[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[The_Jacobson]

Are there any plans to make the price and volume graph customizable like how bitfunder has it?

I've looked into this in depth and for now there are no plans.  The javascript graphs tend to kill performance on the higher popularity assets.  If asicminer has 30000 trades in a month, that's 30000 events that get sent over the http request into your browser, which then has to iterate through it all and build a graph.

The graph is on the trade page, which means that every time you trade, the browser has to chug on it.  (not to mention the server has to spit it all out.)  If I expand the current month graph out to the entire history, it'd lag all but the highest powered high memory PC's, and it would induce a higher load on the server to do it.

So it doesn't really make sense I don't think, to have it loading on the trade page.  I've been thinking even that I may go the other direction and simplify it somewhat to be just a simple image, or something super lightweight to load.  But... I also plan to link to http://coinflow.co/... they had charts up equivalent to BitFunder's and were doing a great job of it, so when they're back up I'll make a link under each graph to the appropriate coinflow.co page and I think that should help people out. 

Cheers.

Ok thanks appreciate the response. The main reason I asked is because of the one outlier on AMC that screwing up the price graph but it's not a big deal and it seems like coinflow will solve any similar problems.

[1715129128]

1715129128

[1715129128]

1715129128

[1715129128]

1715129128

[1715129128]

1715129128

[1715129128]

1715129128

[EskimoBob]

Why not split the charts to short term (based on live data) and long term (pre-generated and only updated when relevant data is added).
1 day chart makes sense to be based on live data. Last 10 days or 52 weeks makes no sense at all and can be static - generated once and cashed.

You say we like to see 52 weeks as daily, weekly, monthly... so what? Generate 3 images and be done with it

When you make a 52 week or 2 week or what ever chart, please add % change for that period.

How expensive is it to generate charts like that on the fly, if I select date X-Y?

[mistercoin]

When will the MODS vote yes for BFMINES? I am tired of waiting for it to pull through. Cmon people Vote Yes!!

[parseval]

Are there any plans to make the price and volume graph customizable like how bitfunder has it?

I've looked into this in depth and for now there are no plans.  The javascript graphs tend to kill performance on the higher popularity assets.  If asicminer has 30000 trades in a month, that's 30000 events that get sent over the http request into your browser, which then has to iterate through it all and build a graph.

The graph is on the trade page, which means that every time you trade, the browser has to chug on it.  (not to mention the server has to spit it all out.)  If I expand the current month graph out to the entire history, it'd lag all but the highest powered high memory PC's, and it would induce a higher load on the server to do it.

So it doesn't really make sense I don't think, to have it loading on the trade page.  I've been thinking even that I may go the other direction and simplify it somewhat to be just a simple image, or something super lightweight to load.  But... I also plan to link to http://coinflow.co/... they had charts up equivalent to BitFunder's and were doing a great job of it, so when they're back up I'll make a link under each graph to the appropriate coinflow.co page and I think that should help people out. 

Cheers.

Wow, that will be awesome. Thanks     I'll update when it's back online.

[TECHICENINE]

zzz just look "virtual ceos" are listing pos shares up on  google docs i know too complex for the geeks..thanks

I don't understand half of what you're saying most of the time.

.b

read and reread all my posts back to 2007 and it might make a little more sense...thanks

[TECHICENINE]

From the website

There is a NON-REFUNDABLE FEE of 5 BTC per security created.

Yes, and I was stating that this doesn't make much sense :/ hoping in some clarifications...

BTW, where in the site there is that info? I really couldn't find it...

On market tab click create security and its on asset issuer terms of service.

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

That's what I have gathered.

for being touted as/\"open source" project i'm amazed how many participants support\/censorship..thanks

[EskimoBob]

When will the MODS vote yes for BFMINES? I am tired of waiting for it to pull through. Cmon people Vote Yes!!

Are you on crack? This is a perpetual mining bond turd with a fixed mh/s.

[furuknap]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

The only system I can think of that makes sense is the way voting is done in 'normal' elections; set a date, tally votes, the side that gets the most votes win.

.b

[TECHICENINE]

When will the MODS vote yes for BFMINES? I am tired of waiting for it to pull through. Cmon people Vote Yes!!

Are you on crack? This is a perpetual mining bond turd with a fixed mh/s.

Warren Buffet/\has a plan for youse mining riggers using a can of\/coke = sizzle ..rotfLmfao

[TECHICENINE]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

The only system I can think of that makes sense is the way voting is done in 'normal' elections; set a date, tally votes, the side that gets the most votes win.

