[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[bitzox]

When I paid out the TAT.AM dividend it partially failed. It looks like some people were paid, but not others.

I hope this doesn't mean that people who got paid, and bought more with the money will get more dividends...

I did not receive my dividend, please let me know what, if anything, I need to do to rectify.

[elefter]

When I paid out the TAT.AM dividend it partially failed. It looks like some people were paid, but not others.

I hope this doesn't mean that people who got paid, and bought more with the money will get more dividends...

I did not receive my dividend, please let me know what, if anything, I need to do to rectify.

Same here...

[burnside]

Hi all, cross-post from the TAT.ASICMINER thread:

Ugh, another issue with dividend payout.

The software has partially failed or something. Not everyone has gotten their dividend, so please be careful to check before you sell, etc.

growing pains?

Definitely some growing pains.  We're still using bitcoind, so div payouts take forever to iterate through everyone, exposing occasional issues like what happened on TAT.ASICMINER and ASICMINER-PT last night, where it runs into lock waits.

I've done a couple of things this morning to fix it going forward.  (at least until the site is no longer using bitcoind)  I've introduced a new status, "PAUSED" that it will display when it gets a lock wait error.  It will automatically pick up PAUSED dividend processes each iteration of the dividend processing, so in the future it will essentially retry over again.

There are probably some of you out there that are wondering "If it takes so long, what happens if I trade between when it starts processing and when it finishes".  The system takes a snapshot of the shareholder list when it first starts to process the dividend, then it uses that snapshot for payouts.  So for example, with this issue, it is using the shareholder list from when the dividend first started processing some time ago.

It's running on TAT.ASICMINER right now, so users should see the missing divs shortly.

Cheers.

Everything should be good now.  The process has completed.

[bitzox]

All good, thanks!

[elefter]

All good, thanks!

+1

[Tafelpoot]

Hey would it be possible to fix the "cost/each" indicator for PUT options? Now it equals "Strike" + "Premium", but it should be "Strike" - "Premium".
It would also help to forbid these premium > strike options, as they are just spam & scam.
Thanks

[bobboooiie]

Is there a reason why the "historic" graphs of share prices are only for 1 month and have no option for longer intervals ? I would love at least lifetime ones in "history" tab or something

[parseval]

Is there a reason why the "historic" graphs of share prices are only for 1 month and have no option for longer intervals ? I would love at least lifetime ones in "history" tab or something

Check out my chart site, it has the complete history.    http://coinflow.co   Warning, it's in alpha, so might be buggy.

[burnside]

Hey would it be possible to fix the "cost/each" indicator for PUT options? Now it equals "Strike" + "Premium", but it should be "Strike" - "Premium".
It would also help to forbid these premium > strike options, as they are just spam & scam.
Thanks

Definitely, it's in the works.

I also agree somewhat on the premium > strike options, but have mixed feelings about messing with that free market aspect.

Is there a reason why the "historic" graphs of share prices are only for 1 month and have no option for longer intervals ? I would love at least lifetime ones in "history" tab or something

On assets with lots of trades the dynamic charts become a bottleneck for slower PC's.  I need to get a floatbox license so I can pop full history graphs up in a separate iframe or something.

Parseval's site does the job nicely though. 

Cheers.

[pascal257]

Speaking of asset charts, it would be nice to have more options on the charts, like moving averages and logarithmic scales for example.

[dance4x]

Burnside,

PMed you a few days ago about a google auth problem. Please help me out today so I can access my account. I know you are very busy so it probably slipped your mind but I really need to be abke to access my account today. Thank you.

[Deprived]

I've just unlocked 3 new securities for Moderator Approval.  Although it's 3 securities it's actually only one fund in practice (the explanation of that is in the contract other sections of the security details).

All three have identical information in ALL sections (as they're effectively one fund the contractual terms for all 3 securities HAVE to be in the contract for each security).  That means (unless I've missed something major) you only need to read the details of one and can then vote the same way (be it Yes, No or Abstain) on all three.

If moderators have any questions, feel free to ask them in the thread for the fund:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228327.0

I'll be adding more information into the thread and putting up FAQs in response to questions tonight.

Thanks for your time.

[GoldenWings91]

Can call and put options be put side by side instead of stacked? It would take up less real estate and be much cleaner.

[burnside]

Can call and put options be put side by side instead of stacked? It would take up less real estate and be much cleaner.

Possibly on the Market.  Definitely not on the individual security pages.  I had them side by side but had to undo it to make room for the trade auth when a user has both gAuth and Yubikey turned on.  (2 form fields side by side.)  There's also a few more columns coming soon so I'll be altering the "My Options" tables as well.  (eg: intrinsic value aka in-the-money)

I may reduce font sizes and table spacing to compact it a bit, but I don't think I'll be able to get back to side-by-side tables.

Cheers.

