Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 128. (Read 316467 times)

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

That's an error from the wallet page for BTC transfers.    You probably want to do the asset transfer from the portfolio page.

Cheers.

I'm trying to move my RSM shares from the claim account to my final account. It says that the fee with internal transfers is 0 but when I'm trying to move them it says "You do not have enough funds for that amount."

Also - now I have two btct.co accounts registered under one email address. Isn't it strange?

Or perhaps display either way depending on the value.


Another possible improvement: the volume values on the price history graphs are not convenient numbers (multiples of [1,2,5]x10ⁿ) and are sometimes not even whole numbers. I think this changed recently.

Excellent, thanks!

There's no option to merge - but you can make your new account then log into the auto-created accounts and transfer the shares/BTC in them across to your new account.  There's no fee on transfers - so it just takes a litle bit of time but costs you nothing.

I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

Not exactly a bug, but definitely could use some improvement.  It's displaying in thousands for those fields and it's using floor() to round down.  On the LTC side of the site it made sense, but on the BTC side I think I need to scale it down to hundreds instead of thousands or something.

Cheers.

FYI. A no vote counts as 2, so those bond issues with 2 no votes were actually only 1 vote.

Anyway, I voted no of four of them. Three of those were because they do not pay back the loan. I generally post public comments if there is something in the contract that seems important but is not obvious. Since most mining bonds do not pay back the loan, I didn't bother, but I might start noting this "dirty little secret" in the future.

In case you are interested, my personal criteria for approving a security was posted in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-criteria-for-approving-securites-on-ltc-global-and-btc-trading-corp-129844

I've seen this too on Win8 Pro/Chrome.

This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.

When it happens, it happens everywhere, but it looks like it is intermittent. Also, one time it occurred on all the non-bold BTC symbols. Sorry I'm not much help.

RSM import complete.

As with previous imports, if you were expecting an email and you did not receive one, please check your spam folder before contacting Matthew or us for support.  Google in particular has been putting most of our welcome emails into the spam box.

I hope everyone will join us in welcoming RSM refugees to BTC-TC!

I agree, I need to ask more questions about the security at creation time.  Some of that could be enforced.  Some of it just becomes an informational blurb on the contract page.

Another one is "What percentage of the shares does it take to pass a motion?".

Appreciate the input.  It'll be a bit before I get to it, but I will definitely integrate this stuff in to the asset creation stage.

Cheers.

Maybe it would be relevant to setup a system where specific actions would need to be allowed or disallowed (with or without a vote) at asset creation (with a related sentence or two in the contract). So that moving an asset (or actions like split, issuing shares, changing contract, changing permissions) would require a vote.

What I'm imagining is a little bit like Android permissions where an issuer has to declare ahead of time exactly what would be required, preferably enforced by the system (though just declaring the permissions would be enough to deter some behavior I imagine). As an example: Issuer may not issue additional shares, issuer may add additional shares without vote (Method should still be declared ahead of time), and issuer may issue shares with motion. Although even an asset which originally declares no new shares will be issued can later change this behavior with a shareholder motion of course.

BTCI was frozen (and removed) at the request of the issuer.

Good call on the locked assets awaiting approval.  They are now on the locked tab as well.

Public comments are not required when voting NO because sometimes the voter would prefer the comments to be private.  A NO vote does require a comment, either public or private, so in theory the asset issuer is getting good feedback either way.

Thank you for using BTC-TC!

Hey mods, quick request that you take a fresh look at RSM.

The contract wasn't there because of an issue with the form XSS filtering.  (The contract had a < in it.)  The bug is now fixed.