Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:34:09 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intersango exchange (formerly Britcoin)  (Read 71118 times)
realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 13, 2012, 02:01:03 PM
 #581

I don't think I was very clear.

The front end development has stopped but I can assure you I am still developing the backend.

Good stuff.

The first thing you suggest is a standing order, that is certainly something which could be implemented and would require little more than a cron job. (or triggers in the payments scripts)

A standing order repeats regularly; that wasn't what I was asking for.  Merely the ability to place an unfunded order.  When the funds are available, the order can complete.  It lets me send money from my bank account and setup an order at the same time.  Presently I have to send the money, then monitor Intersango for two days until the money clears and I can create an order.

As for specifying a specific amount of GBP to buy/sell... this is essentially impossible.  You can specify the amount you wish to buy/sell however you will almost certainly not actually be fulfilled for that exact amount.

Say you place a BUY @ 5 GBP for 100, this will almost certainly result in you spending less than 500 GBP.

Don't think so.

The "impossibility" is different on each side of the trade.  If I have £100 then I can definitely spend £100.  If I have 100 BTC then I can definitely spend 100 BTC.  In each case I also specify a limit to the price I am willing to exchange at, so we can't predict exactly what I'll get in exchange (but the price specifies a minimum).

"I have £100, and am willing to pay up to 4.5 for each coin".  That is a SELL GBP order.  Intersango forces me to say, "I have £100, which at 4.5 for each coin is 22.22222 BTC".  That's a BUY BTC order.  Under the covers your order engine can only be handling SELL GBP and SELL BTC anyway; since the real funds only exist for SELL orders.  For example nothing stops me saying "BUY 10,000,000 BTC at 0.00001", if I have £100.  The 10,000,000 BTC isn't real in that order though, the £100 is -- hence that order is truely a SELL 100 GBP, not a BUY 10,000,000 BTC.

However, direct SELL support would merely be a bonus feature.  The main thing is that in order for me to buy £100 worth of coins, I have to get the calculator out myself.  The website should do the sum for me.  It's nothing to do with an order book; just a bit of UI to make it easier for the user.  Mt.Gox has got it (kind of) right, if I fill in the price field first, then as I type in either the USD or BTC fields, the other is calculated on the fly.

And, incidentally, if combined with over-specified order support (as Mt.Gox has) I could just enter an order to buy more than 22.22222 for £100 (say by specifying that I want to buy 23 BTC at 4.5 for 100), and anything that was left over thanks to a lower price match would get hoovered up automatically.

We tried a wider layout but it mostly just results in data being very spread out and hard to read.  As most of the information we're displaying is lists of things I feel the current vertical layout is optimal.

I must have written badly.  I meant that the layout is too wide.  I get a horizontal scroll bar.  I'm fine with vertical scrolling.

I didn't add the indication for BTC deposits mostly as a precaution against mistakes.  Doing so significantly complicates the setup for relatively little gain.

I don't understand what the "mistake" could be that you're protecting against.  I can't spend money that hasn't cleared.

It's your software so only you know; but I don't really see how it complicates it.  Maybe for the initial transaction notification; but surely an indicator on one confirmation isn't hard?

Code:
// Call bitcoind getreceivedbyaddress XXXXX
if( json.confirmations > 0 && json.confirmations < 6 ) {
   print "uncleared";
} else if( json.confirmations >= 6 ) {
   handleDeposit();
}

I mean somewhere you must have code that is monitoring a set of addresses for new balances?  Copy the confirmation number as well as the amount into the database.  Dare I suggest then that you could set that same field to "-1" to indicate when a relevant transaction has been broadcast?  BitcoinSpinner the android app manages to tell me within seconds when there is money on its way; it seems odd that a full web application, with blockchain and custom software can't.


1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Lord F(r)og
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 477



View Profile
January 13, 2012, 08:56:55 PM
 #582

one hundred percent trouble-free deposits with Intersango here even though I've got some strange behaviour with bank-sided transaction-generation. upon requesting support via mail did the trick. considering in general the services provided for free are much more than sufficient. if you want more then feel free donating...
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
January 14, 2012, 08:38:08 PM
 #583

UK transfers

We are experiencing banking difficulties and our account is locked. It is likely nothing to worry about but current transfers will be bounced back until this is resolved. We have dealt with problems like this in the past.

