[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[burnside]

I've been reading about the issue and I'm convinced that we should wait until the two forks of the blockchain have merged before we re-enable trading.  I'm pretty sick today, (damn cold) so it's going to be hard, but I'll try to stay up until I can safely flip it back on.  If I pass out I'll re-enable trading first thing in the morning.  (PST)

Cheers.

[1715005003]

1715005003

[1715005003]

1715005003

[1715005003]

1715005003

[Deprived]

I've been reading about the issue and I'm convinced that we should wait until the two forks of the blockchain have merged before we re-enable trading.  I'm pretty sick today, (damn cold) so it's going to be hard, but I'll try to stay up until I can safely flip it back on.  If I pass out I'll re-enable trading first thing in the morning.  (PST)

Cheers.

Trading shouldn't be an issue.  Only possible problem would be with any deposits made to the site that were processed since the split (as potentially, if on the wrong side of chain) they could be double-spent on the right side.  Unless you received deposits in that hour or two everything should be fine (withdrawals are fine - unless YOU double-spend them).

Withdrawals/Deposits need to be disabled for now - but no reason for trading to be (if anyone DID receive a deposit then you could remove it from their account temporarily).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

[Deprived]

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

Well, in fairness situation could be different.  From BitFunder's message I'd assume they received no deposits during the split - so have absolutely zero risk.  if BTC.CO received a fair bunch of deposits then I guess halting all activity could be easier than manually disabling/rescinding deposits for all the recipients.  Even messier if some of them already spent (or transferred) BTC that are now in the wrong fork and hence could be double-spent.

[burnside]

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

Well, in fairness situation could be different.  From BitFunder's message I'd assume they received no deposits during the split - so have absolutely zero risk.  if BTC.CO received a fair bunch of deposits then I guess halting all activity could be easier than manually disabling/rescinding deposits for all the recipients.  Even messier if some of them already spent (or transferred) BTC that are now in the wrong fork and hence could be double-spent.

Deposits were definitely made in the timeframe.  I'd also processed some withdrawals early in the timeframe unfortunately.  My concern is that the site uses bitcoind as the authority on wallet balance.  If someone made a double-spend deposit, it could have been used to trade.  This would manifest itself as a negative wallet balance once the double-spend was fixed in the blockchain, and the site has to zero out negative balances from trade profits.

BitFunder is definitely in a different situation.  The wallet/authority is on a separate service.  For BitFunder itself, I'd guess that the authority for the balance is a db entry right alongside the share entries.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You could just change the amount of confirmations required to those before the fork?

[burnside]

You could just change the amount of confirmations required to those before the fork?

That is a damn good idea.  I'll definitely do that next time. 


Looking through the deposits, withdrawals, and account balances, I do not see anything out of order.

Trading is unlocked.

Cheers.

[parseval]

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory.  In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins?  It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case).  This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

[burnside]

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory.  In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins?  It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case).  This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something.  A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees.  But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page. 

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at.  At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

[parseval]

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something.  A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees.  But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page. 

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at.  At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

Excellent, this worked perfectly for me.

[poly]

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory.  In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins?  It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case).  This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something.  A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees.  But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page. 

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at.  At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

[EskimoBob]

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory.  In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins?  It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case).  This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something.  A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees.  But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page. 

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at.  At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

You still need to know the price paid per share for P/L statements.

[burnside]

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory.  In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins?  It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case).  This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something.  A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees.  But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page. 

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at.  At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

The value input on internal transfer is there so that you can plug in the value you're executing the actual trade at if it's a private trade.  Thus the recipient of the shares then can track it accurately in the analysis later on.  I think the only real issue right now is that it needs to default to the 24h average rather than zero.  Easier said than done because of how the form is setup.  It's going to take some jquery magic.

And... it's done now... but it won't go out until the next big rollout.  Probably tomorrow or Friday for litecoinglobal.com and early next week for btct.co.  

Cheers.

[creativex]

Was that record volume on BTCT.CO the past 24hrs? You need a ticker to keep track.

[parseval]

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

[burnside]

Was that record volume on BTCT.CO the past 24hrs? You need a ticker to keep track.

I'm not sure... I think I've seen ~400 a couple times, but I haven't been keeping track.  It'd be fun to graph for sure. 

[burnside]

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

The lowest possible frequency that fits your needs?   

Most of the endpoints cache for a few minutes, so more frequent than once a minute probably won't do much for you.  Eventually we'll start posting to twitter or something for the trades, at which point the people that want real-time trade info can connect into that.

Cheers.

[parseval]

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

The lowest possible frequency that fits your needs?   

Most of the endpoints cache for a few minutes, so more frequent than once a minute probably won't do much for you.  Eventually we'll start posting to twitter or something for the trades, at which point the people that want real-time trade info can connect into that.

Cheers.

Thanks!

[burnside]

Options are in the air!

We rolled options out yesterday on LTC-GLOBAL: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg8544.html#msg8544

Next day we get it on BitFunder: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130117.msg1633487#msg1633487

In another 24 hours we'll commit the LTC-GLOBAL code over to BTC-TC. 

I don't think Ukyo's ever gonna let me catch up on my sleep.    

[Ukyo]

Options are in the air!

We rolled options out yesterday on LTC-GLOBAL: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg8544.html#msg8544

Next day we get it on BitFunder: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130117.msg1633487#msg1633487

In another 24 hours we'll commit the LTC-GLOBAL code over to BTC-TC. 

I don't think Ukyo's ever gonna let me catch up on my sleep.    

Heh. Hadn't see that till you wrote this post. I no longer have a need to use LTC-GLOBAL since I had to sell my shares at half price.
I have been working on options for over a month, and have had beta and alpha testers during and prior.
I am not sure if you are trying to insinuate that I posted options just because of you or not, but that was not the case.
I suppose if you are suggesting I saw your post, and managed to whip up a fully re-writable options system in a matter of hours, I am honored!

Although, the never going to let you sleep comment would leave me to believe that you knew I was writing options (not toooo hard to guess at), and decided to try to push it out before me.

And I hardly consider 13hrs "next day" though I suppose depending on your timezone that makes some .. difference.

When will you support option rewriting so people can make money reselling part or whole options?