User2:  Buy .. BTC at 0.000290170000002

As we only display 8 digits, the two orders both look alike to have 0.00029017 BTC/IXC but they are not exactly the same hence you see two entries.

Your first argument would naturally be: but BTC only has 8 digits after the decimal point. Right, but the counter argument would be: 0.00029017 is smaller than 1/3446.25564322.
We could infact argue the other way round, we convert the BTC/IXC into IXC/BTC, then we would have
   User1: SELL … IXC at 3446.25564324 IXC/BTC
   User2: SELL … IXC at 3446.25564322 IXC/BTC

As they are both SELL orders, the lower sell order comes first.

Ofcourse we could solve the optical problem by combining the orderbook in such a way that the two entries show summarized. But that does not solve the order matching principle when orders get executed. Then User2's order will still take precedence.

What is the solution:
1. Leave as is because mathematically it is the correct thing to do and leave the orderbook to show the two entries as above
2. Like 1. but combine the two orderbook items to show the sum only. The order trading engine will still match User 2s order first.
3. Always convert orders into one specific direction only. E.g. all BTC/IXC will always be converted to IXC/BTC or visa versa and then after the conversion we perform the rounding to 8 digits. That will make the orders of user 1 and 2 the same. The difficulty here is, in which direction do we convert, especially considering that we have many Alt-chain combinations. We could always convert to .../BTC.  But what to do if we have DVC/IOC trades?
4. If we have two such competing orders, then use logic of option 3 in a way, that all orders get convert in the orders format that was placed first, in the above example user 1 placed first therefore user2's order needs to be converted to the currency pair of user 1 and rounded to 8 digits.

So here is the question, which of the options are in fact the result that you would be expecting, or do you have a possible other option?

https://vircurex.com теперь стал доступен на русском языке. Мы предлагаем услуги трейдинга для Bitcoin, Namecoin и многих других криптовалют. Пополнение и вывод средств с вашего счета в евро или долларах США, используя нашу онлайн-интеграцию с Aurumxchange.com