[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[eiprol]

I just wanted to tell you that the app that I was coding for iPhone/iPod is already on the AppStore, and I've just submited an ios7 improved version.
It's very simple (and free), and let you check the stocks of BTC-TC with no need of login!

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/btct-ticker/id694326411?mt=8

I hope it's useful for anybody!

[1714937450]

1714937450

[1714937450]

1714937450

[1714937450]

1714937450

[1714937450]

1714937450

[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.

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.

It definitely sounds to me like it's time to delist it.  Any arguments against?

[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.

It definitely sounds to me like it's time to delist it.  Any arguments against?

I'd suspend it rather than totally delist it.  With criteria for going back live being:

1.  Provide proper accounting for the losses on LHCOIN and the plan going forward.
2.  Sort out the mess with his USD/LTC exchange (he held back payments claiming his PP account was frozen - but then claimed subsequently to have made payments via PP in respect of MOO.COW).  If his account got suspended it's no excuse not to have paid other people 6 months on.
3.  Repay the LTC he personally owes  to MOO.COW plus back dividends.  You may (or more likely may not - seems noone except me remembers it even though the posts detailing it still exist and were quoted so can't be deleted) remember supposedly he borrowed cash from MOO.COW when the previous scammer ran it and allegedly paid back some of that via PP (whilst his PP account being frozen was the excuse for not repaying people who'd sent him PP USD).  But that still left a chunk of what he acknowledges as having personally borrowed  never being repaid.

There's like zero chance he'll pay back but we have to at least pretend he may repay what he owes (only way he will is if he can get more loaned/invested into him - everything I see says he's busto).  In practice all you'll get is excuses and vague promises.  Unfortunately I'm increasingly convinced he was actually working with the other scammer (the schoolkid who launched the security originally) and that the transfer was an intentional attempt to make it a mess to work out who was responsible.  I didn't expect him to default QUITE so fast (I barely cleared my own position profitably in time) - but guess once it became apparent his latest scam dressed up as a security wasn't going to get votes then there ceased to be any benefit to him in making payments.

Loufie (triple B) is next btw.  He's having to steal more blatantly all the time - and will likely default when his next secuirty fails to get approval.  He's been skimming (pretending to solo mine with bad luck/mining for non-existent securities where he has no right/taking the 'development' fund for inappropriate purposes) for a while but recently it's becoming more obvious as the amount he skims becomes a larger percentage of total mined coins.  Probably still a few months before you have to delist his.

[radiumsoup]

It definitely sounds to me like it's time to delist it.  Any arguments against?

I'd suspend it rather than totally delist it.  With criteria for going back live being:

1.  Provide proper accounting for the losses on LHCOIN and the plan going forward.
2.  Sort out the mess with his USD/LTC exchange (he held back payments claiming his PP account was frozen - but then claimed subsequently to have made payments via PP in respect of MOO.COW).  If his account got suspended it's no excuse not to have paid other people 6 months on.
3.  Repay the LTC he personally owes  to MOO.COW plus back dividends.  You may (or more likely may not - seems noone except me remembers it even though the posts detailing it still exist and were quoted so can't be deleted) remember supposedly he borrowed cash from MOO.COW when the previous scammer ran it and allegedly paid back some of that via PP (whilst his PP account being frozen was the excuse for not repaying people who'd sent him PP USD).  But that still left a chunk of what he acknowledges as having personally borrowed  never being repaid.

I know nothing about the guy, and have no stake in MOO.COW or anything else bovine-related, but I think adding a requirement to honor contracts outside the purview of the contract filed with the exchange would set a bad precedent. So I'd say as long as he fulfills the MOO.COW contract terms and pays dividends as required, I'm not sure proof of accounting on non-related instruments should be required. I mean, it's not like suspending or delisting will actually grab back money owed (unless you can freeze his account, burnside, but I doubt there's any BTC in there if he's skimming elsewhere.) But yeah, seems reasonable from my disinterested 3rd party perspective to suspend the security for non payment of dividends - and the resumption of trading should be predicated on the payment of dividends, though, and nothing more (if that's the limit of the liability from a contractual standpoint.)

