[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[creativex]

I don't think it was intentional to give a limited-time-asset issuer "voting" rights against other assets, and thereby another platform upon which to barf his foolish rage. Everything else about the BTC-TC platform is quite professional; let's kick this other insanity to the curb, please.

If you're referring to usagi, he likely bought ten shares of LTC-Global stock and exercised his right to vote as a moderator. He has every right to do as much. This likely has nothing to do with burnside assisting to close down usagi's assets on BTC-TC.

[1715262818]

1715262818

[usagi]

I don't think it was intentional to give a limited-time-asset issuer "voting" rights against other assets, and thereby another platform upon which to barf his foolish rage. Everything else about the BTC-TC platform is quite professional; let's kick this other insanity to the curb, please.

I own LTC-GLOBAL and I have every right to vote with my shares and leave public comments like anyone else.

The fact that I am only allowed to list BMF, CPA and NYAN limited does not impact my right to hold a personal account, to own LTC-GLOBAL, and to buy and sell shares with my own BTC.

I politely request an apology. What you said was extremely rude.

I don't think it was intentional to give a limited-time-asset issuer "voting" rights against other assets, and thereby another platform upon which to barf his foolish rage. Everything else about the BTC-TC platform is quite professional; let's kick this other insanity to the curb, please.

If you're referring to usagi, he likely bought ten shares of LTC-Global stock and exercised his right to vote as a moderator. He has every right to do as much. This likely has nothing to do with burnside assisting to close down usagi's assets on BTC-TC.

Of course -- I did not vote on my own assets like many others did, and I have 13 shares, not 10, because I am investing in LTC-GLOBAL to invest in it, not merely to obtain voting rights as some probably have done.

[burnside]

I won't control who holds voting shares unless they attempt to abuse the system.

I also agree that we should keep the drama to a minimum.

Cheers.

[burnside]

Quick heads up.  Things continue to progress slowly with Usagi's assets.  In addition to the usual holiday commitments there has been a death in the family.  I'll be traveling the next couple of days.

I'll work on it as I can, but wanted to make sure that everyone knows not to expect much progress for a few days.

Cheers.

[creativex]

Quick heads up.  Things continue to progress slowly with Usagi's assets.  In addition to the usual holiday commitments there has been a death in the family.  I'll be traveling the next couple of days.

I'll work on it as I can, but wanted to make sure that everyone knows not to expect much progress for a few days.

Cheers.

Sad news indeed, you have my condolences. I'm sure everyone will understand your absence to be with your family during this difficult time.

[Deprived]

Went to send a dividend, put in the amount, clicked "now" and then scheduled it.

It went into the schedule and was queud ... for a minuite in the past.

I had to cancel that and then schedule another one for two min into the future to get it paid.

tldr; "now" on the dividend screen is broke.

idea: If I hit now, have it send instead of paste the time for a scheduling.

It may not have been broken.  The cron task to pay dividends only runs every few minutes - so when you submit one for "Now" you still have to wait a few minutes (sometimes) before it gets paid.

[Deprived]

I don't think it was intentional to give a limited-time-asset issuer "voting" rights against other assets, and thereby another platform upon which to barf his foolish rage. Everything else about the BTC-TC platform is quite professional; let's kick this other insanity to the curb, please.

If usagi has 10 shares then usagi can vote as he sees fit.  His assets are entirely seperate to his private ownership of 10 LTC-Global shares.

If anyone was to have their votes taken away it should be whichever 5 idiots voted Yes on MOB.

[usagi]

Quick heads up.  Things continue to progress slowly with Usagi's assets.  In addition to the usual holiday commitments there has been a death in the family.  I'll be traveling the next couple of days.

I'll work on it as I can, but wanted to make sure that everyone knows not to expect much progress for a few days.

Cheers.

I am sorry to hear that. Take your time... as important as bitcoin seems to be it should always take a second seat to real life.

