If you feel that issuer has scammed you, please use Scam Accusations sub forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0).
Sorry, no one can "freeze" Labcoins or anyone else assets to punish them. Welcome to BTC world.
Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 37. (Read 316534 times)
Please, keep security specific drama in so called official threads. Posting a link here, to a specific problem, is not a bad idea but lets not threadcrap this thread so it become useless as most forum threads around here.
If you feel that issuer has scammed you, please use Scam Accusations sub forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0).
Sorry, no one can "freeze" Labcoins or anyone else assets to punish them. Welcome to BTC world.
If you feel that issuer has scammed you, please use Scam Accusations sub forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0).
Sorry, no one can "freeze" Labcoins or anyone else assets to punish them. Welcome to BTC world.
Officially posted on BTCT:
This is the only reason why burnside is protecting shareholder's interest by not delisting this >20x lying Labcoin. Right ?
The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.
This is the only reason why burnside is protecting shareholder's interest by not delisting this >20x lying Labcoin. Right ?
Will you open registration again? Everybody asked the same question, why don't you answer or did I miss the answer?
Burnside, can you see IP addresses of the party involved with issuing shares?
He's OP. He sees all. Never assume otherwise. 
Burnside, can you see IP addresses of the party involved with issuing shares?
It's not unprecedented. I think there's just more attention on this issue than there was on previous issues I have posted warnings on.
that doesn't really justify it 
I get "Xcoind backend failure at 1966" while trying to create an Ask order.
bitcoind issue... it should be back now.
I get "Xcoind backend failure at 1966" while trying to create an Ask order.
burnside, labcoin seems to be a first for you - first special script ipo and first traders beware warning! let's see what else they'll be a first in.
If all are lucky, a raging success who's IPO originated on BTCT.
burnside, labcoin seems to be a first for you - first special script ipo and first traders beware warning! let's see what else they'll be a first in.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.
In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".
But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.
I think the market was more spooked that this unprecedented warning came on suddenly, and less that people were unaware that there were issues.
It's not unprecedented. I think there's just more attention on this issue than there was on previous issues I have posted warnings on.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.
In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".
But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.
I think the market was more spooked that this unprecedented warning came on suddenly, and less that people were unaware that there were issues.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.
In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".
But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.
Still waiting for a statement why the registration is closed.
+1
+2
Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.
Several concerned citizens have come to me worried about the situation so I tried to contact the issuer via PM and hadn't seen a response. After waiting several days I didn't feel like there was another option. We'll remove the warning when I am confident their contract is being followed and I feel like we can trust that future news posts appearing on the site are going to be better thought out. (Eg; the claim that there is mining going on but no proceeds to show for it.)
Disclosure; I have many thousands of LABCOIN and I have not sold any over the last month.
Cheers
Has there been any progress on the issue of share locking?
Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
I tried to keep the warning low key. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.
Several concerned citizens have come to me worried about the situation so I tried to contact the issuer via PM and hadn't seen a response. After waiting several days I didn't feel like there was another option. We'll remove the warning when I am confident their contract is being followed and I feel like we can trust that future news posts appearing on the site are going to be better thought out. (Eg; the claim that there is mining going on but no proceeds to show for it.)
Disclosure; I have many thousands of LABCOIN and I have not sold any over the last month.
Cheers
Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Disagree. Labcoin posted a news item 11 days ago that prompted a lot of buying. Time has proven that news item to be misleading...and that's being kind. Despite this, labcoin has released nothing official to clarify their statements. This obviously puts the exchange operator in a tough spot.
Wow burnside with the blindside. You just fucked a lot of people. Luckily, I am not one of them.
Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good. Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.
Jump to: