[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[burnside]

Just had a manual withdrawal processed from my btct account. No transaction fees were included, so the transaction has been just hangin' out in the ether for the last hour. Is there a reason no fee was included?

We include whatever fees bitcoind includes automatically.

Might be a cool feature to allow users to specify a fee though.  I'll look into it.

[1715170705]

1715170705

[1715170705]

1715170705

[burnside]

Did you start work implementing disposable deposit addresses    IIRC it was a popular idea.

It was a popular idea.  I created a test wallet and modeled a year's worth of projected deposits, the results were bad.  The wallet grew to an unmanagable size.

So I need a custom bitcoin client if I'm going to do it, one that uses a regular db backend or something that I can scale linearly.  Easier said than done I'm afraid.

Someone want to start a project to back bitcoind with couchbase? 

[qxzn]

We include whatever fees bitcoind includes automatically.

Are you sure? I've never seen this happen when I use the defaults in the satoshi client. Here's my transaction, still unconfirmed, maybe 3-4 hours after it was sent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/6543e55d8c83b26d84adfaab78aa4354b0b546697b43b278682344457b6b84fc

[burnside]

We include whatever fees bitcoind includes automatically.

Are you sure? I've never seen this happen when I use the defaults in the satoshi client. Here's my transaction, still unconfirmed, maybe 3-4 hours after it was sent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/6543e55d8c83b26d84adfaab78aa4354b0b546697b43b278682344457b6b84fc

Positive.  I'm not sure what's been up with the network lately, but I've noticed crazy delays on a lot of transactions.  Maybe we should set a fee on all transactions.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

We include whatever fees bitcoind includes automatically.

Are you sure? I've never seen this happen when I use the defaults in the satoshi client. Here's my transaction, still unconfirmed, maybe 3-4 hours after it was sent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/6543e55d8c83b26d84adfaab78aa4354b0b546697b43b278682344457b6b84fc

Positive.  I'm not sure what's been up with the network lately, but I've noticed crazy delays on a lot of transactions.  Maybe we should set a fee on all transactions.

Growing pains? The bitcoin network is getting bigger..

[Smoovious]

Did you start work implementing disposable deposit addresses    IIRC it was a popular idea.

It was a popular idea.  I created a test wallet and modeled a year's worth of projected deposits, the results were bad.  The wallet grew to an unmanagable size.

So I need a custom bitcoin client if I'm going to do it, one that uses a regular db backend or something that I can scale linearly.  Easier said than done I'm afraid.

Someone want to start a project to back bitcoind with couchbase?  

Could this be something optional for us? Personally I prefer staying with a static deposit address. Keeps my address book tidy.

The sites that use throwaway deposit addresses just annoy me.

-- Smoov

[burnside]

Did you start work implementing disposable deposit addresses    IIRC it was a popular idea.

It was a popular idea.  I created a test wallet and modeled a year's worth of projected deposits, the results were bad.  The wallet grew to an unmanagable size.

So I need a custom bitcoin client if I'm going to do it, one that uses a regular db backend or something that I can scale linearly.  Easier said than done I'm afraid.

Someone want to start a project to back bitcoind with couchbase?  

Could this be something optional for us? Personally I prefer staying with a static deposit address. Keeps my address book tidy.

The sites that use throwaway deposit addresses just annoy me.

-- Smoov

Yeah, it'd have to be setup where you could continue to use the same deposit address once assigned.  That's why the wallet growth gets crazy, because you can't throw away an address once it's been assigned to an account.  Otherwise you're inviting disaster for some people that might not double check their address with each transaction.  So, with that in mind, I think the way it'd work is it'd show you a list of deposit addresses.  Ones you've used, and one that you have not used.  As soon as you use the new one, another unused one would get assigned.  Thus your list would only grow if you wanted it to.

It seems like it's going to end up being a custom dev project though, and one that's only going to make sense if btct.co really takes off.  I looked through some other custom clients and none had everything I need.

[Carnth]

We include whatever fees bitcoind includes automatically.

Are you sure? I've never seen this happen when I use the defaults in the satoshi client. Here's my transaction, still unconfirmed, maybe 3-4 hours after it was sent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/6543e55d8c83b26d84adfaab78aa4354b0b546697b43b278682344457b6b84fc

According to "da rulez" a TX does not need a fee if it sends enough coins with inputs that are old enough.
Of course, any miner/pool can choose to ignore all TXs with out fees, even if it follows the rules. "Your mileage may vary."

[creativex]

886.78 BTC in traffic in the last 24h?!? Is that right?

[burnside]

886.78 BTC in traffic in the last 24h?!? Is that right?

Yeah, it's gotta be a new record for us for sure.  Thanks everyone!