[001sonkit]

Was there a PIN for the imported account, is it given or self-defined? I have transferred a share back to my import accout and unable to withdrawl since I dont have a pin, i tried every possible pin that i might be enter in the PIN field but none of them match. Is it pregenerated or what. Is there recovery mehtod?

[bziubek]

Was there a PIN for the imported account, is it given or self-defined? I have transferred a share back to my import accout and unable to withdrawl since I dont have a pin, i tried every possible pin that i might be enter in the PIN field but none of them match. Is it pregenerated or what. Is there recovery mehtod?

Same problem here

[Deprived]

PIN for imported accounts should be in the email you received which had the account name and password for the imported account.

[btharper]

Bug report. Just tried to register and even though it says up to 20 characters for password, it said my 20 character password was too long. 19 worked though.

It should allow up to 200 chars now.

Cheers.

Thank you for removing the arbitrary limit on passwords, at least it wasn't like my old bank with a 10 char limit.

As far as voting shares and some people's displeasure with who can vote and the relatively low bar to entry (read: cash). Would it be feasible to go to a system where downvotes detract in some way from upvotes?

Absolute plus/minus - Each downvote counteracts x upvotes
Percentage plus/minus - Must have at least y% upvotes of voting members, abstain or non-vote doesn't affect anything.
Something else - cool, awesome, silver bullet system that works perfectly.

The main problem that I see is that it's not that hard to amass 50 shares across 5 accounts and break the system :-/ Accounts are free and shares aren't that expensive.

[usagi]

Bug report. Just tried to register and even though it says up to 20 characters for password, it said my 20 character password was too long. 19 worked though.

It should allow up to 200 chars now.

Cheers.

Thank you for removing the arbitrary limit on passwords, at least it wasn't like my old bank with a 10 char limit.

As far as voting shares and some people's displeasure with who can vote and the relatively low bar to entry (read: cash). Would it be feasible to go to a system where downvotes detract in some way from upvotes?

Absolute plus/minus - Each downvote counteracts x upvotes
Percentage plus/minus - Must have at least y% upvotes of voting members, abstain or non-vote doesn't affect anything.
Something else - cool, awesome, silver bullet system that works perfectly.

The main problem that I see is that it's not that hard to amass 50 shares across 5 accounts and break the system :-/ Accounts are free and shares aren't that expensive.

It points to a flaw in the system. There are always ways that some people will think it is unfair. This is the definition, however, of a democracy. You don't need to please everyone. And some people who are in the minority, like LoweryCBS, have the right to speak up and fight for what they believe in. That's fine. You don't have to please everyone.

"Fairly" is the real root of the problem, isn't it? Take the offensive comment LoweryCBS just lobbed at me -- I don't have a scammer tag, I'll spare you the details, but this guy actually believes he has the right to request a shareholder be stripped of his rightfully paid for shares and voting privileges -- and why? Because of rumor and emotion (certainly not because the community has labeled me a scammer).

The root of the problem is in fact that this is a democratic community process where people like LoweryCBS who don't read contracts and who don't read what people say can vote. They just vote with emotion and rumor and think they can do whatever they want just because they don't like someone. Actually, that's fine. Saying that people like him don't have a right to vote merely because they are being unfair or rude is disingenuous. Since the "problem" is that it's a democracy, then, and that of course some people are bound to not be in the majority, we might say then that there is no real problem with the current system.

That is the real failing of the current system -- that nothing is perfect. Allowing downvotes to cancel out upvotes just makes the problem worse -- in that case people would not only be able to manipulate the system to the upside, but also the downside.

