[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[usagi]

Deprived, I respect your analysis and position both in this case and in other threads where I have seen you. You have a good grasp of things. However, you are being needlessly combative towards Usagi. I don't pretend to know what the backstory is between you to, but this does not seem to be the place to play it out. Sorry if I come across as somewhat rude.

Deprived's approach is reasonable when considering the disappearing posts in the official thread and how hard it has been to get a straight answer.  Most of the deflection lately has been toward you and DeaDTerra, so it's good to have you involved.

I decided to rewrite my earlier response once I had calmed down a bit. Just a few for the record comments here, something like this requires a response otherwise people might think I "could not" respond to the allegations and that they were therefore true.

1. I deleted deprived's post because he was accusing me of committing fraud*. If he has any evidence I have committed fraud, he is more than welcome to post it -- in the Scam Accusations forum. But he doesn't. Why?

2. Why do you think it has been hard to get a straight answer on how much TU.SILVER is worth? Please see our FAQ:

2. (from Deprived, paraphrase) Can you (usagi) please give me a valuation of your company or provide access to the internal value calculator that you use?
I can't. The way TU.SILVER works is that I (usagi) fill the role of "general contractor" for TU.SILVER. I simply can't afford the time to get tied up in going over the books every day, so I've hired someone else to do it. This way I can more effectively produce value for the company in other areas. If you need accurate information about our company, please see our audited reports which are published at least monthly. You are also welcome to contact our financial advisor directly with any questions about the finances of our company.


Deprived's question came just 24 hours after I had published a report containing management guidance and a quote from our internal calc. He has been asked many times to contact our financial advisor, which is our company policy and which is a very reasonable request. But he does not. Why?

Therefore his strategy is unreasonable, and malicious, and I am surprised that you would support his efforts in that regard. Deprived has a clear agenda to financially damage me and my companies. I will not allow him to do to TU.SILVER what he did to BMF et al. This is why he has been repeatedly advised to either read our reports like everyone else, or contact DeaDTerra. That he has refused to do so and has insisted in dragging this out in public shows that he is not interested in the truth. He is merely interested in damaging me and my companies.



* I stated, "Cusdog just found an error in our books..." to which Deprived replied and stated "If the 30 BTC you found belongs to you personally then maybe you should clarify that - so people don't mistakenly assume the shares massively increased in value because of this lucky find." and "The suspicion has to be that there's some co-mingling of funds/assets going on - with usagi's personal cash and the fund's mixed together."

This amounts to an accusation that I intentionally lied about the funds being in our books, and that I was intentionally co-mingling my own personal funds with the company's funds. These accusations are ridiculous, but have become very serious due to important members of the community (such as burnside) voicing support of Deprived's statements.

[Deprived]

1. I deleted deprived's post because he was accusing me of committing fraud. If he has any evidence I have committed fraud, he is more than welcome to post it -- in the Scam Accusations forum. But he doesn't. Why?

This could be why prices are so high for the shares.

I misunderstood  (I think) what you'd said as meaning you'd found 30 BTC extra that belonged to your investors - and that the value of shares had nearly doubled.

If the 30 BTC you found belongs to you personally then maybe you should clarify that - so people don't mistakenly assume the shares massively increased in value because of this lucky find.

That was the post you deleted (minus its quotes of earlier posts).  No accusation of fraud whatsoever in it - only accusation (if even that) was that your post was subject to being misinterpreted to mean that the share price/value of shares had doubled.  Plus a request for clarification.  You see accusations of scams in everything.

Usual case of usagi lieing.  He says:

* I stated, "Cusdog just found an error in our books..." to which Deprived replied and stated "If the 30 BTC you found belongs to you personally then maybe you should clarify that - so people don't mistakenly assume the shares massively increased in value because of this lucky find." and "The suspicion has to be that there's some co-mingling of funds/assets going on - with usagi's personal cash and the fund's mixed together."