Yesterday (Friday), we had a discussion with our business manager who will look into the problem. We have an appointment scheduled for Monday where we will find out the issue and it should be resolved.

We've had 2 previous incidents before with Lloyds which caused our account to be locked because of less than 20 GBP transfers which were categorized as suspicious in nature and our account was reactivated immediately.

- UK transfers received on or after the evening of the 9th will be delayed.
- Transfers made now will bounce back to your account.
- More information on Monday 16 Jan
sonba
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 395


View Profile
January 14, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
 #584

Good luck, genjix! If we can help you somehow give us a shout Smiley
Pontius
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225


View Profile
January 20, 2012, 05:24:42 PM
 #585

Any plans to make withdrawals, deposits and IOC/FOK orders available through the API?
phantomcircuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 463


View Profile
January 20, 2012, 07:52:21 PM
 #586

Any plans to make withdrawals, deposits and IOC/FOK orders available through the API?

withdrawals, deposits, and IOC/FOK orders are all available through the API

currently only paxum and bitcoin withdrawals can be created through the API though

https://bitcoinconsultancy.com/wiki/Intersango/API
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
January 20, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
 #587

The bank account is now operational. Apologies for the delay this week. It was a technical error on the side of the bank and has been fixed.

Deposits and withdrawals from this week have been completed.

I think a bunch of banks have experienced technical faults this week and it may be worth your time to inquire as you might be viable for compensation. A friend told me this:

Quote
>> my bank called and they still haven't figured out why my transfers were rejected
>> my bank manager passed it on to customer relations for "obvious compensation" because the technical faults department have been handling similar issues for a week without giving him a reason.

Details of the technical error:

In the UK there are 3 payment types between banks called BACS, FPS and CHAPS. CHAPS is for high end payments (like moving a million or more) so we will ignore that. BACS is the old transfer type and usually takes 5 working business days. FPS is a newer government mandated inter-bank standard that makes payments within 1-2 business days but usually within a few hours.

A payment within the same bank is a transfer (TFR) so we'll ignore that.

The UK government has mandated that all banks have to move to FPS by the end of this year (IIRC), and has given optional guidelines to the banks. Lloyds probably disabled BACS from a whole bunch of accounts including Intersango's account (Interteni).

We had a few BACS payments which caused some problems for them when they did the migration (due to our transaction volume it might have been tricky). This is what they meant when our transactions have caused a problem in the processing queue. That we had submitted payments using BACS from our account, then BACS was disabled from our account but they still had the payments to be processed on the queue which caused an error.

BACS transfers no longer exist for Intersango. Most banks should have them deprecated now. This should not affect the majority of users and we have emailed the affected individuals.
yogi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


Hamster ate my bitcoin


View Profile
January 20, 2012, 09:02:42 PM
 #588

Glad to hear you got everything working again genjix.

Keep up the good work!

Pontius
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225


View Profile
January 21, 2012, 07:37:21 AM
 #589


Ah, didn't know about this page. I only knew about https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Intersango/API and there's nothing about FOK/IOC/withdrawals.
Anyway thanks a lot for pointing me to the right place.
realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 30, 2012, 09:58:10 AM
 #590

Please take the following in the spirit it's intended: feedback from a customer, not an attack.

This is a shame:

Quote
In a week however, we will be monetizing and charging a small 0.65% fee on trades as of 2012-02-03 24:00 GMT to keep Intersango running.

Not because of a fee being introduced; that was only to be expected.  It's a shame that the fee is so high (despite the out-of-character marketing speak addition of "small" in the announcement).  I like Intersango; but I was hoping that when fees were introduced they would be competitive (given that they were already running the very attractive 0%).

Consider that your competition is Mt.Gox; compared to them you have:

  • Reduced features (placing orders is, as I described above, still a calculator-requiring job; and you still have no "pending funds" state possible for prepared orders.)
  • No live chart/order book.
  • Considerably lower volume.
  • Considerably wider spread.

And you're adding to that list... "considerably higher fees" and "no economy of scale fee schedule".  Mt.Gox fees already sting a bit at 0.4%-0.5%.  I'm not a huge volume trader, and my rate hovers around 0.4%.  So your "small" fee of of 0.65% is 62% higher than your competitor.