[burnside]

Financials and a letter to shareholders have been posted over here: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg9937.html#msg9937

A summary of key changes:

- The competition is charging 10% on options trades.  We're charging 3%.  We're going to bump our options trades to 5%.
- The competition is charging 1% on it's standard tier, and 0.5% in it's cheapest tier for standard trades.  We're charging 0.2%.  We're going to bump our trades to 0.25%.
- I'm rescinding our announcement that new asset creations would go from 5 BTC to 10 BTC on April 1.  It is my opinion that the incredible jump in BTC price this month makes that a bad idea.  So we will not be changing the asset creation fees on either site.

Things on the BTC-TC side have been fairly good, but we've had some issues with the quality of some assets on LTC-GLOBAL.  Toward rectifying the situation we are making the following changes:

- To create an asset you must now provably demonstrate having run a successful operation in the past, or you must have been operating your current enterprise for at least two months.
- Assets are now created with an admin lock.  To get the admin lock removed you must demonstrate an understanding of this asset issuer terms of service. (you need a business plan, spreadsheet illustrating your current business profit/loss, demonstrate your ability to succeed, and follow all the site rules.)
- The asset creation page has additional details on the listing process.  Several things have been tweaked and elaborated on.

I strongly believe that doing everything we can to protect investors and the overall image of the exchange is important.  Hopefully our efforts demonstrate to the investing community our commitment to being best of class in security, functionality, and issuer quality.

Cheers.

[btharper]

Financials and a letter to shareholders have been posted over here: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg9937.html#msg9937

A summary of key changes:

- The competition is charging 10% on options trades.  We're charging 3%.  We're going to bump our options trades to 5%.
- The competition is charging 1% on it's standard tier, and 0.5% in it's cheapest tier for standard trades.  We're charging 0.2%.  We're going to bump our trades to 0.25%.
- I'm rescinding our announcement that new asset creations would go from 5 BTC to 10 BTC on April 1.  It is my opinion that the incredible jump in BTC price this month makes that a bad idea.  So we will not be changing the asset creation fees on either site.

Things on the BTC-TC side have been fairly good, but we've had some issues with the quality of some assets on LTC-GLOBAL.  Toward rectifying the situation we are making the following changes:

- To create an asset you must now provably demonstrate having run a successful operation in the past, or you must have been operating your current enterprise for at least two months.
- Assets are now created with an admin lock.  To get the admin lock removed you must demonstrate an understanding of this asset issuer terms of service. (you need a business plan, spreadsheet illustrating your current business profit/loss, demonstrate your ability to succeed, and follow all the site rules.)
- The asset creation page has additional details on the listing process.  Several things have been tweaked and elaborated on.

I strongly believe that doing everything we can to protect investors and the overall image of the exchange is important.  Hopefully our efforts demonstrate to the investing community our commitment to being best of class in security, functionality, and issuer quality.

Cheers.

Thanks for pulling the asset creation fee increase considering.

Any thoughts on how the new rules will apply to or impact pass-through funds?

[parseval]

Financials and a letter to shareholders have been posted over here: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg9937.html#msg9937

A summary of key changes:

- The competition is charging 10% on options trades.  We're charging 3%.  We're going to bump our options trades to 5%.
- The competition is charging 1% on it's standard tier, and 0.5% in it's cheapest tier for standard trades.  We're charging 0.2%.  We're going to bump our trades to 0.25%.
- I'm rescinding our announcement that new asset creations would go from 5 BTC to 10 BTC on April 1.  It is my opinion that the incredible jump in BTC price this month makes that a bad idea.  So we will not be changing the asset creation fees on either site.

Things on the BTC-TC side have been fairly good, but we've had some issues with the quality of some assets on LTC-GLOBAL.  Toward rectifying the situation we are making the following changes:

- To create an asset you must now provably demonstrate having run a successful operation in the past, or you must have been operating your current enterprise for at least two months.
- Assets are now created with an admin lock.  To get the admin lock removed you must demonstrate an understanding of this asset issuer terms of service. (you need a business plan, spreadsheet illustrating your current business profit/loss, demonstrate your ability to succeed, and follow all the site rules.)
- The asset creation page has additional details on the listing process.  Several things have been tweaked and elaborated on.

I strongly believe that doing everything we can to protect investors and the overall image of the exchange is important.  Hopefully our efforts demonstrate to the investing community our commitment to being best of class in security, functionality, and issuer quality.

Cheers.

I applaud the quality changes whole-heartedly. 

The greedy part of me is a little disappointed to hear about the increase in fee, but I understand the necessity.  The fees have been quite low and this is really not a large jump.  I'm happy with the current fees compared to other Bitcoin services I've used, and I'm glad that there is no tiered structure which favors the arbitrage investors over those who hold.

