[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[btharper]

Some of you probably noticed that Ian has locked BAKEWELL.  This is his post:

Trading of BAKEWELL on btct.co has been halted.

BAKEWELL is in the process of moving to BitFunder.com. Please prepare to claim your shares on that platform.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

We are thankful for btct.co extending help to us during the glbse fiasco, they have a great team and make a wonderful platform.

I'm a little sad to see him go.  I don't see a motion on this anywhere, which means his shareholders were not given a vote on this.  That is a little unfortunate.  (I'm a shareholder, it's definitely annoying on a personal level...)

The more important point though is that this proves that the tools we give asset issuers make it really easy to do transitions like this.  Our hard work is being put to the test, and the product is holding up to real-life situations and meeting the rapidly changing needs of the community.  (be sure that if you do transition, the other side has the same tools, or you may find yourself locked in and unable to come back.)  So while this is a slight setback for the exchange overall, it validates and reinforces a lot of our hard work.

Cheers.

Maybe it would be relevant to setup a system where specific actions would need to be allowed or disallowed (with or without a vote) at asset creation (with a related sentence or two in the contract). So that moving an asset (or actions like split, issuing shares, changing contract, changing permissions) would require a vote.

What I'm imagining is a little bit like Android permissions where an issuer has to declare ahead of time exactly what would be required, preferably enforced by the system (though just declaring the permissions would be enough to deter some behavior I imagine). As an example: Issuer may not issue additional shares, issuer may add additional shares without vote (Method should still be declared ahead of time), and issuer may issue shares with motion. Although even an asset which originally declares no new shares will be issued can later change this behavior with a shareholder motion of course.

[1713495853]

1713495853

[1713495853]

1713495853

[1713495853]

1713495853

[1713495853]

1713495853

[1713495853]

1713495853

[1713495853]

1713495853

[burnside]

Maybe it would be relevant to setup a system where specific actions would need to be allowed or disallowed (with or without a vote) at asset creation (with a related sentence or two in the contract). So that moving an asset (or actions like split, issuing shares, changing contract, changing permissions) would require a vote.

What I'm imagining is a little bit like Android permissions where an issuer has to declare ahead of time exactly what would be required, preferably enforced by the system (though just declaring the permissions would be enough to deter some behavior I imagine). As an example: Issuer may not issue additional shares, issuer may add additional shares without vote (Method should still be declared ahead of time), and issuer may issue shares with motion. Although even an asset which originally declares no new shares will be issued can later change this behavior with a shareholder motion of course.

I agree, I need to ask more questions about the security at creation time.  Some of that could be enforced.  Some of it just becomes an informational blurb on the contract page.

Another one is "What percentage of the shares does it take to pass a motion?".

Appreciate the input.  It'll be a bit before I get to it, but I will definitely integrate this stuff in to the asset creation stage.

Cheers.

[BTC-TradingCo]

RSM import complete.

As with previous imports, if you were expecting an email and you did not receive one, please check your spam folder before contacting Matthew or us for support.  Google in particular has been putting most of our welcome emails into the spam box.

I hope everyone will join us in welcoming RSM refugees to BTC-TC!

[JohnGalt]

Bold BTC symbol has a problem. There is always a box drawn to the right of it.

Speaking of bugs, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a way to report bugs from the site.

That is pretty strange.
What browser/version OS/version are you running?  (looks good to me in FF on win7)

I am running Chrome 23.0.1271.97 m on windows 7.

Just tested using 23.0.1271.97 in win7, I don't see it in the two places I know about the bold symbol. (orders summary, portfolio.  orders summary, asset trade page)
Can you think of anything that might be different?  (Do you use any custom fonts, or zoom settings?)  Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? 

When it happens, it happens everywhere, but it looks like it is intermittent. Also, one time it occurred on all the non-bold BTC symbols. Sorry I'm not much help.

[JohnGalt]

This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.

[creativex]

Bold BTC symbol has a problem. There is always a box drawn to the right of it.

Speaking of bugs, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a way to report bugs from the site.

That is pretty strange.
What browser/version OS/version are you running?  (looks good to me in FF on win7)

I am running Chrome 23.0.1271.97 m on windows 7.

Just tested using 23.0.1271.97 in win7, I don't see it in the two places I know about the bold symbol. (orders summary, portfolio.  orders summary, asset trade page)
Can you think of anything that might be different?  (Do you use any custom fonts, or zoom settings?)  Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? 