I have tended to move £1,000 at a time through the bitcoin system to dollars (or dollars to pounds).  The spreads can cost me (depending on the day), 1-2% (that's not your problem, that's the market.  FYI: at time of writing it's -4.8% versus FOREX to go via bitcoin from pounds to dollars); Mt.Gox is 0.4%; now Intersango is 0.65% and there is no volume to allow quick finalisation (alternatively, I can close at market and suffer 4-5% spread loss).  It can easily be higher than just using the banking system (or spit, spit, paypal).

I understand completely that you have to have a profitable business; you can't operate for free forever.  I'm merely offering my perspective as a customer that these fees are too high to make it sensible for me to use as a service (of course these things aren't binary; it's a continuum.  I'll still use Intersango, but the barrier is higher now).  Certainly until the trade volume and spreads get more favourable on Intersango (the addition of fees is certainly not going help that situation, though).

I wonder if it's not going to be a choice for you of "0.65% of nothing" or "0.3% of something"?

I absolutely want Intersango to become a viable business.  That means operating on more than the good will of bitcoin enthusiasts though.  And I'm afraid that with such high fees, that that is the only source of income.

The 20% rule is you've got to be 20% better; 20% faster or 20% nicer than your competition to steal customers.  You are quite a nice company; so I hope that's enough.

1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
Seal
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 833


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
 #591

Please take the following in the spirit it's intended: feedback from a customer, not an attack.

This is a shame:

Quote
In a week however, we will be monetizing and charging a small 0.65% fee on trades as of 2012-02-03 24:00 GMT to keep Intersango running.

Not because of a fee being introduced; that was only to be expected.  It's a shame that the fee is so high (despite the out-of-character marketing speak addition of "small" in the announcement).  I like Intersango; but I was hoping that when fees were introduced they would be competitive (given that they were already running the very attractive 0%).

Consider that your competition is Mt.Gox; compared to them you have:

  • Reduced features (placing orders is, as I described above, still a calculator-requiring job; and you still have no "pending funds" state possible for prepared orders.)
  • No live chart/order book.
  • Considerably lower volume.
  • Considerably wider spread.

And you're adding to that list... "considerably higher fees" and "no economy of scale fee schedule".  Mt.Gox fees already sting a bit at 0.4%-0.5%.  I'm not a huge volume trader, and my rate hovers around 0.4%.  So your "small" fee of of 0.65% is 62% higher than your competitor.

I have tended to move £1,000 at a time through the bitcoin system to dollars (or dollars to pounds).  The spreads can cost me (depending on the day), 1-2% (that's not your problem, that's the market.  FYI: at time of writing it's -4.8% versus FOREX to go via bitcoin from pounds to dollars); Mt.Gox is 0.4%; now Intersango is 0.65% and there is no volume to allow quick finalisation (alternatively, I can close at market and suffer 4-5% spread loss).  It can easily be higher than just using the banking system (or spit, spit, paypal).

I understand completely that you have to have a profitable business; you can't operate for free forever.  I'm merely offering my perspective as a customer that these fees are too high to make it sensible for me to use as a service (of course these things aren't binary; it's a continuum.  I'll still use Intersango, but the barrier is higher now).  Certainly until the trade volume and spreads get more favourable on Intersango (the addition of fees is certainly not going help that situation, though).

I wonder if it's not going to be a choice for you of "0.65% of nothing" or "0.3% of something"?

I absolutely want Intersango to become a viable business.  That means operating on more than the good will of bitcoin enthusiasts though.  And I'm afraid that with such high fees, that that is the only source of income.

The 20% rule is you've got to be 20% better; 20% faster or 20% nicer than your competition to steal customers.  You are quite a nice company; so I hope that's enough.

+1

I'm totally behind you on this one realnowhereman.

