Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 44. (Read 316632 times)

Second op too, they just handed off the lameness...like it was a relay baton.

That would be absolutely unacceptable.  (and extremely unwise from an exchange perspective anyway)  Proof of fraud will get issues de-listed after giving them time to explain and/or remedy the situation.

From an exchange perspective, you have to keep in mind that only one or two such instances would soil the good name of the exchange and hurt business long-term more than it would help short-term.  I am having this struggle right now with MOO.COW.MINING.  Dividends have stopped, but the operator has claimed they are going to catch up and make good.  The whole situation around it stinks.

Cheers.

Thanks for your answer. I certainly don't see why they would mind such information being disclosed, one has to wonder why it did not come directly from them already with a link that the general public could actually verify. You know yourself how easy it would be to do. I simply can't think of a reason why it is not shown.


I do believe LABCOIN is operating in bad faith, rather than being 'merely slow' or not so good with communication, that is the basis of my argument.

I don't beleive Burnside is responsible for other persons choice of investment beyond undertaking certain background checks before authorising the listing, and shouldn't be around to babysit investors every step of the way. I also don't expect him predict the future. He could of allowed this listing in perfectly good faith- same goes for Moderator votes.

Nonetheless when it comes to situations where an issuer starts acting suspiciously (go and read posting history of and tell me this is not the case) then refuses to co-operate with owner of exchange alarm bells start going off.

I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?

^^^ This is about as simple an explanation as it gets.

To expand a little, if I may, SEC and other regulators are there to try and enforce accountability between real people (and the companies they run) and their promises and duties to investors. A type of enforced trust, really, to give confidence that regulated transactions are governed by well known and long established rules to protect both parties. But, even given the regulatory hoops one must go through to list on a regulated exchange, investors are still well advised to do their due diligence against the promises made by a company. In the end, regulations are really only there as a practical base to allow investors to sue after the fact if promises are made in bad faith.

Given the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoinlandia, these types of regulations are largely unenforceable at a governmental level, as "after the fact" generally means nothing at all since funds cannot be seized by the nature of bitcoin itself. So we are left to regulate ourselves as best we can by way of community-accepted trustworthiness built over time and demand for disclosure, such as it is. But no amount of regulation can really stop anyone from performing a scam.

And another thing to keep in mind: just because you might lose money in an investment doesn't mean it was a scam - a scam requires bad faith. If a company acts in good faith, but is merely slow to fulfill its promises, or misses a few deadlines, or doesn't communicate to your level of comfort, your natural remedy is to sell your shares, perhaps at a lower price than what you paid. Such is the nature of risk and reward. Now, I'm not saying that regulation is something that should be abandoned - on the contrary, I think burnside has done a marvelous job of balancing the demands of the market with reasonable protections for all parties. But he's exactly right in that he's not responsible for the broken promises of anyone that lists with him - it's the sole responsibility of the pseudonymous entity you transact with when you buy shares. If you're not comfortable transacting with that party, demand a lower price to fit your risk model, or walk away.

I have a question regarding My Trading Analysis , in the column "Aprox Total" the fee is added again to the total of the transaction. Example:

Date       Symbol        Action   Quantity   Amount   Approx Fee            Transaction   Approx Total *
2013   MININGCO.ETF   buy       1          -0.01000   -0.000025            -0.010025            -0.0100500625


Shouldn't the fee be paid only once?  or is an error in the page. Or Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks in advance.

I have not been handed a list unless I missed it somewhere.

I hope the LABCOIN guys don't mind me disclosing this.  Over 85% of the 3 million shares have not left a specific account I know is held in the Labcoin name.  The other 15% could easily be held in any of the next few top shareholders, but I am not privy to who is who without some assistance.

Edit/add: and this account is not locked.  I will not lock it without a specific request from the owner.


"Nothing is verified."  It's at the top of every single page.

I do not (nor does ANY regulatory body anywhere) have the ability to track every single promise a person makes, nor the ability to enforce follow-through on such promises.

If you're nervous about it, don't get involved with that asset.  (Seriously.  Stay away from anything that you have any reservations on.)

If you do get involved of your own free will make sure you read the Disclosures, the ToS, and have the cahones to take responsibility for your own actions.

Cheers.

It's not the administrators responsibility "to care". Please, please don't misunderstand me, but "if you get scammed, it's not burnside's fault, not the fault of missing regulation, nor the fault of the government, but solely your own". Of course this doesn't give a potential scammer any right to scam - just to be crystal clear.

Though this is a very tough decision. I feel like burnside shouldn't disclose this information, but on the other hand it's morally incorrect to not prevent preventable harm (assuming any harm could be prevented by disclosure of company held shares, which is still up to debate).

Anyway, if you decide to do it, this is where you have to look: post #417 in the Labcoin thread gives a hint. 3M shares were transfered to dev accounts before the other 7M were distributed via the IPO. Following those first 3M shares should yield some answers.

Burnside

I believe the time has come for this to be resolved and it is no longer a background issue - time has come in this particular instance as owner and administrator of exchange to demonstrate a reasonable level of concern for customers finances, and locking of LABCOIN security, pending resolution should start. No update has been forwarded via the issuer as yet even though it has been promised. This to me suggests evidence of cheating, lying from one or both parties.

I would like to remind that anyone that is aware of and has the power to investigate or terminate, yet allows unfettered operation of fraudulent investment schemes- that is happy to bury their head in the sand as long as it is earning them profits becomes an accessory, or an accomplice and could potentially be in for a rude awakening

And after far too much time has passed (I blame baby, PhD-defense and planned emigration, but really it was mostly just laziness), I have finally completed the first well-rounded version of my C#/.NET library for the BTC-TC API.

This library includes all the API functions of BTC-TC (and Litecoin-Global), so if you're a developer you could use it to create a neat desktop client or a trade-bot or whatever you fancy. A basic demo-client is also available that demonstrates the library in action and can be used as a base for future development.

For more details, please see the thread in the Project Development forum:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndev-cnet-library-for-btc-tc-api-demo-client-291922

Yes please

Minor nitpick: Generating a consumer key/secret pair for the OAuth API requires the users pincode as verification, even if Google 2FA is enabled.

Yes, please

Yeah just my own trades - only one I can find at present loads everything which is pretty huge on some of my accounts.  Exactly same format as the current one just only last day or two's data.

You mean just of your own trades?

I think I could probably add something like that to the oauth.

Hey Burnside,

can you please unlock the 3 securities I created?

ET.DIFF.FUTURE
ET.DIFF.LONG
ET.DIFF.SHORT

Thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-tc-etdiff-future-to-speculate-on-next-difficulty-change-288765

Thanks!

Burnside,

can you confirm whether LABCOIN has provided you accounts to lock as per
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2896819

Good call.  Looking through my mail history I see that I haven't been getting any at all either... I'll look into it.

Add: think I figured it out.  I broke it when I added the ability to check/uncheck a "send a copy to all asset holders" on the notifications.  Should be good to go now.

Hmmm, I wonder what the upper limit is for postfix accepting messages from php rapid-fire... DMS.SELLING may have more asset holders than php can relay emails.



Should be good to go now. 

Cheers.

Just an update that TAT.NEOBEE has been submitted for approval by LTC-GLOBAL voters: https://btct.co/security/TAT.NEOBEE

Burnside, could you please release this asset for voting when you get a chance?

Thank you to everyone for your consideration.

Apparently it isn't, I've already read of a few people who didn't receive it, and I didn't either.

I have the notification for new posts (and motions) turned on, but I didn't received email about the last two DMS.SELLING motions. Is it working?