[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[usagi]

I want my deposited coins, wtf?? this is fucked up!!!  moved from bitfunder to btct thought it was a goodmove, now I know I should have stuck with bitfunder. what a shady exchange, then people complain that weexchange is crappy, at least there after 6 confirmations you get your coins!!!!  here depends daily on the mood of the operator.

Geez, calm down, it's clearly a glitch and has never happened before.  Feel free to go back where no exciting IPO's come up.  Or is that why you moved here?

Hmm, odd, I just deposited 1.5995 coins to BMF's deposit address, and they didn't show up after the confirmations -- the confirmation counter just disappeared.

I assume the coins will show up later? I checked my deposit history and it looks like I'm also missing several dividend payments that were sent to my account. They just don't show up on my balance.

[1715151666]

1715151666

[1715151666]

1715151666

[1715151666]

1715151666

[1715151666]

1715151666

[Rannasha]

I want my deposited coins, wtf?? this is fucked up!!!  moved from bitfunder to btct thought it was a goodmove, now I know I should have stuck with bitfunder. what a shady exchange, then people complain that weexchange is crappy, at least there after 6 confirmations you get your coins!!!!  here depends daily on the mood of the operator.

Geez, calm down, it's clearly a glitch and has never happened before.  Feel free to go back where no exciting IPO's come up.  Or is that why you moved here?

Hmm, odd, I just deposited 1.5995 coins to BMF's deposit address, and they didn't show up after the confirmations -- the confirmation counter just disappeared.

I assume the coins will show up later? I checked my deposit history and it looks like I'm also missing several dividend payments that were sent to my account. They just don't show up on my balance.

Click on the "Refresh" button next to your account balance on the Wallet page.

[usagi]

Click on the "Refresh" button next to your account balance on the Wallet page.

Huh, amazing. It worked!

I've never seen that problem before, thanks!

[Rannasha]

Click on the "Refresh" button next to your account balance on the Wallet page.

Huh, amazing. It worked!

I've never seen that problem before, thanks!

It seems to have popped up when people started moving coins in en-masse in preparation for the Labcoin IPO.

[burnside]

Click on the "Refresh" button next to your account balance on the Wallet page.

Huh, amazing. It worked!

I've never seen that problem before, thanks!

It seems to have popped up when people started moving coins in en-masse in preparation for the Labcoin IPO.

I figured it out.  I hate to say it, but I introduced it around the 28th...   Deposits should be properly crediting from here on out.

[burnside]

Site update...

In the last 24 hours or so we have:

- Added a new DB server.  We contacted the host and asked what they had ready immediately so it isn't exactly what we wanted but it is quite a bit faster.  We'll custom order a longer-term db server pair here soon.

- Fixed the deposit bug.  I introduced it around the 28th when working on the bitcoind to db transition.  Ugh.

- Fixed the locking bug that caused several orders yesterday to be filled twice.  (or more)  This one was hard to track down.  The locking only got screwed up when someone placed an order they could not afford.  When a user did that, it cleared the lock as it exited, even though it was not the process that had taken out the lock in the first place.  Ugh.

- Additional caching of 7d and 30d market values on all issues should make trades faster.  These values before were being re-calculated with every single trade.  Now we only recalculate them at periodic intervals.

- And a big change to the market page.  We've added a lot of categories to better fit the actual assets.  Please let me know if I'm way off base on any of them.

Cheers.

[freedomno1]

Site update...

- And a big change to the market page.  We've added a lot of categories to better fit the actual assets.  Please let me know if I'm way off base on any of them.

Cheers.

Was wondering where my AM went on that list ^_^
And everything looks fine to me
Thanks

[ArcticWolf]

The category marked "Depositary Reciepts" could also be marked "Passthroughs" which may be less confusing for new investors.
Just a thought.
That being said, I like it! I think this new system is far better and less confusing than the previous one

[dexX7]

Yay, more contant improvements!


Seems a bit out of line though:

[freedomno1]

Site update...

In the last 24 hours or so we have:

- Added a new DB server.  We contacted the host and asked what they had ready immediately so it isn't exactly what we wanted but it is quite a bit faster.  We'll custom order a longer-term db server pair here soon.

- Fixed the deposit bug.  I introduced it around the 28th when working on the bitcoind to db transition.  Ugh.

- Fixed the locking bug that caused several orders yesterday to be filled twice.  (or more)  This one was hard to track down.  The locking only got screwed up when someone placed an order they could not afford.  When a user did that, it cleared the lock as it exited, even though it was not the process that had taken out the lock in the first place.  Ugh.

- Additional caching of 7d and 30d market values on all issues should make trades faster.  These values before were being re-calculated with every single trade.  Now we only recalculate them at periodic intervals.

- And a big change to the market page.  We've added a lot of categories to better fit the actual assets.  Please let me know if I'm way off base on any of them.

Cheers.

