Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 48. (Read 316534 times)

Sounds like something an API trade would be perfect for.

Feature request, and maybe this is silly / has been brought up before, but I'd love to be able to schedule purchases at market rate with a spending limit. E.G. : If I have the funds in the site wallet to be able to say "purchase as many shares of X as possible on Fridays 4PM, BTC/share and a limit of ZBTC total."

I think that one clears out in a few minutes.

Unless it's the account lock, which can take several hours.

I'm getting an "Access Temporarily Denied Error"

Is this actually temporary?

Pretty cool representation of LTC-GLOBAL/BTC-TC's monthly reports done by somsa on the Litecoin forum:

1) Watchlist
 a) Add tiny button or something to a security symbol, so it can be added to personal Watchlist (for example: + - )
 b) make Watchlist columns configurable. (and please, add 52w high/low
 c) make Watchlist a hovering box, like we have the Real time

2) Please add "Edit order" to My orders view
a) one can edit order - change number of shares or price.
When order is edited, previous order is either cancelled or difference is added as a new order (if only number of shares was increased)

Cheers and thank you.

Thank you for that.  I read the log.  Depressing for sure.

BTC Trading Corp has retained US based representation.  They are working out the various angles but these things take time.  (and lots and lots of coins unfortunately)

In the meantime I'll re-iterate, the disclosure hasn't changed all of a sudden.  The "new" disclosure is a nearly direct copy of the disclosure from the top of the terms of service everyone agreed to when they registered and the terms have not changed significantly since the site rolled out in December 2012.  (hit up the wayback machine.)  The whole point in this exercise was to (at risk of alienating users and killing volume) prevent potential users from being misled.

To put it bluntly.  I do not want 0.2% of any transaction in our environment where the buyer doesn't know exactly what they're doing.

I hope that makes sense.


I agree that any web based trust metric should be looked upon with extreme skepticism.

butt hurt sock puppet MPOE-PR, bravo! You have done it again and it's time for you to present yourself with another wonderful cardboard merit badge, shaped like a asshole, with Mircea Popescus picture on it. Ware it with pride. It's your masters face on it!

BTW, you have a permission to fuck off now and stfu while at it.
Enjoy your trip, angry little sock-puppet. 

1. Get over yourself. Irrespective of what you may think, you're nobody in this discussion.

2. Clueless noobs arguing about how the WoT is broken because Pirate had high cumulative ratings; clueless noobs arguing about how Burnside is credible because of high cumulative ratings on this forum. The wonders of infinite hitpoints with you people.

Nevertheless, this isn't how these things work. It's your job to learn how they work, and you have absolutely no right to expect me to do your schooling.

3. What you don't know can't hurt you. Carry on, have fun.

You are not issuing securities in real world companies, or securities that offer ownership in anything other than "virtual identities." So, what exactly are you representing that they are? In your offering documents you refer to "ASICMINER Mining Company" and "Ministry of Games Corporation" as the underlying entities in which you hold backing securities, yet you know full well that no such legal entities exist. Are those lies to extract value?

How about lies of omission to extract value? Do they constitute fraud? Your xBond prospectus enumerates several "Disclaimers & Risks," including the fact that Bitcoin may be subject to "unique regulations" in some jurisdictions. You failed, however, to inform investors that your own bond issue is subject to very common regulations in your own jurisdiction, and that your failure to properly register the issue is a significant risk. Did you think it would be a hindrance to extracting maximum value to list the most obvious risk of all?

The point is, you have consistently used the same techniques you now call fraud, when in truth, you probably didn't and don't intend to defraud anyone. You might consider that burnside is similarly situated as you step down off your high horse.


Yes, your stunning hypocrisy was a real eye opener, but putting that aside, your ideas are not at all important to anyone but you. They appear to be creatures of your own naiveté, and they have no practical use other than to harm the entire nascent Bitcoin securities market.

These exchanges, and the majority of listed assets will never be compliant in the U.S., so if you are on a mission to create some kind of Bitcoin denominated OTCBB, you are incredibly misguided. It simply will not happen for reasons that should be apparent, and even if it were possible, what makes you think there is investor demand for such a thing?


Excellent, I'm sure it will take several dozen billable hours before you are disabused of your intention to "go legit," but in the interim, consider that your business might be best served by keeping a cooler head.

Your attitude in this thread has been abominable, but having read your IRC message bragging that you were going to come here and "tear into burnside," I'm guessing that your lack of judgment is explained by your need to impress MP and his #bitcoin-assets fan club.

Well, here's something to ponder after you've calmed down and apologized to burnside for your inflammatory screed. Even if you spend whatever it takes and jump through all of the hoops to issue a legitimate, compliant security, you have only addressed half of the problem. Securities law is not only a club wielded by government agencies, but it is wonderfully convenient for civil actions, as well. Once you throw off the cloak of anonymity, you are inviting all manor of actions based on past violations of securities law, not to mention other torts such as negligence, unfair competition / unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment.

Just something to consider as you execute your plan to "set higher standards for bitcoin investments."

I've had no problem using GAuth with BTCT on my smartphone. When the time came to get a 2FA code, I exit my browser, start the GAuth app, remember the code (if it was about to refresh, I'd wait for a new one) and reopen the browser. This can be done well before the code expires.

You should be able to view it without logging in now.  Though I just realized the Market link was missing.  (it's back now)  All you have to do is agree to the terms first.

Cheers.

