Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 96. (Read 316534 times)

Fair enough.  I reviewed the asset and found this:

Payment of dividends is to be made within 2 weeks of their issuance from ASICMINER.
Dividend payments made more than 72 hours after their issuance from ASICMINER will be paid 100% of the original ASICMINER dividend.

I guess I'll just have to wait a couple of days.

Likely tomorrow, IIRC.

Have you read the asset description? It's probably detailed in there.

Noob question:

I purchased 10 ASICMINER-PT shares on BTC-TC last week and logged on this morning eager to see how much of a dividend was earned, however I do not see that any dividend was credited to my account.  Will somebody please explain how and when ASICMINER-PT dividends are distributed?

Very minor bug.  If you look at the first dividend for DMS.PURCHASE you'll see :

2013-06-11 17:01   ฿ 0.02078577   129   0.00016112   COMPLETE

However the dividend was actually 1 satoshi higher per share : 0 .00016113

As can be seen from my personal account's record of it :

Dividend History: DMS.PURCHASE Reinvest At Max ฿  Per Share
Date   Shares Held   Per Share   Total
2013-06-11 17:01:16   1   ฿ 0.00016113   ฿ 0.00016113

Seems to just be a diplay bug - presumably a rounding error when it recalculates div/share from the total divdend paid.

Also a feature request : If I schedule a divdend to be a fixed amount per share would it be possible to have the divdend list show it as that amoun per share rather than an estimated total to be paid based on a cached outstanding share count.  Would just be nice if, when I schedule a dividend, people could see what they'd get per share.  Obviously that only applies when the dividend is scheduled on per share basis - if the dividend is of a fixed amount then that fixed amount should be displayed as at present.

heh, that's awesome.   

I won this jackpot too!

Did I win any jackpot ?

TAT.VIRTUALMINE is now live!

https://btct.co/security/TAT.VIRTUALMINE

It's not that there is a particularly large amount of money owed. I've shown that the shareholders on BTC-TC, for BMF, are pretty much all paid out (sans about 40 BTC). It's more along the lines that I was forced to shut down BMF by a bunch of trolls. It's not really something you can argue. I was looked into by people like augusto croppo and BCB. It's over btharper. Deprived lied about me. EskimoBob lied about me. Ian Bakewell and BitcoinOZ lied about me in order to steal from me and my companies.

Now, it's my duty to take another shot at BMF. That's all this is. And if it doesn't work I'll make the final payment and walk away. I guess you forgot how much people liked BMF back in the day. It was because I did a really good job.

+1 great place to have stopped

Do you know how they feel? I can understand feeling slighted, but this just begins to sound like whining.

Something I've wondered for a long while is why you need to reopen an asset for trading to pay off investors when you already have their addresses from the GLBSE shutdown stuff? Besides that, even if someone is voting against you, there are still at least 12 moderators who can vote (at time of writing BASIC-MINING has 11 Yes votes and 1 abstain). Given 9 total votes there are still three other people who haven't voted, easily enough to pass the security, however if half of the voting members don't want you to list you're going to have a hard time and coming back to declare the injustice and bias just makes you look like a whiny ass to me.

Bonus round: I don't see a comment from BTC-TRADING-PT, so that may be one of the votes you can attempt to recruit.

Good call.  It is fixed now.

Cheers.

Minor bug.

In all securities when it shows the issuer's name it does it in ALL CAPS - regardless of the capitalisation of the actual name.  When you do a transfer it claims names are case-sensitive.  If so then this is a ptoentially dangerous issue - as it's giving an incorrect name to send transfers to.

I agree that there are not enough active moderators.  I'd like to have 2x - 3x.  But more moderators will not make approval much easier if they're voting NO.  I have no idea who this moderator is and I'm not going to bias myself by looking it up, but who's to say what experiences this individual has had with you before?  

Moderators are going to vote however they feel appropriate.  This means some NO's sometimes.  (I've had several myself.)  Is it frustrating when there's a disagreement?  Absolutely.  But (and this is the key here) is it in the financial interest of the moderator to do a good job?  Absolutely.  So I think the mods are going to do what they think is best and I don't think it'd be good to short-circuit that without a very clear cut-and-dry improvement.  

I'll have to disagree with your assessment that there's no benefit to owning LTC-GLOBAL.  As a shareholder, I'm certain there are several good reasons to have shares.

Cheers.

Upon review you are probably right, but the issue behind the vote itself is still valid. Someone voted NO because they felt I was untrustworthy despite it being obviously untrue. Let's be honest -- I've been running Tu.SILVER for 6 months, and what I am promising to do for BMF holders is extremely nice. There is a great amount of personal honor at stake for me here. I guarantee you, deprived -- you will not win this little troll campaign you started. I will find a way to list BMF, if not here then somewhere else, and it will exist in order to show you what a shitty human being you've been to me.

You have shamed yourself and done this community a terrible disservice.

Changes WERE made to the contracts in response to comments from Moderators AND to comments from non-moderators.  Some of these can be found in the thread for the securities - others in my inbox.  If you look at the thread for DMS you'll see a bunch of changes listed as made to the contracts - with moderator approval not being received until after there'd been a significant period with no further change being made.

