well, I think Garr255 deserves the extra Ƀs.

I'm against increasing the amount and I fee like if you make it a raffle, people get more motivated to chip in more coins. If Garr255 gets them, people might be less eager to pile up a fortune as it now looks very likely that this experiment succeeds (unless some scammers already line up to offer their kind help once we pass the #90, but these should be aware of not being alone so hopefully this dilemma of not knowing when to strike would have made all the scammers show up before their respective competition which in turn would mean, there were no scammers lined up so far ).

I use Spinner and Bitcoin widget.

I can only warn you to not install all the bitcoin wallpapers and gadgets out there as it might be some scammer waiting for the exploit to part you from you android wallet balance. actually even the open source apps are not save as you would have to compile them yourself to know they are based on the reviewed code.

I trust Spinner to some degree and the widget I compiled myself not for security concerns but because I wanted to patch it.

Mike Hearn I like how you push for your "it depends" point of view. Nothing is only black and white and we will find ways to estimate risks. Accepting a transaction will be based on the blockchain, the transaction in question, confirmations, time since first seen, count of pools reporting to have seen it, the client's record, recent double-spend alerts, the weather, whatever … matched against a threshold set by the merchant.

Read this thread. It all burns down to tosaki not speaking German anymore. He was quite active on the German forum before and then wasn't able to reply to German PMs anymore. He kind of acknowledged that the ownership of bitmit.net changed but isn't talkative at all. To the degree of information we get, I assume there is a language barrier or something. Obviously he's struggling to keep bitmit online but not so much to keep people here satisfied.

WHUT?
Ok, great, now it is online again but it has been offline more than online in the recent days.

Tosaki you lost me for a serious amount of time. You really know how to fuck things up. Bitmit being more down than up and nobody from the staff (you) updating us with what's going on or being transparent is not a platform ready to do business at.

I just had changed my signature to get people to my attractive offer (coins that would sell at Ebay for $60 auctioning at a starting price of $1) and by that to your business and you spoiled it again. WTF! Get help man. Sell it. Whatever but don't keep a site open that works like crap.

Update:

Well, bitmit.net is up again and I have my items listed (see sig.) but I would understand that with a site as intransparent and likely lying about several things is not a site I would want to use escrow at. Sadly I had to activate escrow for my items

(The suggested site coinPost.com is even worse. There some dude "bought" one of my coins which effectively unlisted it but he never paid. I thought coinPost would watch the blockchain for payment and only unlist once the payment was done, but they tell you to watch your wallet for payments. What a joke. The "buyer" did not react to PMs.)

moderators?/lock or delete thread?/don't feed the troll?/bring up something actually interesting from CES?

I've been following this thread since the beginning and there was virtually *nothing* worth mentioning so if Akka worries about many people reading this thread, I'm sorry to disappoint you but if you remove the childish bashing of 2 camps, there's maybe 3 posts left in this thread, so yeah, in contrast to the OP, they entertained a hell lot of people.

Actually no. My idea is to charge even when you  cancel … in advance. You would configure the listing to be re-listed 2 months, so you would have to pay 1% for the listing now, 1% next month and get de-listed afterwards. It would be trivial for 1-item-listings to pay back 0.734 months if you sell early or to charge daily. The free listings for beginners (10? 100? per account) would still apply if this model is not optional.

(1%? 0.00001%? These numbers are completely made up the way it feels reasonable to me but please don't get excited about "overcharging" and "ripping off" people. It's just examples.)

Yeah, optional featured listing would be fine, but to make it clear again that I don't want the shop to pay extra to get featrued, here is an example:
Imagine a shop that has a listing of 1000 physical bitcoin wallets, selling 10 per day. He who has an interesting product would pay as in the example above 1% of initial (= final price) per month per listing + 1% per sale. Selling his 1000 physical wallets at 3Ƀ each within 100 days would result in 1%*3Ƀ*3months + 1%*3Ƀ*1000 = 30.09Ƀ as opposed to 2%*3Ƀ*1000 = 60Ƀ.

@HeavySteel: I did not suggest to make bitmit more expensive but to use the revenue model to give an incentive for faster turn-over. Sure, in the end, always the customer pays. That's only logic.

If Tosaki's target is to have the average item on stock for about one year, he could model the fee such that instead of charging 2% of the sales price, he charges 1% of the initial price per item per year of listing and 1% at sales. This way somebody selling quickly or selling well above the initial price would save money and people that have their value weighted average item listed for more than one year selling at exactly the initial price would pay more. Setting the initial price at practically zero would reduce the fee to 1%, so maybe the equilibrium would be more on the 0.5% 1.5% side but it is all doable without charging more fees in total.



@SgtSpike: Optional listing fee with a way to sort by listing fee paid would be nice but I'm afraid it wouldn't work as people would get the reasoning behind the fee wrong as I wouldn't see that as a way to actually make these auctions more expensive. How do you sell that to the shoppers that the one auction pais .1Ƀ per year of listing + 1% of whatever you pay him and the other pays 2% of what you pay. Call them A and B? Red and Blue? Guess this option has a marketing problem.