When it happens, it happens everywhere, but it looks like it is intermittent. Also, one time it occurred on all the non-bold BTC symbols. Sorry I'm not much help.

I've seen this too on Win8 Pro/Chrome.

[odolvlobo]

Who the hell are these two people who voted NO on every Bond without a public comment? I think public comments should be requiered to vote NO.

FYI. A no vote counts as 2, so those bond issues with 2 no votes were actually only 1 vote.

Anyway, I voted no of four of them. Three of those were because they do not pay back the loan. I generally post public comments if there is something in the contract that seems important but is not obvious. Since most mining bonds do not pay back the loan, I didn't bother, but I might start noting this "dirty little secret" in the future.

In case you are interested, my personal criteria for approving a security was posted in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129844.0

[burnside]

This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.

Not exactly a bug, but definitely could use some improvement.  It's displaying in thousands for those fields and it's using floor() to round down.  On the LTC side of the site it made sense, but on the BTC side I think I need to scale it down to hundreds instead of thousands or something.

Cheers.

[Lucidize]

I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

[Deprived]

I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

There's no option to merge - but you can make your new account then log into the auto-created accounts and transfer the shares/BTC in them across to your new account.  There's no fee on transfers - so it just takes a litle bit of time but costs you nothing.

[Lucidize]

I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

There's no option to merge - but you can make your new account then log into the auto-created accounts and transfer the shares/BTC in them across to your new account.  There's no fee on transfers - so it just takes a litle bit of time but costs you nothing.

Excellent, thanks!

[odolvlobo]

This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.

Not exactly a bug, but definitely could use some improvement.  It's displaying in thousands for those fields and it's using floor() to round down.  On the LTC side of the site it made sense, but on the BTC side I think I need to scale it down to hundreds instead of thousands or something.

Or perhaps display either way depending on the value.


Another possible improvement: the volume values on the price history graphs are not convenient numbers (multiples of [1,2,5]x10ⁿ) and are sometimes not even whole numbers. I think this changed recently.

[bziubek]

I'm trying to move my RSM shares from the claim account to my final account. It says that the fee with internal transfers is 0 but when I'm trying to move them it says "You do not have enough funds for that amount."

Also - now I have two btct.co accounts registered under one email address. Isn't it strange?

[burnside]

I'm trying to move my RSM shares from the claim account to my final account. It says that the fee with internal transfers is 0 but when I'm trying to move them it says "You do not have enough funds for that amount."

Also - now I have two btct.co accounts registered under one email address. Isn't it strange?

That's an error from the wallet page for BTC transfers.    You probably want to do the asset transfer from the portfolio page.

Cheers.

[bziubek]

Guess I'm still asleep today Everything is fine

[btcbids]

I was on IRC  back in December in #bitcoin-assets, and had missed the following conversation.

[17:18] <burnside> nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:18] * Ukto poke pokes
[17:18] <burnside> nobody bought, and I had already coded it.
[17:18] <burnside> now I have to run it.
[17:19] <Ukto> lol
[17:19] <Ukto> noithing like taking on another project you didnt want
[17:19] <Ukto> the css updates were nice tho
[17:19] <burnside> I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:19] <Ukto> well, just keep selling your shares at 200l each, and youll get there
[17:19] <kakobrekla> i hope people are aware of that
[17:19] <burnside> I was surprised how easy css3 makes it... it's been a while since I've done html/css stuff.
[17:20] <Ukto> kakobrekla: whats that?
[17:20] <kakobrekla> 02:17.13 ( burnside ) I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:20] <kakobrekla> that
[17:20] <Ukto> oh
[17:20] <burnside> I've been clear in many threads across many posts that we're looking for large investors to become involved.
[17:21] <burnside> investors outside the US that are willing to do the AML share registration and be corporate officers, etc.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> and
[17:21] <kakobrekla> 02:16.28 ( burnside ) nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> that
[17:21] <burnside> yup, one leads into the other.
[17:21] <burnside> think for a second about how I get from (A) to (B)
[17:22] <burnside> (A) get investors, let them do the business pieces.  (B) I get to be the programmer and do the part that is fun for me.
[17:22] <Ukto> did you skip A ?
[17:22] <Ukto> and endup at C?
[17:23] <burnside> I did. 
[17:23] <Ukto> er D? none of the above. lol
[17:23] <burnside> I did my part (B), and (A) never showed.
[17:23] <burnside> lol
[17:23] <Ukto> well, at least you got someone in belize to act as a local director
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9061 @ 0.00057483 = 5.2085 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11418 @ 0.00057489 = 6.5641 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <burnside> I'll keep doing my bit, and hopefully (A) will show.

I mean to keep asking you about this on IRC but never saw you again so I ask here

Can you put something in the terms about what any new owners could or could not do to us as users and issuers in the future? Like GLBSE suddenly wanted AML information. I am kind of worried that like other things, someone might come along and do who knows what with the systems, and get stuck under someone elses mess just because they bought the system out. What if they buy and then hire lawyers who tell them they have to stop everything as is and people must follow new rules or cannot have shares of users assets? This is something that could happen maybe sooner than later since the goal is to sell off.

Maybe provide some guarantee or assurances of things that new owners would not be able to do to users or assets and the steps you would take to protect the users, and the assets?

LTC-GLOBAL the owner of btct: I see there are 10,000 shares oustanding, and more have been slowly creeping for sale at higher prices over time.
Would you disclose how many shares you own? the company? And plans for the company to sell off shares? Did the company award all the shares to you in compensation for time and out of pocket expenses? Right now its valued around 300LTC per share or 3000000 LTC. [about $218,685.00 USD from btc-e at the moment] The last div payout, one of the highest LTC-GLOBAL has seen was 0.03451ltc per share for about 8days thats 1/10000th of the new price which is just trending upwards due what looks like a trickle release of shares, and a demand that you seem to have created by pushing that people buy the shares at this raising price to be more of a service to help the site. it is a good way to increase share price tho .It seems that LTC-GLOBAL is more selling people the ability to vote on assets on two systems to increase its share value, rather than having the companies value itself be based on what it is actually worth.

[burnside]

I was on IRC  back in December in #bitcoin-assets, and had missed the following conversation.

[17:18] <burnside> nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:18] * Ukto poke pokes
[17:18] <burnside> nobody bought, and I had already coded it.
[17:18] <burnside> now I have to run it.
[17:19] <Ukto> lol
[17:19] <Ukto> noithing like taking on another project you didnt want
[17:19] <Ukto> the css updates were nice tho
[17:19] <burnside> I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:19] <Ukto> well, just keep selling your shares at 200l each, and youll get there
[17:19] <kakobrekla> i hope people are aware of that
[17:19] <burnside> I was surprised how easy css3 makes it... it's been a while since I've done html/css stuff.
[17:20] <Ukto> kakobrekla: whats that?
[17:20] <kakobrekla> 02:17.13 ( burnside ) I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:20] <kakobrekla> that
[17:20] <Ukto> oh
[17:20] <burnside> I've been clear in many threads across many posts that we're looking for large investors to become involved.
[17:21] <burnside> investors outside the US that are willing to do the AML share registration and be corporate officers, etc.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> and
[17:21] <kakobrekla> 02:16.28 ( burnside ) nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> that
[17:21] <burnside> yup, one leads into the other.
[17:21] <burnside> think for a second about how I get from (A) to (B)
[17:22] <burnside> (A) get investors, let them do the business pieces.  (B) I get to be the programmer and do the part that is fun for me.
[17:22] <Ukto> did you skip A ?
[17:22] <Ukto> and endup at C?
[17:23] <burnside> I did.  
[17:23] <Ukto> er D? none of the above. lol
[17:23] <burnside> I did my part (B), and (A) never showed.
[17:23] <burnside> lol
[17:23] <Ukto> well, at least you got someone in belize to act as a local director
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9061 @ 0.00057483 = 5.2085 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11418 @ 0.00057489 = 6.5641 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <burnside> I'll keep doing my bit, and hopefully (A) will show.

I mean to keep asking you about this on IRC but never saw you again so I ask here

Can you put something in the terms about what any new owners could or could not do to us as users and issuers in the future? Like GLBSE suddenly wanted AML information. I am kind of worried that like other things, someone might come along and do who knows what with the systems, and get stuck under someone elses mess just because they bought the system out. What if they buy and then hire lawyers who tell them they have to stop everything as is and people must follow new rules or cannot have shares of users assets? This is something that could happen maybe sooner than later since the goal is to sell off.

Maybe provide some guarantee or assurances of things that new owners would not be able to do to users or assets and the steps you would take to protect the users, and the assets?

