Topic: [BTC-TC] TAT.ASICMINER New Micro-share Passthrough! - page 14. (Read 37852 times)
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.
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.
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?
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?
I'm pretty sure that they know who owned shares (and how many) at the time of the double dividend.
At this point should I hold off buying shares? Don't want to complicate things for burnside/TAT if it can be avoided.
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?
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"
. 
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.
- "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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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?
Yep got double div's just tell me how to pay them back when you guys figure it out
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.
- "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 !
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.
[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.
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.
Burnside should reimburse TAT for the glitch in his system and say it's a gift for using BTCTC
Furthermore, the duplicate dividend should have to be removed from the history too, otherwise it would screw up the statistics (both the asset statistics and the personal ones).
Would it be acceptable to give people a negative balance if they didn't have enough funds to return?
That's up to Burnside. Even that solution isn't totally solving the problem though.
I'm just hoping everyone else is honest and doesn't try to screw him...
Looks like it happened to everyone, so just hold onto your shares and coins for now until TAT says otherwise.
Im betting TAT is freaking out right now, but we can alleviate that if we just hold our positions for now.
Im betting TAT is freaking out right now, but we can alleviate that if we just hold our positions for now.
I was paid twice as well.
Shares are bound to shuffle around in the next week, so reducing next week's div payment would potentially reduce the div on people that weren't even owners of the share this week, and would give an extra div to people who weren't holding the shares next week.
Hope that BTC-TC will be able to find a way to fix this.
Shares are bound to shuffle around in the next week, so reducing next week's div payment would potentially reduce the div on people that weren't even owners of the share this week, and would give an extra div to people who weren't holding the shares next week.
Hope that BTC-TC will be able to find a way to fix this.
Jump to: