[BTC-TC] TAT.ASICMINER New Micro-share Passthrough!

[Eric Muyser]

Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC

[talnted]

Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC

This is the only answer that makes sense.  However, just deducting the amount from peoples accounts also makes sense.  Even if some people withdrew the dividends and still hold shares, if thier account can go into the negative this will work.  If there are a few that ran away with the dividend and sold shares, so be it.  This is the partial share pass through anyway, we arnt talking about wild amounts bitcoins here.  I think deducting from peoples accounts will get back a large amount of the double dividend.

[dexX7]

What I spotted earlier was that there were two divideneds in the history for today, but it looked like:

[dividende] QUEUED
[dividende] CANCLED

I, for my part, have no problem with returning what doesn't belong to me. Hope you guys work it out.

[hf]

Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC

This is the only answer that makes sense.  However, just deducting the amount from peoples accounts also makes sense.

Actually, it could well be that none of these two make sense.

- "A glitch" is not precise enough to know whose fault it is. Not necessarily Burnside's. Anyone as experienced and careful as TAT can make mistakes sometimes. By example submitting divs payment, ending up on a blank page and reload the page. Just an example of course, but it could happen to anyone, it's human !
- Deducting the amount makes sense only if btct has been designed and tested to handle negative balances. And believe me, this kind of software, these kind of pieces of code, have to be very thoroughly tested. You cannot just think "well, it works great for $a >= 0, and $a are floats, so -$a is certainly correctly handled. Any rounding error, negative unsafe division, negative unsafe condition... anything could go wrong if it wasn't designed and tested specifically for this use case. And we don't want burnside to lose a lot of btc because of a sneaky bug.

Anyway, I'll follow TAT closely and reimburse my divs happily, he's doing great and I wish him and burnside the best in this issue !

[freedomno1]

Yep got double div's just tell me how to pay them back when you guys figure it out

[VJain]

Well, this is awkward. I didn't even realize double dividends were paid out (and already reinvested).

If it turns out the payment has to be covered by TAT, I will refund the amount to help ensure that the PT continues it's operations... this can be done through BTCT's internal transfers (just checking) right?

[miTgiB]

Well, this is awkward. I didn't even realize double dividends were paid out (and already reinvested).

If it turns out the payment has to be covered by TAT, I will refund the amount to help ensure that the PT continues it's operations... this can be done through BTCT's internal transfers (just checking) right?

Probably not a good idea to take matters into your own hands even when you are doing nothing but the right thing.  We don't know yet how burnside will want to handle this, so doing nothing, or as much of nothing as possible is the only prudent course.

[freedomno1]

If it turns out the payment has to be covered by TAT, I will refund the amount to help ensure that the PT continues it's operations... this can be done through BTCT's internal transfers (just checking) right?

Good question BTCT does have an internal transfer that might work but would require everyone to do it not sure how many dividend holders there are
Will leave that to TAT to answer though after he gets his reply from burnside

[ThickAsThieves]

Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC

This is the only answer that makes sense.  However, just deducting the amount from peoples accounts also makes sense.

Actually, it could well be that none of these two make sense.

- "A glitch" is not precise enough to know whose fault it is. Not necessarily Burnside's. Anyone as experienced and careful as TAT can make mistakes sometimes. By example submitting divs payment, ending up on a blank page and reload the page. Just an example of course, but it could happen to anyone, it's human !
- Deducting the amount makes sense only if btct has been designed and tested to handle negative balances. And believe me, this kind of software, these kind of pieces of code, have to be very thoroughly tested. You cannot just think "well, it works great for $a >= 0, and $a are floats, so -$a is certainly correctly handled. Any rounding error, negative unsafe division, negative unsafe condition... anything could go wrong if it wasn't designed and tested specifically for this use case. And we don't want burnside to lose a lot of btc because of a sneaky bug.

Anyway, I'll follow TAT closely and reimburse my divs happily, he's doing great and I wish him and burnside the best in this issue !

I can assure you the glitch is one that occurred due to the software.

Thank you all for offering to help, I just need to wait for Burnside to handle the resolution.

[VJain]

Well, this is awkward. I didn't even realize double dividends were paid out (and already reinvested).

If it turns out the payment has to be covered by TAT, I will refund the amount to help ensure that the PT continues it's operations... this can be done through BTCT's internal transfers (just checking) right?

