[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[ThickAsThieves]

Just an update that TAT.NEOBEE has been submitted for approval by LTC-GLOBAL voters: https://btct.co/security/TAT.NEOBEE

Burnside, could you please release this asset for voting when you get a chance?

Thank you to everyone for your consideration.

[1713583814]

1713583814

[burnside]

I have the notification for new posts (and motions) turned on, but I didn't received email about the last two DMS.SELLING motions. Is it working?

Apparently it isn't, I've already read of a few people who didn't receive it, and I didn't either.

Hmmm, I wonder what the upper limit is for postfix accepting messages from php rapid-fire... DMS.SELLING may have more asset holders than php can relay emails.

Just an update that TAT.NEOBEE has been submitted for approval by LTC-GLOBAL voters: https://btct.co/security/TAT.NEOBEE

Burnside, could you please release this asset for voting when you get a chance?

Thank you to everyone for your consideration.

Should be good to go now. 

Cheers.

[burnside]

Actually I haven't received e-mails about motions in a while, either on BTC-TC or on LTC-GLOBAL, across multiple securities.

Good call.  Looking through my mail history I see that I haven't been getting any at all either... I'll look into it.

Add: think I figured it out.  I broke it when I added the ability to check/uncheck a "send a copy to all asset holders" on the notifications.  Should be good to go now.

[mightaswellallowanonymous]

Burnside,

can you confirm whether LABCOIN has provided you accounts to lock as per
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg2896819#msg2896819

How will you show transparency with the 75% retained shares? the IPO manager will arrange some kind of way for burnside to release that information

[eltopo]

Hey Burnside,

can you please unlock the 3 securities I created?

ET.DIFF.FUTURE
ET.DIFF.LONG
ET.DIFF.SHORT

Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288765.0

Thanks!

[burnside]

Is it possible to have an API call that returns only last 24 hours/48 hours of trades?

At present the only request for transaction history give the entire transaction history - which uses up a ton of bandwith for no purpose when you're only after new trades.  I have a bot running that handles the exchanges for DMS.  Running it every 2 minutes uses up well over 1 GB of bandwidth per day - which totally scuppered my plan to run that on a seperate computer on a backup mobile bandwith connection (as it far exceeds the bandwith paid for on that connection).  And of course that's only going to get worse as time passes if entire history is sent every time (plus something similar will be running on 4 more of my accounts in the not too distant future).  And it's wasting bandwidth at the server end too.

I'm requesting a new API call - not a change to the existing one.

You mean just of your own trades?

I think I could probably add something like that to the oauth.

[Deprived]

Is it possible to have an API call that returns only last 24 hours/48 hours of trades?

At present the only request for transaction history give the entire transaction history - which uses up a ton of bandwith for no purpose when you're only after new trades.  I have a bot running that handles the exchanges for DMS.  Running it every 2 minutes uses up well over 1 GB of bandwidth per day - which totally scuppered my plan to run that on a seperate computer on a backup mobile bandwith connection (as it far exceeds the bandwith paid for on that connection).  And of course that's only going to get worse as time passes if entire history is sent every time (plus something similar will be running on 4 more of my accounts in the not too distant future).  And it's wasting bandwidth at the server end too.

I'm requesting a new API call - not a change to the existing one.

You mean just of your own trades?

I think I could probably add something like that to the oauth.

Yeah just my own trades - only one I can find at present loads everything which is pretty huge on some of my accounts.  Exactly same format as the current one just only last day or two's data.

[pascal257]

Is it possible to have an API call that returns only last 24 hours/48 hours of trades?

At present the only request for transaction history give the entire transaction history - which uses up a ton of bandwith for no purpose when you're only after new trades.  I have a bot running that handles the exchanges for DMS.  Running it every 2 minutes uses up well over 1 GB of bandwidth per day - which totally scuppered my plan to run that on a seperate computer on a backup mobile bandwith connection (as it far exceeds the bandwith paid for on that connection).  And of course that's only going to get worse as time passes if entire history is sent every time (plus something similar will be running on 4 more of my accounts in the not too distant future).  And it's wasting bandwidth at the server end too.