If we change the current system it should only be to make it more like a LTC-GLOBAL motion, where each of your LTC-GLOBAL shares counts as one vote. Let's be honest. If someone bought 50% of LTC-GLOBAL (I could do this if I want, for example), then I would be able to list on LTC-GLOBAL anything I want, because I basically would own the company. While that may sound unfair, if you think about it, it makes much more sense than the 10 BTC rule. If someone buys shares just to vote something, it means they also acquire the risk of owning those shares. And if they ruin the company they ruin their own money. It really does take care of itself. You don't see it when idiots downvote someone they don't like with 10 shares. But you see it when someone owns 20% or 30% of a company, they make a stupid vote, and they lose half their investment. People like this learn very, very fast what business is really all about or they get taken out of the picture.

This is different than using 50 shares on 5 accounts to cancel 500 shares. It's the complete opposite. If you pay too much I'd gladly sell you some of my excess shares. So you see, in the end, a proper democratic system like we have now on BTC-TC protects itself against riff-raff who believes that people don't have rights. It really lets people know who they are and how small they are and teaches people to have respect for the community. I really believe that and I believe in the community. Who wants to take away other's rights, and who do stupid things like creating 5 accounts to downvote someone, there would be no problem like that in a fully democratic community system.

[creativex]

It seemed to me as though Lowery simply misunderstood and equating your listings as having granted you moderator voting rights. Let's not escalate the drama in BTC-TC's thread.

[bziubek]

PIN for imported accounts should be in the email you received which had the account name and password for the imported account.

Mail was in the spam folder. Thanks for the tip

[burnside]

Bug report. Just tried to register and even though it says up to 20 characters for password, it said my 20 character password was too long. 19 worked though.

It should allow up to 200 chars now.

Cheers.

Thank you for removing the arbitrary limit on passwords, at least it wasn't like my old bank with a 10 char limit.

As far as voting shares and some people's displeasure with who can vote and the relatively low bar to entry (read: cash). Would it be feasible to go to a system where downvotes detract in some way from upvotes?

Absolute plus/minus - Each downvote counteracts x upvotes
Percentage plus/minus - Must have at least y% upvotes of voting members, abstain or non-vote doesn't affect anything.
Something else - cool, awesome, silver bullet system that works perfectly.

The main problem that I see is that it's not that hard to amass 50 shares across 5 accounts and break the system :-/ Accounts are free and shares aren't that expensive.

The overall score works like this.  Upvote = +1, downvote = -2.

It is true that a person could abuse the system, but it is not particularly cheap, is fairly easily detected in most cases, and anyone who does it risks confiscation of their assets on the exchange.

Cheers.

[burnside]

Quick heads up.  Things continue to progress slowly with Usagi's assets.  In addition to the usual holiday commitments there has been a death in the family.  I'll be traveling the next couple of days.

I'll work on it as I can, but wanted to make sure that everyone knows not to expect much progress for a few days.

Cheers.

Sad news indeed, you have my condolences. I'm sure everyone will understand your absence to be with your family during this difficult time.

Thank you.  It's never very fun to lose a relative.

[burnside]

Went to send a dividend, put in the amount, clicked "now" and then scheduled it.

It went into the schedule and was queud ... for a minuite in the past.

I had to cancel that and then schedule another one for two min into the future to get it paid.

tldr; "now" on the dividend screen is broke.

idea: If I hit now, have it send instead of paste the time for a scheduling.

Anything in the past gets run in the next batch.  So "now" always works as immediately as possible.  (I think the cron job is on a 5 minute cycle.)

Cheers.

[BTC-TradingCo]

Quick PSA:

BMF, CPA, NYAN, NYAN.A, & NYAN.B have all been imported.  If you were expecting an email and did not receive it, please check your spam folder before making a customer service request.

By the request of the operator, teek and patrick have been excluded.  Our understanding is that they will be worked out manually.

Also, as previously discussed in a couple of threads, these assets are not trade-able unless they pass the moderation requirements.  Thus they exist solely such that the operator can execute buyouts and/or direct asset trades for the purposes of shutdown.

Please visit the individual asset pages and/or contact Usagi directly for details.

[stochastic]

Is there a way to update the API so that it is possible to only return a range of trade history instead of it returning all the trade history?  The same with dividend history.