LTC-GLOBAL the owner of btct: I see there are 10,000 shares oustanding, and more have been slowly creeping for sale at higher prices over time.
Would you disclose how many shares you own? the company? And plans for the company to sell off shares? Did the company award all the shares to you in compensation for time and out of pocket expenses? Right now its valued around 300LTC per share or 3000000 LTC. [about $218,685.00 USD from btc-e at the moment] The last div payout, one of the highest LTC-GLOBAL has seen was 0.03451ltc per share for about 8days thats 1/10000th of the new price which is just trending upwards due what looks like a trickle release of shares, and a demand that you seem to have created by pushing that people buy the shares at this raising price to be more of a service to help the site. it is a good way to increase share price tho .It seems that LTC-GLOBAL is more selling people the ability to vote on assets on two systems to increase its share value, rather than having the companies value itself be based on what it is actually worth.

First off, and key for everyone to keep in mind, is that the asset issuers and shareholders of the various assets on the exchange are in good shape no matter what happens to the exchange.  Bakewell's transition proves that the safeguards built in work, and work well.

For the shareholders in LTC-GLOBAL the goal is to protect everyone by spreading ownership out a bit.  With the Belize registration, (and as Ukto pointed out on IRC at one point) even with us having hired a corporate director and corporate secretary it is difficult to argue that I am not calling the shots from the US, when I am still the majority shareholder.  Thus I want to keep some stake in it all long-term, but I really do want (even need) this to be a community-owned, community-operated project.  I am not going to sell it off for any less than I think it is worth, which in my mind is a pretty good amount.  (now supported by the market valuation)  It has taken countless hours to program, roll out, and support.  (and my wife hates me for it, heh.)  But I would love to see 3-4 people with 20% or higher to register their shares in Belize (requires regular AML type docs) and work together.

I did indeed try to shop the LTC-GLOBAL code around prior to releasing BTC-TC.  I wanted to operate LTC-GLOBAL and let someone else operate a BTC denominated version of the site.  A couple of people PM'd but if I remember right I was asking ~$20k and no one wanted to do it.

My current ownership is still north of 90%.

Regarding the share pricing, I sold most of what is in the wild at 25 LTC.  Since then you are correct that I have rarely sold from my pool of shares, and thus the price is higher than if I just dumped them.  I suspect this is normal behavior for anyone owning shares in a company.  (see S.Dice)  Thus the price you see is what the market believes they are worth.  I agree that the market valuation is very forward-looking, but I also believe that if we succeed with my goal of a large community operated project, that the valuation is probably fair.

Cheers.

[btcbids]

I was on IRC  back in December in #bitcoin-assets, and had missed the following conversation.

[17:18] <burnside> nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:18] * Ukto poke pokes
[17:18] <burnside> nobody bought, and I had already coded it.
[17:18] <burnside> now I have to run it.
[17:19] <Ukto> lol
[17:19] <Ukto> noithing like taking on another project you didnt want
[17:19] <Ukto> the css updates were nice tho
[17:19] <burnside> I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:19] <Ukto> well, just keep selling your shares at 200l each, and youll get there
[17:19] <kakobrekla> i hope people are aware of that
[17:19] <burnside> I was surprised how easy css3 makes it... it's been a while since I've done html/css stuff.
[17:20] <Ukto> kakobrekla: whats that?
[17:20] <kakobrekla> 02:17.13 ( burnside ) I have to grow it to where someone else thinks it's worth taking over.
[17:20] <kakobrekla> that
[17:20] <Ukto> oh
[17:20] <burnside> I've been clear in many threads across many posts that we're looking for large investors to become involved.
[17:21] <burnside> investors outside the US that are willing to do the AML share registration and be corporate officers, etc.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> and
[17:21] <kakobrekla> 02:16.28 ( burnside ) nah, honestly, I went into this just wanting to code a cool site and sell it.
[17:21] <kakobrekla> that
[17:21] <burnside> yup, one leads into the other.
[17:21] <burnside> think for a second about how I get from (A) to (B)
[17:22] <burnside> (A) get investors, let them do the business pieces.  (B) I get to be the programmer and do the part that is fun for me.
[17:22] <Ukto> did you skip A ?
[17:22] <Ukto> and endup at C?
[17:23] <burnside> I did. 
[17:23] <Ukto> er D? none of the above. lol
[17:23] <burnside> I did my part (B), and (A) never showed.
[17:23] <burnside> lol
[17:23] <Ukto> well, at least you got someone in belize to act as a local director
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 9061 @ 0.00057483 = 5.2085 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11418 @ 0.00057489 = 6.5641 BTC [ + ]
[17:23] <burnside> I'll keep doing my bit, and hopefully (A) will show.