And of course burnside has seen the contracts - he had to read them before unlocking the assets at Admin level.  Changes were made to the contracts in response to his comments before moderators were even asked to read the contracts and vote - and with some of those changes being typos he pointed out I'm pretty certain he read the entire contract carefully.

The new NO vote is almost certainly NOT the same voter who had the old vote (for it to be same person they would have had to hold 10 shares now AND 7 days ago but not hold 10 shares 7 days before the next run of the cron-job after burnside reenabled it).

From observation it is apparent that when burnside corrected the error in voting (described by him in the post above yours) BMF lost one NO vote (the "no assets list" one) and one YES vote.  i.e. both of those were votes made by people who no longer held 10 LTC-GLobal shares.

The new NO vote is thus almost certainly unrelated to the old one.  It's not one person changing a comment - it's an invalid vote being deleted and a new valid one being made by someone else (not me - I hold 0 LTC-Global).  I can see why you made that assumption but it's almost certainly wrong.

Whoever made the old one (and the old YES vote) would not have been able to change their votes or comments prior to burnside's fix - as the nature of the bug was such that whilst it didn't remove old invalid votes it would not allow those invalid votes to be edited or changed between YES/NO/ABSTAIN.

I always getting a failed message when buying because I over exceed to my balance, I hope there is a sum up of the cost and fee.

A moderator has changed their vote on BMF from:

Anonymous voted NO with comment: 6 months after GLBSE shut down and still no list of assets (specifically mining rigs/ASIC orders). Seems abandoned to focus on new silver asset.

to

Anonymous voted NO with comment: Asset issuer is untrustworthy.

Burnside, when are you going to change your system? First, the original NO vote was simply wrong, I had a list of assets on the forums for longer than six months. Second, once I had conclusively provided a list of assets, the vote was changed to "Asset issuer is untrustworthy". It's almost as if the original comment was a simple lie the moderator told because they didn't want to have to vote NO with a garbage reason. And it really is a garbage reason. The voter is clearly aware of TU.SILVER and must certainly be aware of how well it has been run over the past six months. What gives?

Your moderators are unfair and biased. Deprived just launched three assets which got 5 votes in a matter of days. Have you seen his contracts? Labrynthine. No comment on it other than to say, I am supposed to believe 5 people checked out those contracts in a matter of a day or two, and found nothing wanting? At all? Yet your moderators give "ancient one" companies the community desperately needs -- producers like BitVPS -- a devil of a time. It is abundantly clear your moderators are operating as a clique, and issuers are pre-approved based on social reputation with a specific set of people on the forums. Your system is NOT OPEN, not FAIR, and NOT SANE.

Look what you had to do -- you went back and changed the contract of LTC-GLOBAL without a vote. You must have done it for a reason. Surely you realize things need to be changed big time. Here's your bugle call: You will need outside help to modify your contract if you want it to be fair and sane. Find someone you trust and take their advice. Here's my advice.

- There's not enough moderators. I believe it is due to the $5000+ barrier to entry. Anyone with shares should have a proportional vote. Your idea was nice but as it turns out it doesn't work well in practice. Change it.
- Issuers must have the right to face their accusers. Your system was surely never designed to allow anonymous libel and slander in comments, and to not be held accountable for their votes. But that is exactly what is happening, right now.
- The system must allow issuers to link a response to individual NO votes. There is currently no way to respond to NO votes.
- Moderators must have training and oversight. If a moderator votes NO they must provide a reasonable explanation. I suggest constructive criticism. And if that criticism should be handled appropriately by the issuer, the moderator MUST change their vote. Right now there is no accountability and it is NOT WORKING. Moderators must not lie about why they are voting NO. There must be a punishment for this. You or someone must be able to step in and veto any untenable (code word for 'stupid') moderator vote.

This is the 'usenet principle'. We had usenet for 20 or 30 years. It failed. Get over it. Unmoderated forums, unmoderated moderation, fails and sucks and drives people away. Why? Because a very small number of people wield disproportionate power to their ability and/or interest. If you do not learn from history it will repeat by causing your exchange to fail.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in how this turned out. Your system is unique. It's special. It's the only exchange you can own a share in. It could have been this great thing -- it really could have been #1 -- but your policies are so restrictive and so unusual that they have created a situation where it is actually a net negative to invest in LTC-GLOBAL. Let's say I wanted to buy 100 shares of LTC GLOBAL. Well it would set me back over 500 BTC, but can anyone tell me why I would want to do that? What the point is? There's no benefit. I wouldn't have any greater say than someone with just 10 shares. That is a very poor policy. There's no reason to invest in your company. That makes me sad. It feels like the community lost something important.

A user reported a bug in the process that removes asset votes when a user sells their shares of LTC-GLOBAL.  Their votes were staying when they had expected they would vanish.  Unfortunately, the votes should have vanished, but did not.

This bug affected btct.co, but not litecoinglobal.com.  Now that it's been patched, you will likely have noticed a reduction of votes on many of the assets.

Couple other bug fixes recently:

- The PUT options tables now properly show the proceeds you'd receive if you exercise the PUT option.
- Which also exposed the fact that a couple of users had posted PUT options with a higher premium than the strike, guaranteeing a loss.    All of those have been purged from the market and code has been introduced to make sure they don't make it onto the market again.

Cheers.