The category marked "Depositary Reciepts" could also be marked "Passthroughs" which may be less confusing for new investors.
Just a thought.
That being said, I like it! I think this new system is far better and less confusing than the previous one

Passthroughs would confuse less people so +1
Maybe add a /PT

I'd like to see what they would look like but the word Depositary Receipt
I'm starting to get attached to it ^_^

[burnside]

The category marked "Depositary Reciepts" could also be marked "Passthroughs" which may be less confusing for new investors.
Just a thought.
That being said, I like it! I think this new system is far better and less confusing than the previous one

Passthroughs would confuse less people so +1
Maybe add a /PT

I'd like to see what they would look like but the word Depositary Receipt
I'm starting to get attached to it ^_^

I thought long and hard about that.  I finally settled on going with the more accurate term, and with all the -PT's in there people will figure it out quickly.

Seems a bit out of line though:

Perfectionists... yeesh. 

[creativex]

Bravo! Very nice work burnside.

[pascal257]

- Fixed the locking bug that caused several orders yesterday to be filled twice.  (or more)  This one was hard to track down.  The locking only got screwed up when someone placed an order they could not afford.  When a user did that, it cleared the lock as it exited, even though it was not the process that had taken out the lock in the first place.  Ugh.

What are the consequences here? That sounds like a horrible bug. For one my trade summary is screwed up, but how did you solve the resulting deviance in balance and stock count?

[Carnth]

I'd like to see what they would look like but the word Depositary Receipt
I'm starting to get attached to it ^_^

I thought long and hard about that.  I finally settled on going with the more accurate term, and with all the -PT's in there people will figure it out quickly.

I like all the new category changes. I think "Depositary Receipt" is a great name for the pass-throughs.

Good work.

[drdanishkhan]

Hey burnside.. still getting the excessive locking tim error while placing orders.. been an hour of constant tries but no good?? any problems??

[burnside]

- Fixed the locking bug that caused several orders yesterday to be filled twice.  (or more)  This one was hard to track down.  The locking only got screwed up when someone placed an order they could not afford.  When a user did that, it cleared the lock as it exited, even though it was not the process that had taken out the lock in the first place.  Ugh.

What are the consequences here? That sounds like a horrible bug. For one my trade summary is screwed up, but how did you solve the resulting deviance in balance and stock count?

I think I posted this a couple pages back, but here's the summary:

There were several users that this bug caused to go negative share balance on.  For example, if they had 500 shares, an ask up for all 500 shares, and the ask got filled multiple times, they might have ended up with a balance of -1000 shares.  The trades might look like:

userA, 500 sold to userB for 0.0025
userA, 500 sold to userC for 0.0025
userA, 500 sold to userD for 0.0025

All in very rapid succession.

Rather than screwing over userC and userD, who both think they've made a fair trade, I substituted my personal account for userC and userD when unwinding the trade.  Thus to unwind it I did:

burnside, 500 sold to userA for 0.0025
burnside, 500 sold to userA for 0.0025

This would show up in userA's account simply as a share transfer from me, because I moved the coins manually on the command line.  In each share transfer I set the value of the trade that I was unwinding.

Definitely ugly.  It took me hours to manually unwind and I lost a pretty good amount of BTC because some users had already transferred their BTC off the exchange from the double/triple sale.     (One user did respond to my email request to send the coins back!  That was encouraging.)

I think this bug more or less cost me around the same amount the initial IPO brought in.  It sucks, but "stuff happens".

Hey burnside.. still getting the excessive locking tim error while placing orders.. been an hour of constant tries but no good?? any problems??

What asset?  I'll see if I can dig anything up in the logs.

One thing I noticed late last night is that the bots placing lots of orders may be causing extended lock times.  When an order is placed the process is:

- lock asset
- query db for orders on the book that might fill this incoming request
- unlock asset
- insert order and related processing

Lots of bots trying to place orders at once could potentially cause a backup.  I need to put some debug code into the process to figure it out.

Cheers.

[drdanishkhan]

Asset would be activemining.. maybe its the bots.. pesky lil things 

[dexX7]

One user did respond to my email request to send the coins back!  That was encouraging.

What an honorable man / woman!


I received a lock failure on an option a few minutes ago, but the second excercise worked.

Code:

Error:

Could not get asset lock at 7780

[klondike_bar]

getting an 'access temporarily denied' error when trying to login today?

[dexX7]

Some brainstorming after reading the LABCOIN thread and the fear that issuers dump their shares without public knowledge. Those are just some ideas and should not necessary considered as feature request, but as input for further discussions about this topic:

Implement a method to identify issuer shares. Ideally the "coloring" should prevail, even if they move shares to different accounts. Or implement a method to lock issuer shares, but I'm not sure how they could be unlocked then. Unlocking issuer shares by a vote could possibly fail, because there could be several reasons to veto the unlock by shareholders, even if it's congruent with the shareholder agreement. Another idea would be to make issuer shares visible to the public by default (this would be a selective public portfolio). Well, I'm not sure about any of those solutions..

Edit: one more - selling issuer shares could be bound to a required public news annoucement prior the sale for disclosure reasons.

Another (unrelated) idea which came into my mind after reading the changes in CIPHER's shareholder agreement: As far as I know a vote is consideres as successful, if > 50 % voters agree with the vote. It's an interesting idea to implement a voting veto. CIPHER wants to allow any shareholder or group of shareholders with >25% of the company to veto a motion, but I wouldn't go so far and leave it to the issuer, where he or she draws the line. Maybe rules like "if more than > 50 % agree, the motion is passed, but if more than > 25 % disagree, the motion failed" or something.