I mean to keep asking you about this on IRC but never saw you again so I ask here

Can you put something in the terms about what any new owners could or could not do to us as users and issuers in the future? Like GLBSE suddenly wanted AML information. I am kind of worried that like other things, someone might come along and do who knows what with the systems, and get stuck under someone elses mess just because they bought the system out. What if they buy and then hire lawyers who tell them they have to stop everything as is and people must follow new rules or cannot have shares of users assets? This is something that could happen maybe sooner than later since the goal is to sell off.

Maybe provide some guarantee or assurances of things that new owners would not be able to do to users or assets and the steps you would take to protect the users, and the assets?

LTC-GLOBAL the owner of btct: I see there are 10,000 shares oustanding, and more have been slowly creeping for sale at higher prices over time.
Would you disclose how many shares you own? the company? And plans for the company to sell off shares? Did the company award all the shares to you in compensation for time and out of pocket expenses? Right now its valued around 300LTC per share or 3000000 LTC. [about $218,685.00 USD from btc-e at the moment] The last div payout, one of the highest LTC-GLOBAL has seen was 0.03451ltc per share for about 8days thats 1/10000th of the new price which is just trending upwards due what looks like a trickle release of shares, and a demand that you seem to have created by pushing that people buy the shares at this raising price to be more of a service to help the site. it is a good way to increase share price tho .It seems that LTC-GLOBAL is more selling people the ability to vote on assets on two systems to increase its share value, rather than having the companies value itself be based on what it is actually worth.

First off, and key for everyone to keep in mind, is that the asset issuers and shareholders of the various assets on the exchange are in good shape no matter what happens to the exchange.  Bakewell's transition proves that the safeguards built in work, and work well.

For the shareholders in LTC-GLOBAL the goal is to protect everyone by spreading ownership out a bit.  With the Belize registration, (and as Ukto pointed out on IRC at one point) even with us having hired a corporate director and corporate secretary it is difficult to argue that I am not calling the shots from the US, when I am still the majority shareholder.  Thus I want to keep some stake in it all long-term, but I really do want (even need) this to be a community-owned, community-operated project.  I am not going to sell it off for any less than I think it is worth, which in my mind is a pretty good amount.  (now supported by the market valuation)  It has taken countless hours to program, roll out, and support.  (and my wife hates me for it, heh.)  But I would love to see 3-4 people with 20% or higher to register their shares in Belize (requires regular AML type docs) and work together.

I did indeed try to shop the LTC-GLOBAL code around prior to releasing BTC-TC.  I wanted to operate LTC-GLOBAL and let someone else operate a BTC denominated version of the site.  A couple of people PM'd but if I remember right I was asking ~$20k and no one wanted to do it.

My current ownership is still north of 90%.

Regarding the share pricing, I sold most of what is in the wild at 25 LTC.  Since then you are correct that I have rarely sold from my pool of shares, and thus the price is higher than if I just dumped them.  I suspect this is normal behavior for anyone owning shares in a company.  (see S.Dice)  Thus the price you see is what the market believes they are worth.  I agree that the market valuation is very forward-looking, but I also believe that if we succeed with my goal of a large community operated project, that the valuation is probably fair.

Cheers.

you rarely sale? are not selling off shares currently?
letting the price work itself up over demand to be able to vote with the less than 1000 shares you do not own
no plans to publicly sell and stagger any more shares to the community like s.dice?
only people who pay extreme prices for the ability to vote get to vote?
If not then is that community supportive? rich people get to be voters.

[BTC-TradingCo]

Import of GSDPT complete.  As with previous inports, if you didn't get your intro email, please check your spam folder before requesting support.

Many thanks to the GSDPT shareholders that chose BTC-TC.

[burnside]

you rarely sale? are not selling off shares currently?
letting the price work itself up over demand to be able to vote with the less than 1000 shares you do not own
no plans to publicly sell and stagger any more shares to the community like s.dice?
only people who pay extreme prices for the ability to vote get to vote?
If not then is that community supportive? rich people get to be voters.

I do have a few shares for sale right now.  Looking at my account history I've sold less than 150 shares in the last month and a half, 100 of which was to help jumpstart the BTC-TRADING-PT asset.

I haven't seen the details of the s.dice long term plan, so I can't really comment on that.  I outlined the BTC-TC long term plan above.

Yes, only people willing to invest in the platform are allowed to determine the direction the platform will take.  That's the general idea anyway.

I'm generally open to good ideas for improvement in the platform, but things are getting to where they're pretty well established now, which makes big changes a bit harder.

Cheers.