Intersango: I think your service is great, I too acknowledge that charging fees is an important way to raise funds to run the business and knew this was inevitable. I am however disappointed that high volume traders are not rewarded with any sort of discount. Are there any plans to offer frequent traders discounts on trading volume? I'd respectfully like to suggest:

- A slightly lower fee across the board. 0.65% is at the top end of what I'd expect and I imagine this may end up damaging Intersango's own business by massively reducing liquidity.
- A system like MtGox's (although I'd hate to compare you to them) whereby discounts are offered based upon trade volume.
- If you are set on charging 0.65% across the board, then how about a 3 phase introduction, for example, initially charging 0.2% for a month, then 0.4% for another month, then the full 0.65%. Going from 0%, to 0.65% with 1 weeks notice is quite a risky move which certainly took me by surprise.

phantomcircuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 463


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 04:12:33 PM
 #592

We've heard from a few users over the last few days in regards to the new fee schedule.  In response we will be implementing a loyalty program to reward our higher volume clients.  Details of the program will be released in the next few days.

In the mean time we suggest you look at the costs of transfer to and from Intersango as opposed to just the trading commission. You will find that in many ways Intersango's rates are much lower than any competition.
Seal
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 833


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 11:49:12 PM
 #593

We've heard from a few users over the last few days in regards to the new fee schedule.  In response we will be implementing a loyalty program to reward our higher volume clients.  Details of the program will be released in the next few days.

In the mean time we suggest you look at the costs of transfer to and from Intersango as opposed to just the trading commission. You will find that in many ways Intersango's rates are much lower than any competition.

+1 to Intersango. Respect.

realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 11:54:34 PM
 #594

We've heard from a few users over the last few days in regards to the new fee schedule.  In response we will be implementing a loyalty program to reward our higher volume clients.  Details of the program will be released in the next few days.

In the mean time we suggest you look at the costs of transfer to and from Intersango as opposed to just the trading commission. You will find that in many ways Intersango's rates are much lower than any competition.

Good news on the volume discounts, but bear in mind that for a trader, the transfer fee applies once, the trading fee applies again and again.

1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 03, 2012, 03:59:30 PM
 #595

New user since yesterday, just found out about the fees... so basically I have just one day to trade without fees. I signed up here for that reason in the first place.

Consider adopting 0.4% instead, this way you can get more users and justify not jumping over to MtGox. Honestly, I don't think you can afford to be more expensive than the reference market.

In any case, if you go ahead I will just operate on both giving priority to MtGox, since their fee does go down... anyway I should be calculating all expenses carefully and now I have another incentive to do so.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
phantomcircuit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 463


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 06:06:58 AM
 #596

New user since yesterday, just found out about the fees... so basically I have just one day to trade without fees. I signed up here for that reason in the first place.

Consider adopting 0.4% instead, this way you can get more users and justify not jumping over to MtGox. Honestly, I don't think you can afford to be more expensive than the reference market.

In any case, if you go ahead I will just operate on both giving priority to MtGox, since their fee does go down... anyway I should be calculating all expenses carefully and now I have another incentive to do so.

Our fee schedule will be rapidly evolving to better suit our users needs.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 12:25:26 PM
 #597

We will be switching to a new bank soon. Banking with Lloyds is not a sustainable situation. We have 2 bank accounts ready, and we're going to go ahead with those. The Lloyds account will be closed by the end of this month. More details once I know more.
thirdlight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 281



View Profile
February 07, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
 #598

Can I make a suggestion with regard to fees?

Charge only for fiat withdrawals.

Depositing & withdrawing btc must be free - lack of fee is a huge selling point for the system.
Trading should be free - encourages use & liquidity.
Depositing fiat should be as close to free as possible, maybe with a minimum desposit - encourages money, and new users, into the system.
Withdrawing fiat can be taxed - discourage money leaving the system. This part has the least elasticity of demand, so is a good target.

I mainly use Intersango to sell btc for £ to pay electricity & hardware, so this schedule would disadvantage me, but advantage bitcoin generally.

Just my 0.076btc worth.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 01:11:55 PM
 #599

Charge only for fiat withdrawals.

I had this idea too. It would encourage people to trade more, and encourage people to hold bitcoins. I'm going to ask the others why they decided against this (can't remember).
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 07, 2012, 01:31:39 PM
 #600

We will be switching to a new bank soon. Banking with Lloyds is not a sustainable situation. We have 2 bank accounts ready, and we're going to go ahead with those. The Lloyds account will be closed by the end of this month. More details once I know more.

Is this why my transfer from yesterday isn't fulfilled yet?

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!