I guess you don't get the point. Scrolling through bitmit filtered for auctions only, you see 2% of the items actually have bids. For me that means that 98% are overpriced. Auction means that the price gets determined by the bidders, not the seller. Sure, it's convenient for somebody uploading his 10,000 items inventory through the api setting a multiplier to his items of 1.5 hoping to fool people that are ready pay a 50% mark-up if only they can use their bitcoins. And yes, maybe he just doesn't care to ever un-list his shit cause it doesn't cost him anything to have his crap listed but it costs the buyers time and the servers space and traffic.

Tosaki has to find a balance so he attracts sellers and buyers alike. Apart from being offline, bitmit currently has more sellers than buyers. That's stupid. Imagine 2 shops per capita. Yes, you are a seller and I'm advocating to hurt the sellers in order to get the buyers interested. What does a supermarket do when it doesn't sell a single glass of peanut butter? It lowers the price long term or it sells of the rest at half the price to never refill. Tosaki keeps it in store well beyond the best before date. Sure, his display space is cheaper than in the supermarket but it has a cost, too. This cost has to be reflected in some way. Maybe listing should cost 0.001Ƀ per week. It might well be that this already would solve the problem. And if you still complain, sorry I stick with this side of the story cause if paying 1.3ct. per week per item that you try to sell, you are not seriously trying to sell but you are waiting to find an idiot that buys one of your millions of items.

Grant 5 listings per user for free. As reputation is valuable, people will not sell 5 items and create a new account (unless they are scammers.)

My proposal was not for a 5% fee on starting price + 2% on the final price but to have a fee for listing (and re-listing). 5% was just a number and toki has to find the right number for that.

Having this fee proportional to the item value would be justified if the site would have costs proportional to the value of the item. As the site has a lack of buyers, it should shift the incentive to the buyer side and force the sellers to make more attractive offers. List it once, it's free. Re-list it, it costs 5% of your initial price instead of 2% of the sales price.

I understand that for items that have a fixed price where you use bitmit like amazon and not like an auction platform, this would mean an increase in price but how about:
Auction: 5% of initial price for up to 2 months of listings (1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 listings)
Sell now: 0.5% per week of listing

This way both auctions and sales have a good incentive to not spam the site with unnecessary traffic and the buyers with pointless offers.

(Again the numbers are completely made up. It's just to explain my issue with the current bitmit.)

I, too like to check on betsofbitco.in to see the latest estimates of ASIC and other events but I don't need to bet myself to use it as an indicator. Those invested in BFL surely are the most interested betters in this bet and maybe even BFL team members take side in an attempt to drive trust but no matter what, 60% confidence in a business not being a scam is a terrible standing. They lack PR big time and the only investments in PR are adwords to buy more? Seriously?
I don't have an opinion on whether they are scammers or not apart from that bet and "not shipping" might just as well include having produced chips that cost all the money but didn't work but what's the point in going to the CES when it produces 100% negative news? No announcement¹ that would justify going there and what on earth are they selling to the people that come to the boot without a clue about bitcoin? Is there any video of their average Joe pitch?

---

_{¹Ok, as an android developer, the android miner got me a little interested but I have no clue how hard it is. Maybe a $2k job, maybe a $20k job.}

kangasbros have geo-data. How about a listing fee that depends on the market density? As long as you are the only one to list in your city, you get the next month for free.

I doubt that beyond the first listing in a city, having people list is of any value. Nobody wants spammy listings or listings by unresponsive people. The fee can be really small to start with but it will weed out the poor listings.

"Fee per contact made" sounds like the advertiser would have to charge some balance for the next 10 contacts? Or the others have to pay to contact you? Neither would work. If I can contact you for free, I can cause costs and damage you with little own effort. If I have to pay to contact you, I will use a different service.

I would consider a listing fee more reasonable. 0.3€/month base fee to list an advertisement. 0.3€ extra to add a picture. 0.3€ extra for spamming potential customers once , …
This way, those that don't care will drop out soon enough or will never actually list in the first place. In general, fees repel people but when I want to be the market maker trading hundreds of € if not thousands with a 3% fee, I'm more than willing to pay a small fee that scares the scammers and spammers away.

Make sure the bounty is in escrow before you put in work that you would regret having done for a disappearing site. tosaki currently seams to have severe issues holding him from being responsive and act reasonable concerning bitmit.

I feel a bit sorry for bashing him and his service together with others here as I, too would love to see bitmit take off. I really see how this could happen and I'm sure many people would be very willing to help on that. Even making bitmit open source would have more potential to help bitmit.net flourish than it would to feed the competition. I would gladly help to implement the features that I so far only nagged to get ASAP(!!!). Also I guess monetization could be done much more efficiently by charging for the listings 5% of the starting price and limit listings to 10 days. This way you get more low prices and get demand from snipers to the site. People wouldn't disappear having their overpriced articles re-listed indefinitely spamming the site with crap like now.

Cheer up Tosaki ( which tosaki?)! You have a great product in your hands. If you give up for good, others know they can take over. I guess that is the main reason why many try to force you to a decision. Don't take it personally.

So despite my not so secret skepticism I posted 4 articles on https://www.bitmit.net yesterday. 4 coin articles to run for 3 days as I really want to sell them quickly. 2 at their face value as that's what I will definitely get here across the street from my local bank. 2 are only collectors items so I put them at 1€ (on ebay they go for 40€).

bitmit is down right now. My auction has very very limited time to find buyers if bitmit somehow comes back soon. You really know how to screw your customers and wonder why it doesn't take off.