[burnside]

I'd suspend it rather than totally delist it.  With criteria for going back live being:

1.  Provide proper accounting for the losses on LHCOIN and the plan going forward.
2.  Sort out the mess with his USD/LTC exchange (he held back payments claiming his PP account was frozen - but then claimed subsequently to have made payments via PP in respect of MOO.COW).  If his account got suspended it's no excuse not to have paid other people 6 months on.
3.  Repay the LTC he personally owes  to MOO.COW plus back dividends.  You may (or more likely may not - seems noone except me remembers it even though the posts detailing it still exist and were quoted so can't be deleted) remember supposedly he borrowed cash from MOO.COW when the previous scammer ran it and allegedly paid back some of that via PP (whilst his PP account being frozen was the excuse for not repaying people who'd sent him PP USD).  But that still left a chunk of what he acknowledges as having personally borrowed  never being repaid.

There's like zero chance he'll pay back but we have to at least pretend he may repay what he owes (only way he will is if he can get more loaned/invested into him - everything I see says he's busto).  In practice all you'll get is excuses and vague promises.  Unfortunately I'm increasingly convinced he was actually working with the other scammer (the schoolkid who launched the security originally) and that the transfer was an intentional attempt to make it a mess to work out who was responsible.  I didn't expect him to default QUITE so fast (I barely cleared my own position profitably in time) - but guess once it became apparent his latest scam dressed up as a security wasn't going to get votes then there ceased to be any benefit to him in making payments.

Loufie (triple B) is next btw.  He's having to steal more blatantly all the time - and will likely default when his next secuirty fails to get approval.  He's been skimming (pretending to solo mine with bad luck/mining for non-existent securities where he has no right/taking the 'development' fund for inappropriate purposes) for a while but recently it's becoming more obvious as the amount he skims becomes a larger percentage of total mined coins.  Probably still a few months before you have to delist his.

I already had a warning up on it that it was in violation of the contract, I've altered it to read:

WARNING -- This asset is in violation of it's contract. Trading will be frozen September 15th.

Please let me know if/when other issuers violate their contracts.  I'll post similar warnings so new buyers don't get sucked in.

[iCEBREAKER]

Something called 'MOO.COW.MINING' was approved for BTCT, and now turns out to be a scam.   

Yet Ice.Drill, a totally legit security, is rejected by the BTCT Board?   

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark!   

[burnside]

Something called 'MOO.COW.MINING' was approved for BTCT, and now turns out to be a scam.  

Yet Ice.Drill, a totally legit security, is rejected by the BTCT Board?    

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark!    

It was on the LTC site actually.  I think things are a bit more laid back over there.

I agree though, it never should have been approved. (hindsight's always 20/20) It's been a learning experience for many.

[dxxw]

"Access temporarily denied."
I got this when I login today.

Has anything like that ever happened to you guys?
What should I do now?

[dxxw]

"Access temporarily denied."
I got this when I login today.

Has anything like that ever happened to you guys?
What should I do now?

Is burnside here?

[Rannasha]

"Access temporarily denied."
I got this when I login today.

Has anything like that ever happened to you guys?
What should I do now?

It happened to me once or twice, for no apparent reason. Just wait 5-10 minutes and try again.

[dxxw]

"Access temporarily denied."
I got this when I login today.

Has anything like that ever happened to you guys?
What should I do now?

It happened to me once or twice, for no apparent reason. Just wait 5-10 minutes and try again.

It worked.Thank you a lot.

[junkonator]

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.

I lol'ed hard! Moo.Cow has for a long time been my second most profitable security on litecoin-global overall (I obviously had no previous trading experience back then).

It really IS more on the depressing side of things.

[Deprived]

Please let me know if/when other issuers violate their contracts.  I'll post similar warnings so new buyers don't get sucked in.

Well there's LHPOOL - operated by emma (same as MOO.COW).  Stopped paying dividends ages ago then claimed the wallet had been stolen.

LTC-ARCADE - operated by greedi who vanished in January.  That one should be locked as there's not even been any pretence of action on it for over 6 months.

LTC-GAMING - should have a warning on it.  He still pays out occasional tiny dividends but appears to given up any pretence that he's actually doing anything.  There's just occasional pump/dumps on it.

[pascal257]

Please let me know if/when other issuers violate their contracts.  I'll post similar warnings so new buyers don't get sucked in.

LTC-GAMING - should have a warning on it.  He still pays out occasional tiny dividends but appears to given up any pretence that he's actually doing anything.  There's just occasional pump/dumps on it.

He also uses his large amount of shares to manipulate the share price.

[Deprived]

Please let me know if/when other issuers violate their contracts.  I'll post similar warnings so new buyers don't get sucked in.

LTC-GAMING - should have a warning on it.  He still pays out occasional tiny dividends but appears to given up any pretence that he's actually doing anything.  There's just occasional pump/dumps on it.

He also uses his large amount of shares to manipulate the share price.

Yep - the large number of shares that he had no right to take himself in the first place.

[Vysogota]

I have a newbie question about how btc-tc works. I wonder if there is a special form to purchase shares during IPO phase or I just have to place buy order as usual.

I am confused, because there are buy orders for TAT.NEOBEE already, while its IPO is set to start next Friday. What does this mean? Can I place my buy order at IPO price right now? Will it be binding?

Thanks in advance

[Carnth]

I have a newbie question about how btc-tc works. I wonder if there is a special form to purchase shares during IPO phase or I just have to place buy order as usual.

I am confused, because there are buy orders for TAT.NEOBEE already, while its IPO is set to start next Friday. What does this mean? Can I place my buy order at IPO price right now? Will it be binding?

Thanks in advance

You can purchase IPO shares just like normal shares. Just place your bid as usual. You can cancel your bid at anytime before it is filled with no penalty.

[odolvlobo]

I have a newbie question about how btc-tc works. I wonder if there is a special form to purchase shares during IPO phase or I just have to place buy order as usual.

I am confused, because there are buy orders for TAT.NEOBEE already, while its IPO is set to start next Friday. What does this mean? Can I place my buy order at IPO price right now? Will it be binding?

Thanks in advance

There is no real IPO process. An IPO is just the issuer putting all the shares on the market. There are many failed IPOs because the issuer really has no idea how much interest there is until the shares are put on the market.

[pascal257]

I have a newbie question about how btc-tc works. I wonder if there is a special form to purchase shares during IPO phase or I just have to place buy order as usual.

I am confused, because there are buy orders for TAT.NEOBEE already, while its IPO is set to start next Friday. What does this mean? Can I place my buy order at IPO price right now? Will it be binding?

Thanks in advance

There is no real IPO process. An IPO is just the issuer putting all the shares on the market. There are many failed IPOs because the issuer really has no idea how much interest there is until the shares are put on the market.

There's something called Book building. Not that I don't agree with you that some IPOs failed, but even with legit operations you sometimes need book building.

[burnside]

"Access temporarily denied."
I got this when I login today.

Has anything like that ever happened to you guys?
What should I do now?

Is burnside here?

I've answered this 20x before. 

That happens either when someone has been trying to hack your account or you've pissed off our DDoS filter.  Both situations are temporary and reset eventually, the former takes much longer than the latter.

Please let me know if/when other issuers violate their contracts.  I'll post similar warnings so new buyers don't get sucked in.

Well there's LHPOOL - operated by emma (same as MOO.COW).  Stopped paying dividends ages ago then claimed the wallet had been stolen.

LTC-ARCADE - operated by greedi who vanished in January.  That one should be locked as there's not even been any pretence of action on it for over 6 months.

LTC-GAMING - should have a warning on it.  He still pays out occasional tiny dividends but appears to given up any pretence that he's actually doing anything.  There's just occasional pump/dumps on it.

LHPOOL: Posted a warning.  Will halt trading around the 20th if we don't hear from Emma

LTC-ARCADE: Locked.

LTC-GAMING: Hard to argue that there are any outright contract violations.  I am confused as to where the miniscule divs are coming from though.  Contract says they should be coming from the site's revenue...

Cheers.