This amounts to an accusation that I intentionally lied about the funds being in our books, and that I was intentionally co-mingling my own personal funds with the company's funds. These accusations are ridiculous, but have become very serious due to important members of the community (such as burnside) voicing support of Deprived's statements.[/size]

The emboldened was NEVER in the deleted post - it was in the thread I made AFTER the deletion (SHOWN by the different URL in his link).  Truly sickening how he lies about things so often.  Claiming my psot was deleted because of an accusation of scamming - when the accusation (and the accusation of mixing funds is one of incompetence not scamming anyway) wasn't even made at the time so could hardly be the reason for deletion.

[burnside]

I decided to rewrite my earlier response once I had calmed down a bit. Just a few for the record comments here, something like this requires a response otherwise people might think I "could not" respond to the allegations and that they were therefore true.

This probably is the wrong thread to discuss TU.SILVER.  I was not trying to be inflammatory.

The self-moderated threads are a can of worms though IMHO.  I don't know where to respond now that I can be sure it won't disappear. 

[usagi]

I decided to rewrite my earlier response once I had calmed down a bit. Just a few for the record comments here, something like this requires a response otherwise people might think I "could not" respond to the allegations and that they were therefore true.

This probably is the wrong thread to discuss TU.SILVER.  I was not trying to be inflammatory.

The self-moderated threads are a can of worms though IMHO.  I don't know where to respond now that I can be sure it won't disappear.  

You're right, it's off-topic for both TU.SILVER's news thread and likely for Deprived's threads as well. That's why I posted it here -- I'm curious about BTC-TC's policy on getting involved in external disputes. You are an extremely important and powerful member of this community now and I feel it is very odd that you would choose to support what Deprived is doing to me and my companies. I'd like to know why you are getting involved, that's all.

[burnside]

I decided to rewrite my earlier response once I had calmed down a bit. Just a few for the record comments here, something like this requires a response otherwise people might think I "could not" respond to the allegations and that they were therefore true.

This probably is the wrong thread to discuss TU.SILVER.  I was not trying to be inflammatory.

The self-moderated threads are a can of worms though IMHO.  I don't know where to respond now that I can be sure it won't disappear.  

You're right, it's off-topic for both TU.SILVER's news thread and likely for Deprived's threads as well. That's why I posted it here -- I'm curious about BTC-TC's policy on getting involved in external disputes. You are an extremely important and powerful member of this community now and I feel it is very odd that you would choose to support what Deprived is doing to me and my companies. I'd like to know why you are getting involved, that's all.

I follow most of the assets on most of the exchanges.  I think Deprived was trying to get some clarity and it started out civil and somewhat degraded from there, in large part due to the self moderation.  Having cusdog and DeaDTerra involved is a great move and should bring clarity.  It may be worth getting one or both involved to try to wrap things up with some of the other closed assets.  I was contemplating asking cusdog for some help myself.  Accounting is definitely not an area of expertise for me, and while I've been considering asking them, I doubt my usual accountants would know where to start with BTC.  Can't really plug it into quickbooks.  

Cheers.

[Vexual]

Do asset issuers have an advantage when trading their own assets considering that they have access to shareholder lists?

[Deprived]

Do asset issuers have an advantage when trading their own assets considering that they have access to shareholder lists?

As an asset issuer I can see which email address owns how many shares.  Also, when a trade occurs on one of my assets I can work out which email address sold and which email address bought.  In many cases those email addresses reveal the actual identity of who owns/traded the shares.  There's very limited scope for somehow abusing that information in trading - but it definitely CAN be abused by revealing who holds how many shares when that's not information the asset issuer should disclose.  It's the disclosure that's the problem more than actually having the information.

The real area in which an asset issuer can get an advantage trading their own assets has nothing to do with knowing who owns what shares - it's from insider-trading.  i.e. by buying and selling your own shares based on information that other investors don't have (as you haven't disclosed it yet).  That problem is one which exists on any asset where the price/value of the share includes things which investors other than the asset issuer can't determine the value of.