.b

why even have votes for BTC "toxic securities" what part of "open source" do you not understand..thanks

[furuknap]

read and reread all my posts back to 2007 and it might make a little more sense...thanks

Somehow, I doubt that, on several levels. Can you point to some explicit posts back in 2007 that would help clarify your thoughts on Bitcoin?

.b

[TECHICENINE]

read and reread all my posts back to 2007 and it might make a little more sense...thanks

Somehow, I doubt that, on several levels. Can you point to some explicit posts back in 2007 that would help clarify your thoughts on Bitcoin?

.b

-ot- DD and look where i called/\AIG off 35 cents that was my best +$$$ call that i can\/think of..thanks  

[Rannasha]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

The only system I can think of that makes sense is the way voting is done in 'normal' elections; set a date, tally votes, the side that gets the most votes win.

.b

why even have votes for BTC "toxic securities" what part of "open source" do you not understand..thanks

There is nothing "open source" about BTCT. Not sure where you get that idea from.

[TECHICENINE]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

The only system I can think of that makes sense is the way voting is done in 'normal' elections; set a date, tally votes, the side that gets the most votes win.

.b

why even have votes for BTC "toxic securities" what part of "open source" do you not understand..thanks

There is nothing "open source" about BTCT. Not sure where you get that idea from.

Bitcoin open source so we r in a very dynamic market here/\ASICSOLAR\/+shares going live soon..thanks

[pascal257]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

The only system I can think of that makes sense is the way voting is done in 'normal' elections; set a date, tally votes, the side that gets the most votes win.

.b

why even have votes for BTC "toxic securities" what part of "open source" do you not understand..thanks

There is nothing "open source" about BTCT. Not sure where you get that idea from.

Bitcoin open source so we r in a very dynamic market here/\ASICSOLAR\/+shares going live soon..thanks

Somehow the ignore button is very shiny on you.

[FloatesMcgoates]

Hey I have a deposit sitting at 28 confirmations that has not registered into the system yet.

Transaction ID: 0199a5478e06e63659a98f9771614aba9c01a466dd634e606800d9f40ecdd4a1

It would be appreciated if this were amended, thank you.

[burnside]

Hey I have a deposit sitting at 28 confirmations that has not registered into the system yet.

Transaction ID: 0199a5478e06e63659a98f9771614aba9c01a466dd634e606800d9f40ecdd4a1

It would be appreciated if this were amended, thank you.

Aye lad.  Should be gtg now. 

[odolvlobo]

I think the problem is that with a fully refundable fee is that people will create bad securities and spam the system. But now there is no incentive for moderators to vote in a timely fashion so burnside is trying to make an incentive for them to do so (50% refund).

...and then they would just vote whatever to get the additional money. In other words, assets are now approved to give LTC Global voters more money. Would you say No or Abstain to an asset, knowing that it cost you personally to do so?

My answer to your question is yes. I have voted NO or ABSTAIN on 27 out of my 71 votes. I would not have voted differently if the money were refunded. I would still vote NO or ABSTAIN knowing that it will cost me money. I feel that in the long run, trying to maintain a level of quality of the assets on the exchange is worth more than the listing fee.

By the way, a person with 10 shares gets 0.1% of the listing fee, or about $0.50. I don't think the fee has much of an influence, especially considering that the person has at least $6000 invested in the exchange.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Just a heads-up: A few times in a row, while trying to place a sell order, the sell failed and this was displayed: "Excessive wait trying to get lock on ASICMINER-PT". The problem went away after about 15 minutes.

Looks like this problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148350.msg2254935#msg2254935

[furuknap]

My answer to your question is yes. I have voted NO or ABSTAIN on 27 out of my 71 votes. I would not have voted differently if the money were refunded. I would still vote NO or ABSTAIN knowing that it will cost me money. I feel that in the long run, trying to maintain a level of quality of the assets on the exchange is worth more than the listing fee.

That was my point in another post; if voters are inherently good and decent, they will vote reasonably fast and they will do so knowing that long-term, their investments are better off. However, for someone 'investing' for profit, there's no incentive the way the system is designed now. Voters are paid when the listing is put up, regardless of whether they vote or not.

I suggested elsewhere that there should be a board of a few people that were trusted by the community to provide reasonable evaluations. If such a board was established, that board could be compensated from the paid listing fees directly in return for casting votes within a certain time.

By the way, a person with 10 shares gets 0.1% of the listing fee, or about $0.50. I don't think the fee has much of an influence, especially considering that the person has at least $6000 invested in the exchange.

True, but we also don't know how many shares those voters have; they could easily have ten times that much each, which would give them a whooping $5 on a $12K investment :-P

.b