I've seen some IPO listed in the forums recently (and not on BTC) which really don't seem very sound.  I'm glad that there's a more defined process and stricter requirements for those looking to list on the exchange.  I'd considered buying up shares on LTC-GLOBAL so I could begin voting..  I settled for some shares on the PT, though it counts a bit less.

[ThickAsThieves]

I welcome the higher standards for assets, and hope it's a permanent trend across bitcoin business.

[burnside]

Thanks for pulling the asset creation fee increase considering.

Any thoughts on how the new rules will apply to or impact pass-through funds?

The new rules will make it harder for a person with no reputation to issue a PT, as you have to prove you've run a business before.  It'll also keep a PT from being issued on a base asset that doesn't have basics like financials, prospectus, etc.  Both are positive changes in general.

Cheers.

[burnside]

I applaud the quality changes whole-heartedly. 

The greedy part of me is a little disappointed to hear about the increase in fee, but I understand the necessity.  The fees have been quite low and this is really not a large jump.  I'm happy with the current fees compared to other Bitcoin services I've used, and I'm glad that there is no tiered structure which favors the arbitrage investors over those who hold.

I hear you.  We have slightly tweaked the plan.  Cross-post from the litecoin forums:

- The trade fees will continue to be 0.2% for people with 2FA enabled for trades.
- People with 2FA enabled for trades will also have higher withdrawal limits.  (probably 2x - 4x, I haven't decided yet.)

The idea is to give everyone a carrot for using better security.  We all win overall. 

I've seen some IPO listed in the forums recently (and not on BTC) which really don't seem very sound.  I'm glad that there's a more defined process and stricter requirements for those looking to list on the exchange.  I'd considered buying up shares on LTC-GLOBAL so I could begin voting..  I settled for some shares on the PT, though it counts a bit less.

Totally unintentional, but people that received their LTC-GLOBAL dividends yesterday received them converted at ~0.01077.  Now the btc-e rate is at 0.0176.  In other words, if you wanted BTC, move quickly and you get another 50%+ on your profits.      Hopefully the BTC-TRADING-PT operator takes advantage of this as well.

[JohnGalt]

Totally unintentional, but people that received their LTC-GLOBAL dividends yesterday received them converted at ~0.01077.  Now the btc-e rate is at 0.0176.  In other words, if you wanted BTC, move quickly and you get another 50%+ on your profits.     Hopefully the BTC-TRADING-PT operator takes advantage of this as well.

I convert the LTC-GLOBAL dividends to BTC as soon as possible in order to reduce currency risk. While LTC has risen against BTC since then, it could have dropped. My conversion rate was 0.01052.

I'd considered buying up shares on LTC-GLOBAL so I could begin voting..  I settled for some shares on the PT, though it counts a bit less.

If you are interested in voting, you should buy LTC-GLOBAL shares directly. BTC-TRADING-PT shares are more liquid and are conveniently denominated in BTC, but the ability to vote on securities is limited.

[burnside]

Totally unintentional, but people that received their LTC-GLOBAL dividends yesterday received them converted at ~0.01077.  Now the btc-e rate is at 0.0176.  In other words, if you wanted BTC, move quickly and you get another 50%+ on your profits.     Hopefully the BTC-TRADING-PT operator takes advantage of this as well.

I convert the LTC-GLOBAL dividends to BTC as soon as possible in order to reduce currency risk. While LTC has risen against BTC since then, it could have dropped. My conversion rate was 0.01052.

That's a bummer.  Definitely the right approach though.  I can't believe how volatile it's been lately!

[burnside]

Just got word that we're being blocked by yahoo because of spam complaints.  The server's on a dedicated IP, so that means people are complaining about the ltc-global & btct.co emails.  If you don't want the emails, turn them off in the account settings. 

http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_MAIL_ML&locale=en_US&id=SLN3434&impressions=true

I'm not familiar with yahoo at all, but you might be able to help counter this effect by flagging emails as "not spam" if they support it.

Cheers.

[odolvlobo]

Just got word that we're being blocked by yahoo because of spam complaints.  The server's on a dedicated IP, so that means people are complaining about the ltc-global & btct.co emails.  If you don't want the emails, turn them off in the account settings. 
http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_MAIL_ML&locale=en_US&id=SLN3434&impressions=true
I'm not familiar with yahoo at all, but you might be able to help counter this effect by flagging emails as "not spam" if they support it.
Cheers.

One thing you might be able to do to reduce email volume is to send only a single email for any transaction. When I buy or sell, I frequently get several separate emails. How about combining them all into a single email?

If Yahoo flags an email as spam, you can mark it as "not spam". Other than moving it back to your inbox, I don't know if that has any effect.