[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[FloatesMcgoates]

I enabled 2 factor authorization using Google Auth, however my daily withdrawal limit has not doubled.


Currently, I only used Auth for login, as I think using it for transactions would be too much of a hassle. Do I need to enable Auth for transactions in order to get 2x withdrawals?

EDIT: Enabled 2fa for transactions, problem fixed.

[burnside]

The listing of usernames from sender/receiver for transfered shares in API responses was already requested, but an addition or replacement for this came into my mind: maybe it could be helpful to generate unique ids for internal transfers which are shown to those who sent and received shares? I.e. "Your transfer id is #342342. 100 AM-PT shares were sent to burnside". With unique identifiers each transfer would be (obviously) very easy to identify.

The CSV output of trade history now has the username of the transfer when doing internal transfers.

I can't do unique id's easily because of how the db works unfortunately.  It'd show you one id and the other person a different id so it'd be pointless when trying to compare id's between sender and receiver.

Cheers.

[freedomno1]

Hmm got this Excessive wait trying to get lock on ACTIVEMINING.   

Edited: Seems to be working now must have put in to high a quantity
Second Edit: Seems to work at times and at times I get the message will leave it as a note for you

[Pale Phoenix]

Just FYI burnside, I've gotten the Excessive Wait message several times today as well.

[burnside]

Just FYI burnside, I've gotten the Excessive Wait message several times today as well.

I can't wait to retire bitcoind as the account balance db... even simple move commands are taking quite a while now.  I've put in several hours on it this evening, but I think we're still probably 3-7 days away from being able to flip the switch.

Cheers.

[zy02264]

Hey guys. Just wondering is there anyway I could download a Trading history CSV for any stock? That would be really helpful for trading analysis. Thank you!

[Rannasha]

Hey guys. Just wondering is there anyway I could download a Trading history CSV for any stock? That would be really helpful for trading analysis. Thank you!

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

Replace DMS.PURCHASE with the stock you're interested in. It's a JSON rather than a CSV, but conversion should be easy.

[zy02264]

Hey guys. Just wondering is there anyway I could download a Trading history CSV for any stock? That would be really helpful for trading analysis. Thank you!

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

Replace DMS.PURCHASE with the stock you're interested in. It's a JSON rather than a CSV, but conversion should be easy.

This is unbelievablely fantastic! Thank you dude!

[dexX7]

Did anyone kept track of historical market capitalization of all shares on btct.co or the number of outstanding shares?

I was thinking about creating the "BTC-TC Share Index" to get an overview how the overall Bitcoin share market performes. Maybe that's not the best approach (suggestions very welcome!), but I thought about something like this:



The above is not complete and I think bonds and funds should be included, too.

[Lohoris]

Did anyone kept track of historical market capitalization of all shares on btct.co or the number of outstanding shares?

I was thinking about creating the "BTC-TC Share Index" to get an overview how the overall Bitcoin share market performes. Maybe that's not the best approach (suggestions very welcome!), but I thought about something like this:



The above is not complete and I think bonds and funds should be included, too.

This would be great!
Pity I'm not sure how could I help you, but encouraging you is better than nothing at all, I guess?

[Rannasha]

Did anyone kept track of historical market capitalization of all shares on btct.co or the number of outstanding shares?

I was thinking about creating the "BTC-TC Share Index" to get an overview how the overall Bitcoin share market performes. Maybe that's not the best approach (suggestions very welcome!), but I thought about something like this:



The above is not complete and I think bonds and funds should be included, too.

I like the idea of a share index, to give a general feel of the BTC-markets. For your current setup, I would reevaluate the inclusion and/or weight of TAT.ASICMINER, since it is not excluded that that security isn't partially backed by ASICMINER-PT shares, which would cause them to be double-counted.

In general, I would like an index where ASICMINER has less effect on the index, but since this would not be an accurate representation of reality, I don't know if it's a good idea to tamper with the weight-function.

Funds and bonds I would not include. Funds are often baskets of other shares (mixed with some currency), which would cause more double-weighing. Bonds should not fluctuate in price and always trade close to their face value, so they don't serve a purpose in an index. There are the "mining bonds" (that aren't bonds) that are basically inverted difficulty futures and the price of them doesn't necessarily reflect the performance of the market.

[ThickAsThieves]

Did anyone kept track of historical market capitalization of all shares on btct.co or the number of outstanding shares?

I was thinking about creating the "BTC-TC Share Index" to get an overview how the overall Bitcoin share market performes. Maybe that's not the best approach (suggestions very welcome!), but I thought about something like this:



The above is not complete and I think bonds and funds should be included, too.

I like the idea of a share index, to give a general feel of the BTC-markets. For your current setup, I would reevaluate the inclusion and/or weight of TAT.ASICMINER, since it is not excluded that that security isn't partially backed by ASICMINER-PT shares, which would cause them to be double-counted.

In general, I would like an index where ASICMINER has less effect on the index, but since this would not be an accurate representation of reality, I don't know if it's a good idea to tamper with the weight-function.

Funds and bonds I would not include. Funds are often baskets of other shares (mixed with some currency), which would cause more double-weighing. Bonds should not fluctuate in price and always trade close to their face value, so they don't serve a purpose in an index. There are the "mining bonds" (that aren't bonds) that are basically inverted difficulty futures and the price of them doesn't necessarily reflect the performance of the market.

TAT.ASICMINER is currently totally backed by direct shares, not PT shares. We have backed this way in the past, but no longer need to do so.

[dexX7]

I like the idea of a share index, to give a general feel of the BTC-markets. For your current setup, I would reevaluate the inclusion and/or weight of TAT.ASICMINER, since it is not excluded that that security isn't partially backed by ASICMINER-PT shares, which would cause them to be double-counted.

In general, I would like an index where ASICMINER has less effect on the index, but since this would not be an accurate representation of reality, I don't know if it's a good idea to tamper with the weight-function.

Funds and bonds I would not include. Funds are often baskets of other shares (mixed with some currency), which would cause more double-weighing. Bonds should not fluctuate in price and always trade close to their face value, so they don't serve a purpose in an index. There are the "mining bonds" (that aren't bonds) that are basically inverted difficulty futures and the price of them doesn't necessarily reflect the performance of the market.

Thanks for the input. Double counting could indeed distort the picture and it's obvious when it comes to funds, but it's a bit tricky overall, because even some stocks hold shares sometimes. I remember BASIC holding AM for example. It's probably even worse when it comes to multiple trading plattforms and passthroughs. Another factor are commpany hold shares which are not intended for public trading. Not sure if they should be counted and if not, how to fetch all those data without manual input.

My overall goals:

1. Quantify the amount of money going in and out of the share markets.
2. Follow the flow of money within a market.

My assumption: a sell of one asset leads to a buy of another asset.

Wild example: people are dumping AM, BM and COG to buy ActM shares.

[pascal257]

Thanks for the input. Double counting could indeed distort the picture and it's obvious when it comes to funds, but it's a bit tricky overall, because even some stocks hold shares sometimes. I remember BASIC holding AM for example. It's probably even worse when it comes to multiple trading plattforms and passthroughs. Another factor are commpany hold shares which are not intended for public trading. Not sure if they should be counted and if not, how to fetch all those data without manual input.

My overall goals:

1. Quantify the amount of money going in and out of the share markets.
2. Follow the flow of money within a market.

My assumption: a sell of one asset leads to a buy of another asset.

Wild example: people are dumping AM, BM and COG to buy ActM shares.

You may also want to take a look at other exchanges to get a greater picture of the market. I'm quite certain there are traders moving cash from one exchange to another after a sell to catch a lower price or buy a stock that's only available on one exchange.

But I guess in that case the discussion should move into its own thread.

[davos]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtcOUI2xx89EdFY3LWVSOUx4d3dzbjlYQXNVcU1QUkE&usp=sharing
For fun.

An early stab at a BTCT index with automatically updating values. I'm currently putting together a proprietary system that does something a bit more like what's been imagined in the past few posts - although it's meant more as a true index, so I'm not just using the market-float but am instead using the full float for shares issued - which is what you should actually be using to target implied market capitalization of the companies... when you see a mcap using true issuance and not just local float you get a better sense of what the price on the market is actually meant to indicate.

If I look at BTCT's MCap listing, I see that ASICMINER has a market cap by local float of a bit over 100k BTC. If I think to myself from there: "geez, I think ASICMINER is worth more than THAT" I'd be technically correct, but an idiot (or at least an under-informed investor) - as the real market capitalization implied by the trading price that gets you 100k BTC on BTCT yields a true MCap of 1.6Million BTC.


This isn't a funds-flow sheet as some have been discussing - it just does an overall MCAP using local BTCT prices. I'll probably add the MPEX PTs when I'm bored at work tomorrow.


I've been tracking the flow of direct shares for a few months (it was very interesting to watch the shares move from BF to BTCT). The ASICMINER arbitrage between BF, Direct, and BTCT is also something interesting which you can catch on occasion if you're paying attention to the number of shares on each market.

This is also stocks only, although I do think there's value to some of the funds - just not in comparison directly with the stocks (they need their own index, is all).

I follow BTC-Trading on LTCGlobal - the BTCT fund presents an interesting question and uncertain value proposition (which is why I didn't include it, as I'm not sure if it should be considered in the same boat as ASICMINER-PT or not). I'm not, for example, sure that JohnGalt is doing much value-add beyond the BTC/LTC Currency exchange (no offense) - or it may just be that nobody has really taken him up on the offer to transfer shares and so his value-add is there - just unrealized.

For fun I tossed-in a weight distribution - which is basically how many shares of each listed company you'd need to have a portfolio with a marketcap-weighted distribution of shares (and at least one share, although for fun I used at least "1.61803398" shares). This is not meant to be amazeballs or anything, I use something similar for private investment tracking.

-------------

For unified markets I pull directly from APIs instead of just scraping the web output. Anything much more than this would be too competitively useful to share anyway - unless you're coinflow.co or another market data business.

[aquarius]

why do I get "Excessive wait trying to get lock on *********." every time I try to place an ask order?

thanks


edit: now it works fine again

[burnside]

why do I get "Excessive wait trying to get lock on *********." every time I try to place an ask order?

thanks


edit: now it works fine again

Lots of orders all at once.  We're working on speeding up the trade engine.

Cheers.

[carnitastaco]

Hey Burnside, I have a very minor feature request-

I'd love to be able to turn off the email notification for order cancels only, but don't see that option in the settings.  (I assume it's part of trade notifications).  I like getting email notifications on my trades, because I leave orders up when I'm away from the computer, and its nice to get an email when some stock is crashing or bubbling so I can place more trades, but the cancels aren't useful to me at all, and I get so many!

Obviously not a super important or high priority request

[neurobox]

Stop me if you've been over this..

Logged in today and noticed for the first time the LTC/BTC ratio in the header read 35.08771929. That meant either I had missed a historical event in the popularity of LTC, or you're showing the inverse of what seems to be the traditional way to read the ratio, "1 LTC = x BTC."

[carnitastaco]

Stop me if you've been over this..

Logged in today and noticed for the first time the LTC/BTC ratio in the header read 35.08771929. That meant either I had missed a historical event in the popularity of LTC, or you're showing the inverse of what seems to be the traditional way to read the ratio, "1 LTC = x BTC."

That header has displayed that way quite a while.  It's just the difference between LTC/BTC or BTC/LTC, the "traditional way," for example, on BTC-E's LTC/BTC chart, is just plain wrong, it should say BTC/LTC, not LTC/BTC.

BTCTCO is BTC denominated, so it shows the # of LTC you can buy for one BTC.  On a LTC denominated site, it would display the # of BTC you could buy for 1 LTC.

The price of LTC/BTC should be interpreted as "how many litecoins per one bitcoin?" ~34
The price of BTC/LTC should be interpreted as "how many bitcoins per one litecoin?" ~.029