[carpetbagger]

Hey all, I put in some basic price protection on the standard bid/ask interface.  It should pop an alert if you bid more than 2x the current ask, or ask less than 1/2 the current bid.  The goal is to prevent some of the accidents that happen when you accidentally plug in too many or too few digits after the decimal.

This works great! It just saved me. Thanks.

[circuitry]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but it's not in the FAQ. What is the normal/average time for manual withdrawals from Btct.co? Thanks in advance.

[burnside]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but it's not in the FAQ. What is the normal/average time for manual withdrawals from Btct.co? Thanks in advance.

I process them 2-3 times a day, so generally 12 hrs or less.

[burnside]

Hey all, I put in some basic price protection on the standard bid/ask interface.  It should pop an alert if you bid more than 2x the current ask, or ask less than 1/2 the current bid.  The goal is to prevent some of the accidents that happen when you accidentally plug in too many or too few digits after the decimal.

This works great! It just saved me. Thanks.

Excellent! 

[burnside]

A user reported a bug in the process that removes asset votes when a user sells their shares of LTC-GLOBAL.  Their votes were staying when they had expected they would vanish.  Unfortunately, the votes should have vanished, but did not.

This bug affected btct.co, but not litecoinglobal.com.  Now that it's been patched, you will likely have noticed a reduction of votes on many of the assets.

Couple other bug fixes recently:

- The PUT options tables now properly show the proceeds you'd receive if you exercise the PUT option.
- Which also exposed the fact that a couple of users had posted PUT options with a higher premium than the strike, guaranteeing a loss.    All of those have been purged from the market and code has been introduced to make sure they don't make it onto the market again.

Cheers.

[usagi]

A moderator has changed their vote on BMF from:

Anonymous voted NO with comment: 6 months after GLBSE shut down and still no list of assets (specifically mining rigs/ASIC orders). Seems abandoned to focus on new silver asset.

to

Anonymous voted NO with comment: Asset issuer is untrustworthy.

Burnside, when are you going to change your system? First, the original NO vote was simply wrong, I had a list of assets on the forums for longer than six months. Second, once I had conclusively provided a list of assets, the vote was changed to "Asset issuer is untrustworthy". It's almost as if the original comment was a simple lie the moderator told because they didn't want to have to vote NO with a garbage reason. And it really is a garbage reason. The voter is clearly aware of TU.SILVER and must certainly be aware of how well it has been run over the past six months. What gives?

Your moderators are unfair and biased. Deprived just launched three assets which got 5 votes in a matter of days. Have you seen his contracts? Labrynthine. No comment on it other than to say, I am supposed to believe 5 people checked out those contracts in a matter of a day or two, and found nothing wanting? At all? Yet your moderators give "ancient one" companies the community desperately needs -- producers like BitVPS -- a devil of a time. It is abundantly clear your moderators are operating as a clique, and issuers are pre-approved based on social reputation with a specific set of people on the forums. Your system is NOT OPEN, not FAIR, and NOT SANE.

Look what you had to do -- you went back and changed the contract of LTC-GLOBAL without a vote. You must have done it for a reason. Surely you realize things need to be changed big time. Here's your bugle call: You will need outside help to modify your contract if you want it to be fair and sane. Find someone you trust and take their advice. Here's my advice.

- There's not enough moderators. I believe it is due to the $5000+ barrier to entry. Anyone with shares should have a proportional vote. Your idea was nice but as it turns out it doesn't work well in practice. Change it.
- Issuers must have the right to face their accusers. Your system was surely never designed to allow anonymous libel and slander in comments, and to not be held accountable for their votes. But that is exactly what is happening, right now.
- The system must allow issuers to link a response to individual NO votes. There is currently no way to respond to NO votes.
- Moderators must have training and oversight. If a moderator votes NO they must provide a reasonable explanation. I suggest constructive criticism. And if that criticism should be handled appropriately by the issuer, the moderator MUST change their vote. Right now there is no accountability and it is NOT WORKING. Moderators must not lie about why they are voting NO. There must be a punishment for this. You or someone must be able to step in and veto any untenable (code word for 'stupid') moderator vote.

This is the 'usenet principle'. We had usenet for 20 or 30 years. It failed. Get over it. Unmoderated forums, unmoderated moderation, fails and sucks and drives people away. Why? Because a very small number of people wield disproportionate power to their ability and/or interest. If you do not learn from history it will repeat by causing your exchange to fail.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in how this turned out. Your system is unique. It's special. It's the only exchange you can own a share in. It could have been this great thing -- it really could have been #1 -- but your policies are so restrictive and so unusual that they have created a situation where it is actually a net negative to invest in LTC-GLOBAL. Let's say I wanted to buy 100 shares of LTC GLOBAL. Well it would set me back over 500 BTC, but can anyone tell me why I would want to do that? What the point is? There's no benefit. I wouldn't have any greater say than someone with just 10 shares. That is a very poor policy. There's no reason to invest in your company. That makes me sad. It feels like the community lost something important.