ThickAsThieves
|
|
March 02, 2013, 04:49:30 AM |
|
hey something is up i try to log in i get
Error:
Xcoind backend failure in getbalance at 774
Same here.
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
March 02, 2013, 04:52:28 AM |
|
Yeah LTC-Global is down too. Seems like the problem is accessing his backend server to check balances - you can view and navigate the site fine if you aren't logged in (try it in a different browser and you'll see) but soon as you login it fails.
|
|
|
|
maunderingcabal
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Don't dwell in the past, don't dream of the future
|
|
March 02, 2013, 05:20:58 AM |
|
This is messed up. Now I have nothing to do.
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
March 02, 2013, 06:31:47 AM |
|
It's back up now.
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
March 02, 2013, 06:33:43 AM |
|
It's back up now.
cron script might have run every on every :30 ?
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 02, 2013, 06:36:55 AM |
|
This is messed up. Now I have nothing to do.
doh, it's Friday night man! The HDD filled up on the backend server. I had to purge some backups to make some room. If you sent a deposit, it should come in shortly as the daemon catches up with the chain. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 02, 2013, 08:33:28 AM |
|
The OAuth API now supports internal coin transfers. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4508
Merit: 3417
|
|
March 02, 2013, 10:19:34 PM |
|
Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.
That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference. It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book. What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity? I am for it. 1. It will bring bid and ask prices closer and improve liquidity. 2. When you make a bid or ask, you are incurring an extra hidden cost because you are giving anyone the option to fill your order at any time, and that option is worth something. Removing the fee for making a bid or ask mitigates that loss.
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
Zedster
|
|
March 03, 2013, 09:01:54 AM |
|
Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 03, 2013, 09:19:12 AM |
|
Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?
burnie. lol. There's no point to me doing one. Garr has an official one up already at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Zedster
|
|
March 03, 2013, 09:30:57 AM |
|
so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess?
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 03, 2013, 09:35:27 AM |
|
so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess? No problem. On the ASICMINER, it's definitely a possibility. We'll see how the BTCTC one does. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Zedster
|
|
March 03, 2013, 09:41:26 AM |
|
so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess? No problem. On the ASICMINER, it's definitely a possibility. We'll see how the BTCTC one does. Cheers. Waiting in line for BTCTC.
|
|
|
|
zx9r
|
|
March 03, 2013, 05:45:25 PM |
|
Sorry for this may be being an offtopic. I was wondering what are the possibilities of BTC-TC following the same way as GLBSE did. Is it a real possibility ?
|
|
|
|
creativex
|
|
March 03, 2013, 06:00:43 PM |
|
BTCT.CO automatically issues a shareholder report to asset issuers every 12hrs so even if the exchange disappeared overnight the GLBSE fiasco would not be repeated. Asset issuers would have only to check their inbox for a list of email addresses to contact with share information.
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 03, 2013, 06:21:28 PM |
|
Sorry for this may be being an offtopic. I was wondering what are the possibilities of BTC-TC following the same way as GLBSE did. Is it a real possibility ?
The site could definitely go away if government entities come after me. I've guarded against this every way I can legally with the creation of the company offshore and technically with the open access of the lists to the asset issuers. A GLBSE meltdown where no one knows who owns what will definitely not be repeated. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Monster Tent
|
|
March 04, 2013, 12:17:31 AM |
|
Sorry for this may be being an offtopic. I was wondering what are the possibilities of BTC-TC following the same way as GLBSE did. Is it a real possibility ?
burnside isnt Nefario . You can tell from the way the site is coded and the fact you get ownership details emailed to you every 12 hours.
|
|
|
|
burnside
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
|
|
March 04, 2013, 06:47:39 AM |
|
Brief PSA... A cross-post-quote from the G.ASICMINER-PT thread: We discussed a potential payment from Jon, in the case where the PT trades larger volumes
This will not be done on BTC-TC. It has been considered in the past, and rejected. https://btct.co/ (the dev log tab): ?possible? Kick-backs for asset issuers with large volume, eg, 0.5% of transaction fees for assets with over 10k/mo in volume. (thx EMIF) -- (probably not going to do this. it would encourage asset issuers to generate transactions by intentionally inducing volatility --burnside)
Something to chew on a bit. We were considering making it transparent like cryptostocks does and just have an extra percentage displayed on the trades. Apparently this kind of thing goes on behind closed doors elsewhere. Unless the asset is the exchange itself, think twice before buying into an asset where the issuer makes coins on the trades.
|
|
|
|
btcash
|
|
March 04, 2013, 08:31:53 AM |
|
Great improvements in the last weeks. You should post them here too and not only on Litcointalk.
What happened to the deposit status (0/3 confirmations...)? Bids/Asks like 0.1000001 should be changed to 0.100001 and not to 0.1.
|
|
|
|
|