That said I'd personallly prefer if asset issuers did NOT have the ability to identify investors.  I've personally had the situation where an asset issuer decided to disclose that my fund held shares in their asset - information they had no right to release (only time any such release should be made is in response to a claim of ownership of shares by someone).  I've also a few times had situations where I believe asset issuers reacted to my orders on the market in a way they couldn't have done if they didn't know it was my orders.

Are the minor issues arising from asset issuers having the email addresses compensated for by the asset issuers' ability to pick up running the asset quickly in the event BTC.CO/LTC-GLobal were to vanish (and having the ability to move platforms quickly without needing burnside's permission)?  Probably so -it's certainly better than Bitfunder's method where EVERYONE can correlate the various holdings of a BTC address (something which could VERY easily have been avoided whilst delivering the same benefits) but the issuer can't easily identify shareholders if they need to.

If you're concerned about asset issuers abusing your trust then them knowing how many shares you have is a pretty minor issue compared to the other things they can do without needing that knowledge : such as just running off with your funds for one thing.

[Vexual]

I've also a few times had situations where I believe asset issuers reacted to my orders on the market in a way they couldn't have done if they didn't know it was my orders.

I have noticed this too.

[Deprived]

I've also a few times had situations where I believe asset issuers reacted to my orders on the market in a way they couldn't have done if they didn't know it was my orders.

I have noticed this too.

Well the give-away on it is when someone starts buying/selling 1 unit into your order without there having just been action at the other side of the market (where they could be doing it just to get last traded price to change market sides).  The only person who can determine any information (on BTC.CO/LTC-GLobal) from doing that is the asset issuer.  On Bitfunder anyone can do that to get information btw.  If noone bought or sold a small amount from your order then there's no way the asset issuer could know it was your bid/ask (unless you're the only investors holding as many shares as are in an ask or something) - as they have no more information about who has placed which orders than anyone else.

That said there's still pretty little an asset issuer can do with that information.  If an asset issuer will abuse their investors' list to work out who has placed orders by selling 1 unit and seeing whose holdings changed then likely they'll also do far worse things - like deliberately giving misleading valuations to move the price or just stealing cash from the asset.  If someone has publicly disclosed that an order is theirs (by, for example, saying they're selling their holdings in X) then the asset issuer is as entitled to use that information in their trading as anyone else - as they have no unfair advantage.

Insider-trading remains the real problem (not specific to BTC.CO obviously) - where the asset issuer can use knowledge of some major change in the value of shares to trade profitably against investors who lack that knowledge.  I run 5 assets on LTC-Global myself.  4 of them that can't apply to (3 are pass-throughs, the 4th has a fixed price and fixed rate of interest) as there's nothing which changes their value that is determined by me or known by me before it's public information.  The 5th one (my actual fund) I don't ever compete with other bids/asks on as it would be unfair, for example, for me to drive Ask prices down by under-cutting then buy them up because I knew we'd made a big profit but hadn't disclosed it.  When there WAS a big change in price (GLBSE closing with a ton of our assets stuck on it) I didn't sell into orders that were still up above book price - I suspended trading (and later cleared order book before reopening trading) immediately.


There ARE examples around of people doing that sort of shady thing on GLBSE in the past - but this isn't the place to make specific accusations.

[antirack]

I have an account with google auth, but now I can't login.

Reset password, still nothing.

Says Google Auth re-used or incorrect.

Can't submit support form since you have to be logged in.

I have been using Google Auth for a long time and no problems with other sites.
Tried different browsers too.

What can I do?

This quest to buy some AM shares turns out to be a big pain in the neck so far :/

[Deprived]

I have an account with google auth, but now I can't login.

Reset password, still nothing.

Says Google Auth re-used or incorrect.

Can't submit support form since you have to be logged in.

I have been using Google Auth for a long time and no problems with other sites.
Tried different browsers too.

What can I do?

This quest to buy some AM shares turns out to be a big pain in the neck so far :/

Bit of a long shot but is your google auth working elsewhere?

If you haven't tried it elsewhere then do so - or make sure your app is properly time-synched (there's an option to do that in the google app).  Problem could be that your phone is slightly out of synch on time - which leads to generated one-time codes being out of date (or early).  Obviously if your google authenticator is working with other sites then that's not the problem.

[burnside]

I have an account with google auth, but now I can't login.

Reset password, still nothing.

Says Google Auth re-used or incorrect.

Can't submit support form since you have to be logged in.

I have been using Google Auth for a long time and no problems with other sites.
Tried different browsers too.

What can I do?

This quest to buy some AM shares turns out to be a big pain in the neck so far :/

I've used google auth several times today to log in and process withdrawals.  As Deprived mentioned, it can be very sensitive to time issues on the phone.

Cheers.

[antirack]

Thanks guys.

Time on phone and computer is the same and Google Auth works everywhere else (Exchange, Pool, including Google) :/

Just tried it again:

Reused or Wrong Google Authenticator key.

If you are having repeated Google Auth issues, please visit our Google Authenticator Help Page.

So how can I get this reset or removed?

Any known email address since I can't submit a support ticket without being logged in?

[burnside]

Thanks guys.

Time on phone and computer is the same and Google Auth works everywhere else (Exchange, Pool, including Google) :/

Just tried it again:

Reused or Wrong Google Authenticator key.

If you are having repeated Google Auth issues, please visit our Google Authenticator Help Page.

So how can I get this reset or removed?

Any known email address since I can't submit a support ticket without being logged in?

Please PM me your account login.  I'll look up your account and get in contact with you via email.

Cheers.

[antirack]

Problem has been resolved, thanks burnside.

I am really wondering what causes this, as I normally have no problems with Google Auth.
By the looks of it you had your fair share of problems (gAuth info all over your site).

[burnside]

Problem has been resolved, thanks burnside.

I am really wondering what causes this, as I normally have no problems with Google Auth.
By the looks of it you had your fair share of problems (gAuth info all over your site).

I've seen some strange behavior in my client occasionally.  My personal experiences:
  - occasionally (1 in 20?) it will refuse a code that I use right after opening the app.
  - before the server was running ntp I would occasionally not be able to auth at all.  haven't had that since spinning up ntp.
  - occasionally on my iPhone 4 I was unable to auth.  I'm pretty sure these were phone time issues, as at the same time my android phone worked fine.  I haven't seen this issue on my iPhone 5 since I recently upgraded.

So it's definitely very sensitive to time issues.  I need to add a "server time is: ..." output when it rejects auths so you can compare to your phone.

I'll also add that my Yubikey has been awesome since day one, and is very easy to use.

Cheers.

[parseval]

Is there a way to get tradeHistory data from the API which is older than 1 month?

For example, the https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory/COGNITIVE returns data back to April 7th.  Can we get data before this date by passing an additional argument?

I'm working on an app to compare the fiat value of the various securities over time, but need the historical data to map with for it to be of much use (unless I use 1 month ago as the starting point and record going forward).

[burnside]

Is there a way to get tradeHistory data from the API which is older than 1 month?

For example, the https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory/COGNITIVE returns data back to April 7th.  Can we get data before this date by passing an additional argument?

I'm working on an app to compare the fiat value of the various securities over time, but need the historical data to map with for it to be of much use (unless I use 1 month ago as the starting point and record going forward).

It's not documented, but try this:

https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory/COGNITIVE?range=all

Note that the cache when using that option is an hour, so in general you won't see new trades very quickly.

Cheers.

[parseval]

It's not documented, but try this:

https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory/COGNITIVE?range=all

Note that the cache when using that option is an hour, so in general you won't see new trades very quickly.

Cheers.

This is perfect, thanks! 

[parseval]

Thanks for the great API, burnside.  I thought you might like to see what I did with that data.  I integrated the BTC-TC data with Highstock and built some charts.

http://fnords.dontexist.com/

This is just a testbox, and slow, but enough for a demo.  Maybe if I make this fancier I'll put it on a real server.