I'm requesting a new API call - not a change to the existing one.

You mean just of your own trades?

I think I could probably add something like that to the oauth.

Yes, please

[Rannasha]

Is it possible to have an API call that returns only last 24 hours/48 hours of trades?

At present the only request for transaction history give the entire transaction history - which uses up a ton of bandwith for no purpose when you're only after new trades.  I have a bot running that handles the exchanges for DMS.  Running it every 2 minutes uses up well over 1 GB of bandwidth per day - which totally scuppered my plan to run that on a seperate computer on a backup mobile bandwith connection (as it far exceeds the bandwith paid for on that connection).  And of course that's only going to get worse as time passes if entire history is sent every time (plus something similar will be running on 4 more of my accounts in the not too distant future).  And it's wasting bandwidth at the server end too.

I'm requesting a new API call - not a change to the existing one.

You mean just of your own trades?

I think I could probably add something like that to the oauth.

Yes please

Minor nitpick: Generating a consumer key/secret pair for the OAuth API requires the users pincode as verification, even if Google 2FA is enabled.

[Rannasha]

And after far too much time has passed (I blame baby, PhD-defense and planned emigration, but really it was mostly just laziness), I have finally completed the first well-rounded version of my C#/.NET library for the BTC-TC API.

This library includes all the API functions of BTC-TC (and Litecoin-Global), so if you're a developer you could use it to create a neat desktop client or a trade-bot or whatever you fancy. A basic demo-client is also available that demonstrates the library in action and can be used as a base for future development.

For more details, please see the thread in the Project Development forum:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291922.0

[mightaswellallowanonymous]

Burnside

I believe the time has come for this to be resolved and it is no longer a background issue - time has come in this particular instance as owner and administrator of exchange to demonstrate a reasonable level of concern for customers finances, and locking of LABCOIN security, pending resolution should start. No update has been forwarded via the issuer as yet even though it has been promised. This to me suggests evidence of cheating, lying from one or both parties.

I would like to remind that anyone that is aware of and has the power to investigate or terminate, yet allows unfettered operation of fraudulent investment schemes- that is happy to bury their head in the sand as long as it is earning them profits becomes an accessory, or an accomplice and could potentially be in for a rude awakening

[dexX7]

Burnside

I believe the time has come for this to be resolved and it is no longer a background issue - time has come in this particular instance as owner and administrator of exchange to demonstrate a reasonable level of concern for customers finances, and locking of LABCOIN security, pending resolution should start. No update has been forwarded via the issuer as yet even though it has been promised. This to me suggests evidence of cheating, lying from one or both parties.

I would like to remind that anyone that is aware of and has the power to investigate or terminate, yet allows unfettered operation of fraudulent investment schemes- that is happy to bury their head in the sand as long as it is earning them profits becomes an accessory, or an accomplice and could potentially be in for a rude awakening

It's not the administrators responsibility "to care". Please, please don't misunderstand me, but "if you get scammed, it's not burnside's fault, not the fault of missing regulation, nor the fault of the government, but solely your own". Of course this doesn't give a potential scammer any right to scam - just to be crystal clear.

Though this is a very tough decision. I feel like burnside shouldn't disclose this information, but on the other hand it's morally incorrect to not prevent preventable harm (assuming any harm could be prevented by disclosure of company held shares, which is still up to debate).

Anyway, if you decide to do it, this is where you have to look: post #417 in the Labcoin thread gives a hint. 3M shares were transfered to dev accounts before the other 7M were distributed via the IPO. Following those first 3M shares should yield some answers.

[burnside]

Burnside,

can you confirm whether LABCOIN has provided you accounts to lock as per
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg2896819#msg2896819

How will you show transparency with the 75% retained shares? the IPO manager will arrange some kind of way for burnside to release that information

I have not been handed a list unless I missed it somewhere.

I hope the LABCOIN guys don't mind me disclosing this.  Over 85% of the 3 million shares have not left a specific account I know is held in the Labcoin name.  The other 15% could easily be held in any of the next few top shareholders, but I am not privy to who is who without some assistance.

