Topic: BitFunder - Lets grow together! A request to all users - https://bitfunder.com - page 7. (Read 16624 times)

I have been unable to sign up with weexchange for some reason.  Sent an email and no reply for over a week now.

Basic problem is signed up with weex and it wouldnt accept password, tried a password reset but there is no place to enter
the code that is sent so totally stuck.

EDIT: Tried it again and am able to enter code now to reset password.  Also discovered had to use username vs email address.

I like it just the way it is.  Don't change a thing.    (j/k!)

I like the additional layer of security provided by "Weed Exchange."     If you're too impatient to deal with it, go play on a different site.  It's not MPEX, FFS.

I don't like the lengthy response time for WX support because that mitigates the security advantage.  If there is a zero day exploit or other penetration, how long is it going to take before somebody at WX notices or gets the memo?

BF fees should be reduced as volume increases.

Asset owners should have to put up an anti-scammer collateral bond, publicly visible and distributable to shareholders upon them pulling an Ian ScamWell.

We need more info about jurisdictional regulatory legal risk.  Can the Queen seize WX/BF if she gets a bug up Her arse, or Obama "suggests" it's in Her interest to do so?

The News updates only list the asset owner.  There should be a link to the asset too.

I love the BTCE trollbox, but it is a security hazard and has been used for phishing.

Email verification for withdrawal is a good idea, esp. if users may select the threshold (IE, email me for confirmation, but only when more than 5 BTC are being moved).

Let the HFT bots go wild.  As long as they pay their fair share, the increased volume and liquidity are good for the exchange.  Surprising to see Luddites insisting on manual-only trades here.   

Stop wasting time and risking money on Ripple.  I don't want anything to do with the Sand Hill Road VC mafia's attempt to subsume/contain Bitcoin-type technologies.

The margin fix now pushes too far to the right.  You should have made the navigation stretch out to a fluid container, and not have in-line margin edits.  You should work more with the native Bootstrap CSS instead of patching over it for using it incorrectly.

Hmm, very good points.

As for the withdraw, you think 0.01btc is too high?

I tried out bitfunder and btct, but have consolidated all my funds over on btct for a couple reasons:

Notifications: with btct I get an email every time I buy, sell or get a dividend. With BitFunder I only knew if my orders had been filled if I load the site, log in, click a couple links to find the transaction history. At the very least a message should show up when you load the site which shows your activity since your last visit.

Charts: Your current charts seem to load slow and do not really give very good information. Instead of having the x-axis have one equally spaced point for each trade, the x-axis should be time and the points should be grouped according to the time.

Minimum withdrawal: I also think this is a bit high, especially since the price of bitcoins went up a factor of ten since you originally set the minimum.

Not for me, as long as there's anything that even smells like wee on Bitfunder, I'm staying away.

.b

The issue was the accepting mail server did not like the native characters provided by users on signup and was rejecting the emails. Talk about amateurs !

I was able to contact one euro ISP about it, and they had it fixed in 2 days.

Others seem to large to care to response or look at their support emails.

Either way, the problem has been resolved.

Indeed, that must be it.

.b

Man, you really love jumping to conclusions based on nearly arbitrary data...

Wee exchange is a deal-breaker for me, always has been, always will be.

Beyond that, I have no idea because I'm not using a site on which I do not trust the security. When I recently got an email that the system had failed to register med for two month because I have non-English characters in my name, I got all the evidence I need that the site is developed by amateurs, and I've seen enough professionally developed money systems fail to stay miles away from anything that looks, acts, and smells like amateur hour and doesn't give me an immedate sense of security.

.b

Actually, you do not hold USD on BitFunder.
You hold shares of the FIAT.USD asset.

The problem is that the vast majority of offerings on your exchange (same for BTC.CO and LTC-GLobal) actually change value more in line with fiat than with crypto currencies.  All mining shares for starters.  All currency exchanging systems where funds are tied up in USD post-sale.  ANy company whose stock and prices are set in USD.  PM funds.

BTC-denominated securities are largely a pretence - they're USD-valued securities being sold priced in BTC with artifical attempts to try to maintain a stable price in BTC.  There ARE exceptions - but those are a small minority.

Having to place orders in BTC for something which has a value that will change mainly in synch with USD forces the spread to be wider - and liquidity to be lower.

Guess the solution will be to use a bot and the API to maintain orders.

If it is already possible to have options on USD on your platform, why not use these?

While I do agree this would be useful, it unfortunately opens up a whole new additional legal can of worms.
Not to mention the engine constantly have to check pricing of bids.
Also, as BTC price shifts around (and swings sometimes crazily within minutes) it would cause massive consistent changes to the order books.
For example, if I placed $10 USD worth of a BID on the books for 1 share, as the market price (Which market should be used? gox?) can swing pretty fast in 30 minutes, causing the order to move up or down in the order book constantly.

Also, the main point of these exchanges were to have cryptocurrency based exchanges, not fiat based exchanges. If you want a fiat based exchange, there are plenty around the world.

Between legal, tech, and reasoning I don't see it happening.

I'll clarify - as I'm pretty certain Sukrim is referring to a feature I'd find massively useful.

A lot of securities are effectively denominated in different currencies to BTC - generally USD.  But at present all orders have to placed in BTC - leading to securities with face values fixed in BTC when that doesn't reflect the reality of the security value.

What would be useful is to be able to place a bid/ask at $X - and it would be displayed in the order book (in BTC) at whatever the current BTC value of $X was (and automatically maintained at that value).

Consider if I issued a security that had a face value of $1.

At present I'd have to manually calculate what $1 was worth in BTC - and could never leave orders up unattended as if the exchange-rate moved unfavourably I'd end up not receiving or spending the BTC equivalent of $1.

What would be good, instead, is to be able to place them for sale at $1 - then the exchange maintain the BTC price based on latest exchange-rates.  It's not actually quite as useful as it may sound - as unless funds are promptly converted there's still exchange-rate risk.  But it would allow the placement of unattended orders knowing that any loss due to exchange-rate would be because of moves AFTER your orders had been filled, not to people filling your orders after an unfavourable exchange-rate move.  It would allow more liquidity on securities with heavy fiat exposure in particular.

EDIT: I see sukrim responded whilst I was typing my post - it's same point anyway.

PM sent and answered, thanks

I mean something like "selling 1 share of "SUKRIM.DEBT" for 10 USD", then depending on the current market anyone can use 10 USD worth of LTC or BTC to buy 1 share.

This would also make it clarer for mining bond holders what they are investing in, as these need to be priced and valuated in USD imho.

It was, the notion of having to deal with another Exchange website to use Bitfunder was enough to convince me to use btct.co instead.

As I told AMC,

I am only supportive of their mining, and not chip production.

Some say its ASICminer 2.0 .. well i seriously think they are just BFL 2.0.. big promises no deliveries..