After accepting this new One-month-TOS, the timer showing me the remaining time to reset my GOOGLE AUTH request has disappeared! I hope that it hasn't been cancelled, because I've not done anything, and can't wait another 30 days to reset it and be able to use my own account...
has Anyone had the same problem?

(anyway, I think that 30days is too much for this kind of reset request; maybe should be less, like for example mtgox resets)

PD: I've PM burnside and opened a ticket support!


Another thing... I've just submitted my IOS App to check BTCT Stocks with no login

Wow, I am pretty surprised seeing this from you TAT.  I thought you might have a background in finance / investments or something.  The bolded part is exactly the case.  The exchange will only be allowed to operate as long as it operates under the radar.  Running a real exchange for US citizens requires a huge investment of time, resources, licensing, etc.  And it is highly unlikely that regulators would allow someone that ran an illegal exchange to convert it into a legitimate exchange.

The SEC exists to protect investors and it is principally concerned about protecting unsophisticated investors from risky investments that appear to be legitimate.  Sure, his language won't absolve him of any responsibility in court, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.  It serves as a warning to the participant that everything is EXTREMELY risky, which it is.  It would be much worse if he created the illusion that it was a safe environment for people to invest.

As long as the exchanges / securities continue to keep a low profile, then we may be OK.  But drawing additional scrutiny from the US / Chinese / any other regulators would be TERRIBLE for the community.  And if the authorities believed they could seize a large amount of money from the exchanges / securities, they may very well do just that (we are not even close to that point yet).

Also before even considering having a legitimate exchange, there must be legitimate securities.  Forcing the exchange to adhere to rigorous standards without first forcing the securities to adhere to standards makes no sense.  If you actually want to legitimize the securities then you are in a great position to do so as a board member of the biggest company on this forum.  Please push for the board to disclose their holdings in AM and their trades.  If you do this, then people will take your viewpoints and your calls for legitimacy seriously.   If not, then it is clear that you want people to adhere to a stricter standard then you are willing to adhere to yourself.

Hey minor complaint that I have noticed since the change requiring logins to see the market -

This change has made it impossible for a user to view the exchange on his/her mobile if he or she has 2 factor authorization enabled. There is no way to simultaneously engage the google app and punch in the numbers in time for a proper login, leaving mobile users in the dark until they can find a desktop to login with.

I don't think it is short sighted, actually - if I were impatient, I'd yield to the short-sightedness of it... but I'm not. I'm actually advocating patience. Nothing happens overnight, and while I understand and even appreciate the view you have on the matter, you came off (to me, anyway) as demanding instant results instead of making a suggestion. That's the only reason I spoke up, really - you came across as being unreasonably offensive (not offensive as in smell, offensive as in opposite of defense. There's probably a better word for that, but I'm in a hurry right now.) The sentiment is right, the delivery was a bit over the top. That's all.

/dinner time

Derp. MPOE-PR, I don't have you on ignore like so many others here, because while your comments are nearly always incendiary by design, they're nearly universally brilliant as well. That said if your only basis for accusing burnside of "scamming" is that he's made your grapes sour, then I may soon grudgingly join the ranks that have you on ignore. I've been trading on burnside's exchange(s) since before there was a btct and I've never detected the slightest hint of impropriety. If you have *ANYTHING* at all then let it fly, be the savior of the community, prevent another BTCST or GLBSE fiasco.

Otherwise...



Please, tell me how this is so. Ethan's tremendous singing voice perhaps? Perhaps he's the crypto world's Rolo Tomassi?  

Herp, you had a lot of respect for your betters up until such time as you decided to start scamming at which point you got called out and so therefore you don't have a lot of respect for your betters anymore? Seems perfectly logical.

You won't become MP by putting up a scratchpad on some wall of your house whereupon you keep writing ever larger numbers. It's not how this thing works.

The issue unfortunately is that it is not an act.  It was the knowledge all the way back when the exchange started that real securities trade on real exchanges and I wasn't about to write a real exchange.  (I have zero wall street experience...)  The most obvious examples of that thought process being the facts that:
- it was released in beta and still is
- except in rare instances where directly asked we don't verify anything/anyone
- it trades in virtual currency that initially was worth next to nothing. (started with LTC, had no plans for BTC until GLBSE tanked)

It truly was intended to be for fun, entertainment, and education. (mine and everyone else's.)


Awesome.  I had a lot of respect for you and MP but right about when the volume dropped on MPEx and went up on BTCT crap like this started showing up.  You're fishing in the wrong pond.


I think this is us trying to make clear that we are realizing that we have been confused with ducks -- and rather than let people get misled, it's better to make clear with everyone that we are a spade so that we can continue the spade trade.


Exactly.  In what world do you have anonymous people with handles like ThickAsThieves running "investment" strategies using virtual currency?  Does that fit more with (a) The NASDAQ, or (b) Second Life ?


The original intent of the exchanges was clear, things have morphed around us somewhat, and we're working on addressing that.  But for now, nothing has changed except awareness.  If it serves to protect some, then I think it was worth it.


I think my change would be the opposite then... I really don't think volume is going to go up because of it.  

Cheers.

Fraud is a lie to extract value. The main distinction here is that I am not claiming TATI offerings to be anything other than what they actually are (like a virtual game).

Regardless, waiving our guns around will not make what I said about BTCT less relevant. However hypocritical you might think it is for me to comment, pointing the gun back at me does not change the situation. I think my questions are important ones, and worth getting answers for.

And yes, my goal is indeed compliance, and there will be news in that regard in due time.