Edit/add: and this account is not locked.  I will not lock it without a specific request from the owner.

Burnside

I believe the time has come for this to be resolved and it is no longer a background issue - time has come in this particular instance as owner and administrator of exchange to demonstrate a reasonable level of concern for customers finances, and locking of LABCOIN security, pending resolution should start. No update has been forwarded via the issuer as yet even though it has been promised. This to me suggests evidence of cheating, lying from one or both parties.

I would like to remind that anyone that is aware of and has the power to investigate or terminate, yet allows unfettered operation of fraudulent investment schemes- that is happy to bury their head in the sand as long as it is earning them profits becomes an accessory, or an accomplice and could potentially be in for a rude awakening

"Nothing is verified."  It's at the top of every single page.

I do not (nor does ANY regulatory body anywhere) have the ability to track every single promise a person makes, nor the ability to enforce follow-through on such promises.

If you're nervous about it, don't get involved with that asset.  (Seriously.  Stay away from anything that you have any reservations on.)

If you do get involved of your own free will make sure you read the Disclosures, the ToS, and have the cahones to take responsibility for your own actions.

Cheers.

[tekke]

I have a question regarding My Trading Analysis , in the column "Aprox Total" the fee is added again to the total of the transaction. Example:

Date       Symbol        Action   Quantity   Amount   Approx Fee            Transaction   Approx Total *
2013   MININGCO.ETF   buy       1          -0.01000   -0.000025            -0.010025            -0.0100500625


Shouldn't the fee be paid only once?  or is an error in the page. Or Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks in advance.

[radiumsoup]

I do not (nor does ANY regulatory body anywhere) have the ability to track every single promise a person makes, nor the ability to enforce follow-through on such promises.

^^^ This is about as simple an explanation as it gets.

To expand a little, if I may, SEC and other regulators are there to try and enforce accountability between real people (and the companies they run) and their promises and duties to investors. A type of enforced trust, really, to give confidence that regulated transactions are governed by well known and long established rules to protect both parties. But, even given the regulatory hoops one must go through to list on a regulated exchange, investors are still well advised to do their due diligence against the promises made by a company. In the end, regulations are really only there as a practical base to allow investors to sue after the fact if promises are made in bad faith.

Given the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoinlandia, these types of regulations are largely unenforceable at a governmental level, as "after the fact" generally means nothing at all since funds cannot be seized by the nature of bitcoin itself. So we are left to regulate ourselves as best we can by way of community-accepted trustworthiness built over time and demand for disclosure, such as it is. But no amount of regulation can really stop anyone from performing a scam.

And another thing to keep in mind: just because you might lose money in an investment doesn't mean it was a scam - a scam requires bad faith. If a company acts in good faith, but is merely slow to fulfill its promises, or misses a few deadlines, or doesn't communicate to your level of comfort, your natural remedy is to sell your shares, perhaps at a lower price than what you paid. Such is the nature of risk and reward. Now, I'm not saying that regulation is something that should be abandoned - on the contrary, I think burnside has done a marvelous job of balancing the demands of the market with reasonable protections for all parties. But he's exactly right in that he's not responsible for the broken promises of anyone that lists with him - it's the sole responsibility of the pseudonymous entity you transact with when you buy shares. If you're not comfortable transacting with that party, demand a lower price to fit your risk model, or walk away.

[mightaswellallowanonymous]

I have not been handed a list unless I missed it somewhere.

I hope the LABCOIN guys don't mind me disclosing this.  Over 85% of the 3 million shares have not left a specific account I know is held in the Labcoin name.  The other 15% could easily be held in any of the next few top shareholders, but I am not privy to who is who without some assistance.

Edit/add: and this account is not locked.  I will not lock it without a specific request from the owner.

Thanks for your answer. I certainly don't see why they would mind such information being disclosed, one has to wonder why it did not come directly from them already with a link that the general public could actually verify. You know yourself how easy it would be to do. I simply can't think of a reason why it is not shown.

And another thing to keep in mind: just because you might lose money in an investment doesn't mean it was a scam - a scam requires bad faith. If a company acts in good faith, but is merely slow to fulfill its promises, or misses a few deadlines, or doesn't communicate to your level of comfort, your natural remedy is to sell your shares, perhaps at a lower price than what you paid. Such is the nature of risk and reward. Now, I'm not saying that regulation is something that should be abandoned - on the contrary, I think burnside has done a marvelous job of balancing the demands of the market with reasonable protections for all parties. But he's exactly right in that he's not responsible for the broken promises of anyone that lists with him - it's the sole responsibility of the pseudonymous entity you transact with when you buy shares. If you're not comfortable transacting with that party, demand a lower price to fit your risk model, or walk away.

I do believe LABCOIN is operating in bad faith, rather than being 'merely slow' or not so good with communication, that is the basis of my argument.

I don't beleive Burnside is responsible for other persons choice of investment beyond undertaking certain background checks before authorising the listing, and shouldn't be around to babysit investors every step of the way. I also don't expect him predict the future. He could of allowed this listing in perfectly good faith- same goes for Moderator votes.

Nonetheless when it comes to situations where an issuer starts acting suspiciously (go and read posting history of and tell me this is not the case) then refuses to co-operate with owner of exchange alarm bells start going off.

I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?

[burnside]

I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?

That would be absolutely unacceptable.  (and extremely unwise from an exchange perspective anyway)  Proof of fraud will get issues de-listed after giving them time to explain and/or remedy the situation.

From an exchange perspective, you have to keep in mind that only one or two such instances would soil the good name of the exchange and hurt business long-term more than it would help short-term.  I am having this struggle right now with MOO.COW.MINING.  Dividends have stopped, but the operator has claimed they are going to catch up and make good.  The whole situation around it stinks.

Cheers.

[creativex]

Second op too, they just handed off the lameness...like it was a relay baton.

[Elokane]

Were withdrawals always manual and taking so long? I made a request 10 hours ago and still got nothing. What's going on?

[Deprived]

I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?

That would be absolutely unacceptable.  (and extremely unwise from an exchange perspective anyway)  Proof of fraud will get issues de-listed after giving them time to explain and/or remedy the situation.

From an exchange perspective, you have to keep in mind that only one or two such instances would soil the good name of the exchange and hurt business long-term more than it would help short-term.  I am having this struggle right now with MOO.COW.MINING.  Dividends have stopped, but the operator has claimed they are going to catch up and make good.  The whole situation around it stinks.

Cheers.

Operator of MOO.COW is and always has been a cheap scammer.  That they took it over (from a different scammer) whilst already being in significant default on another security (and on their USD/LTC exchange website which they tried to launch as a security but failed to gain approval on and on a second mining pool) doesn't lessen that.  When someone's miles behind on dividends (not to mention the loan they should have repaid the security by now) then the minimum action from the exchange should be to delist them until they catch up.  Which won't happen here - 'emma' may be willing to pay the few LTC of missed dividends but totally lacks the cash to sort out the scammed funds from the USD/LTC exchange, the two mining pools he stole funds from and the outstanding balance owed for the loan from MOO.COW (yeah all the investors have forgotten about that but it still exists).

I pointed most of this out when the vote to allow him to take over went up - though in fairness investors couldn't do a lot as at that point the other scammer had shipped him the hardware and for practical purposes it was a done deal.  All the change of owners did was muddy the waters over determining which scammer had stolen what - it in no way changed the fact that the security was issued by one scammer who gave it to another scammer and that investors were always shit out of luck.

There IS a non-zero chance that 'emma' isn't a scammer (and is just going for a world record in incompetence).  In which case it's scary he has children as his genes will propagate.  But scammer is the odds-on favourite by a mile.

Disclosure : I own nothing issued by 'emma' though I have made a profit trading them profitably for LTC-ATF in the past.  Even when I traded them it was obvious he was a scammer (and I posted saying so) but the idiots around here are SO stupid that you can explain why something's a scam and then sell them it for a profit anyway.  Which is either great or extremely depressing depending on how you look at it.