Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 127. (Read 316669 times)

If you held YABMC on GLBSE and would like to see your shares on BTC-TC, I recommend responding to the current poll at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75867.380

Cheers.

Not yet, but looking at the API docs it seems to be planned.

Cheers.

FTFY

Offtopic: Does anyone else get just a slight smile on their face every time they read the word: assbot?

Thanks for the assbot feature.
Does the assbot support dividend payments? Would be nice to see them too.

I did some reading, the placeholder tag sounds perfect, but IE doesn't have it until IE 10.  I fixed the js instead for now.  Great suggestion, thanks!

Cool! Just one suggestion: Use the placeholder tags instead of JS wizardry for the username / passwords. If I enter a username, accidentally click on it again the content is lost

BTC-MINING has been imported.

As before, please check your spam folder before requesting support.  If you were expecting an email and it's definitely not in your spam folder, please PM us and we will double check the list and resend the introductory email if necessary.

Thank you for using BTC-TC!

Asset Issuers will be happy to know that we now have #bitcoin-assets assbot integration in place.

Examples:


And this gets output to the channel for every trade:


This doesn't seem like much, but there's a lot of people that watch the channel and this will increase exposure for everyone.

Thank you all for using BTC-TC!

I've considered it, and I think it's better to just let the price die down on it's own a bit.  I don't think it's voting demand so much that is driving it up.  When I issued the dividend at the end of December which included the revenue from btct.co there was a big jump in price from 200 LTC to 300 LTC.  So it seems like the price is more based on company performance than voting.

Regarding the numbers of voters, we've discussed in the past and I think the conclusion was that it wouldn't be fair to change the number of shares required to vote.  Instead what I think we'll do is we'll set it up to require a percentage of the total voting pool to approve in order to pass.  (eg, if we set a 25% approval requirement and there's 100 voters, we would 25 yes votes for approval.)  To deal with people that hold their shares and do not log in or vote, we could remove "non-voting shareholders" from the equation used to determine the percentages required.  Shouldn't be too hard.

Cheers.

Please consider limiting the top end of the price by offering more shares for sale. Voting demand is pushing it too fast in my opinion. But in any case, what's going to happen when dozens of people have the ability to vote? Won't getting 5 votes be trivial at that point? Will you raise the number of votes required, or raise the number of shares required to vote?

Matthew discovered a bug in the import process on RSM

  - If you did not claim your shares on GLBSE  (IE, no BTC address in the import file)
  - And if your email account did not have at least 5 letters/numbers to the left of the @ sign

Then the code used to create the temp import username would fail to create a valid username, and the import failed.

I've patched it up and re-run the import on RSM.

I've also gone back and double checked the following imports; BAKEWELL, BMF, COGNITIVE, CPA, GSDPT, LTC-MINING, NYAN, NYAN.A, NYAN.B, NYAN.C, PAJKA.BOND, and SYNERGY.  There were no users affected in any of those imports.

Cheers.

Yeah, I agree, the enforcement may not be easy to reasonably implement.  What if we ask at creation time what percentage is generally required to pass a motion, then on the motion creation allow an override, then on each motion we just use those values for display purposes?  (In theory to help the issuer do the math.)  Seems like that should work ok, and it's not like we can enforce follow-through on any of the motions anyway.

Cheers.

It would make sense to require the amount required to consider any motion as passed. Some motions obviously would warrant more support than others. Also differentiating between Yes/No/No Vote/Abstain may matter, as some votes may require certain levels of participation as well.

If I figure it right (not my project so I can't tell for sure), asking the questions is easy, adding the answers to the page is simple enough, enforcing them (particularly with multiple types of constraints) may be a pain in the ass.

It's definitely a lot easier to suggest cool and interesting things than to implement them though, and I will say that you've got a lot of credit in my book for the amount of effort you've put into this, particularly rolling things out quickly and the number of things you've rolled out. Anyone else remember how slow GLBSE was to load pages?

I do have a few shares for sale right now.  Looking at my account history I've sold less than 150 shares in the last month and a half, 100 of which was to help jumpstart the BTC-TRADING-PT asset.

I haven't seen the details of the s.dice long term plan, so I can't really comment on that.  I outlined the BTC-TC long term plan above.

Yes, only people willing to invest in the platform are allowed to determine the direction the platform will take.  That's the general idea anyway.

I'm generally open to good ideas for improvement in the platform, but things are getting to where they're pretty well established now, which makes big changes a bit harder.

Cheers.

Import of GSDPT complete.  As with previous inports, if you didn't get your intro email, please check your spam folder before requesting support.

Many thanks to the GSDPT shareholders that chose BTC-TC.

I was on IRC  back in December in #bitcoin-assets, and had missed the following conversation.


I mean to keep asking you about this on IRC but never saw you again so I ask here

Can you put something in the terms about what any new owners could or could not do to us as users and issuers in the future? Like GLBSE suddenly wanted AML information. I am kind of worried that like other things, someone might come along and do who knows what with the systems, and get stuck under someone elses mess just because they bought the system out. What if they buy and then hire lawyers who tell them they have to stop everything as is and people must follow new rules or cannot have shares of users assets? This is something that could happen maybe sooner than later since the goal is to sell off.

Maybe provide some guarantee or assurances of things that new owners would not be able to do to users or assets and the steps you would take to protect the users, and the assets?

LTC-GLOBAL the owner of btct: I see there are 10,000 shares oustanding, and more have been slowly creeping for sale at higher prices over time.
Would you disclose how many shares you own? the company? And plans for the company to sell off shares? Did the company award all the shares to you in compensation for time and out of pocket expenses? Right now its valued around 300LTC per share or 3000000 LTC. [about $218,685.00 USD from btc-e at the moment] The last div payout, one of the highest LTC-GLOBAL has seen was 0.03451ltc per share for about 8days thats 1/10000th of the new price which is just trending upwards due what looks like a trickle release of shares, and a demand that you seem to have created by pushing that people buy the shares at this raising price to be more of a service to help the site. it is a good way to increase share price tho .It seems that LTC-GLOBAL is more selling people the ability to vote on assets on two systems to increase its share value, rather than having the companies value itself be based on what it is actually worth.

Guess I'm still asleep today Everything is fine