Probably not a good idea to take matters into your own hands even when you are doing nothing but the right thing.  We don't know yet how burnside will want to handle this, so doing nothing, or as much of nothing as possible is the only prudent course.

I mean if it turns out that Burnside cannot refund for whatever reason, I'd personally return the funds I received double of.

I'm waiting to hear official word from Burnside/TAT about what the response is regarding the glitch before I do anything "drastic" .

[bitzox]

At this point should I hold off buying shares? Don't want to complicate things for burnside/TAT if it can be avoided.

[Lorren]

I'm pretty sure that they know who owned shares (and how many) at the time of the double dividend.

[daemondazz]

Posted in the main ASICMINER thread, hadn't even seen this one before, watching now.

Also received double, happy to return the double amount  (a whole 0.00680697 in my case) either from BTCT or from my local wallet.

If burnside can't seize the funds, I don't know if he can lock trading on a per-stock per-user basis until they are marked as returning the funds? That wouldn't stop someone from continuing to trade in other stocks, but they couldn't buy or sell TAT shares until they return the funds?

[Surprise]

I'm fine with just having the amount deducted out of my account by burnside, I left the divs in there so they could be taken out easily.

[mvidetto]

For people who bought shares (me included) one way to repay the debt (if that's the route we go) is to just transfer Tat shares to thickasthieves.  Take into account market price and you don't need to sell them, saves time and fees etc.

[stslimited]

oh, I reinvested in TAT.ASICMINER, so thats "good" right? an equivalent exchange?

I just noticed that I didn't get my ASICMINER-PT shares and instead got double divs from this one

[Lorren]

Reinvesting isn't really an equivalent exchange.  I have enough to reinvest in another share as well with my double div, but if I reinvest, that benefits me more than TAT.  My reinvestment would only help TAT by giving him an additional 1/20th of a dividend payment every week for as long as I held the investment.

[Eric Muyser]

Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC

This is the only answer that makes sense.  However, just deducting the amount from peoples accounts also makes sense.

Actually, it could well be that none of these two make sense.

- "A glitch" is not precise enough to know whose fault it is. Not necessarily Burnside's. Anyone as experienced and careful as TAT can make mistakes sometimes. By example submitting divs payment, ending up on a blank page and reload the page. Just an example of course, but it could happen to anyone, it's human !
- Deducting the amount makes sense only if btct has been designed and tested to handle negative balances. And believe me, this kind of software, these kind of pieces of code, have to be very thoroughly tested. You cannot just think "well, it works great for $a >= 0, and $a are floats, so -$a is certainly correctly handled. Any rounding error, negative unsafe division, negative unsafe condition... anything could go wrong if it wasn't designed and tested specifically for this use case. And we don't want burnside to lose a lot of btc because of a sneaky bug.

Anyway, I'll follow TAT closely and reimburse my divs happily, he's doing great and I wish him and burnside the best in this issue !

- Actually I did see his first dividend payout change to CANCELED. Then the second one went out and the first one changed to COMPLETE. It's pretty common that when you do state management, you have something going async that accidentally overrides the previous state (logic error). Something that has been canceled should never go to completed. Even if he refreshed the page, which is completely underestimating burnside if you think it would (he does postbacks), it would have created a new payout, but it didn't, TAT created the 2nd one manually after he thought the first was canceled.

- That's right. There's the hassle of making sure you deduct the right amount from the right people. There's the issue of some people going WTF?! this is unprofessional. There's the issue of handling negative balances. Even if it's been tested for it, this could reveal more edge cases than deemed worth it. In addition, the people who have received the dividend, if they sell, will now be paying higher fees for moving those coins around, so when you deduct, they are losing money.

[gramma]

Thank you all for offering to help, I just need to wait for Burnside to handle the resolution.

Waiting with you - will do nothing with the funds until there's a resolution.  I agree that taking action right now will make final resolution more difficult.

[Aureum_Coffee]

@TAT

If the conclusion is to deduct from customer's account, please ask the customers first.

After Cyprus, MF Global, people have little faith in the system. 

If we go around and take from customer's account just because we can, it destroys what little reputation and trust we have built.

I am OK with returning the double dividend, just be upfront and make sure each individual customer is in the loop for the whole process.

Tread carefully. 

Cheers.