Topic: GLBSE 2.0 open for testing - page 20. (Read 51751 times)

Internal Server Error when I try to vote a motion

honestly.. after using glbse for quite a while..
i liked the old system much better. here is why:

- the bid/ask tables are not sorted ascending by bid/ask price
- the builtin-charts lack any usabillity. no information at all. http://charts.glbse.com/ has been abbandoned?! O_o
- no bitcoin history (no offense, but why make a new system, and forget to implement core-features?!)
- no market history (...)
- look. the old systems looke alot better.
- authentification&security. what happened to the browser-key authentification? the current system is fucking insecure compared to the old one!!
- not possible to create another bitcoin deposit address
- why pay fees for this software? :-/

.. i am a litte bit confused, why all this features where not implemented.

GLBSE 2.0 till now is a huge step backward, unless you fix that.

Got your mail, there was a bug in dividends that got fixed later on Sunday.
I'm working on how we can clear this up.

@Nefario - sent you an e-mail regarding some problems with dividend payments.  Seems some shareholders received their dividends and some did not.. 

your own orders are visible in the portfolio page (unique for you)

your request to include indicator which orders in that table are your impacts the asset view page (might be common for all users except the indicator of ones own orders)

makes sense, currently the asset view page where buy/sell orders are listed does not indicate which orders are yours and will be hopefully touched sonn (at least to sort out the sorting).

Yeah that looks good, bah it's going to be a pain to actually make it...no wait, it shouldn't be too difficult actually. Feature request accepted.

yes please. and most awesome would be to have one's own order integrated into that table somehow. That way, one can see all relevant data in one table.

This is funny, I've tested the crap out of the account importing functionality and not been able to replicate the errors.

Can you pm me you're recovery code and and email address you use for logging in so I can investigate, it's really bugging me(probably isn't fun for you either).


Also just a note on GLBSE in general, since we've launched 2.0 the trade volume is over 5 times what it was compared to GLBSE 1.0 and deposits (which also means liquidity) is pouring in at a very impressive rate.

What this translates to is we're on the right track for GLBSE to become the market we had always hoped it would.

With improvements on the way (I'll be adding account to account transfers, even have redemption codes ala MtGox, and proper sorting of bids/asks and more) this are only going to get better.

I'll also sort assets on the asset page (which I'll change to /assets) by volume(I'll also display volume as well).

Other assets where I've verified the ID's I'll updated them.

Then the next big step will be to allow contract editing. You may all see that the contracts from assets imported from GLBSE1.0 are not the most readable.

Asset owners, what I want you to do is create a motion (set it's finish date for about a week into the future), and put in the text you want for your new contract. If the motion passes (say a majority of 50% or more) I'll manually update the contract.

Now we're sucking diesel!

I got that error but things still worked

Hi

I was just curious if there is a problem with GLBSE atm..

Trying to import my 1.0 accounts and getting internal server error

btw great job Nefario , things are looking great

exactly that is the difference.
one is backed with REAL funding and in GLBSE1 they weren't cancelled.

In GLBSE chances were that 50% of the BID orders could not be traded since they simply weren't there!

also, keeping track of which order is funded, which isn't and so on is not trivial.

I'd prefer an order type that lets you specify two (three?) different stocks and has all but one order cancelled upon the first execution.

Tell me what is the difference between someone with a lot of money coming placing lots of low bids (because they have the capital for the reserve) all over the place, then when an order is executed canceling all those other bids, with someone placing multiple orders and once an order is executed all other orders are automatically canceled or reduced to the amount of BTC in their account?

well because the exchange did not cancel 'those other orders' once buyer's bitcoins were gone and this is how the fake bids were accumulated. once auto-cancelling orders would work, then maybe it would make sense adding pseudo buying power.

how about a look from seller perspective? I have 1 share and I want to offer it for sale at 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 and 2.0
you see 6 shares for sale but it's still the same 1 share that I offer for sale at various prices. nonsense?

I cannot argue with the WISH to have the ability to post "ghost bids" (I still call them "fake").
I can only say that in any serious environment, they only post problems.

Right now they fill two functions:

- have ppl place low BIDs everywhere and see which gets filled
- act as nonexistent but visuial "demand".


if both is desireable is questionable.
both are, however, NOT congruent with how a "real" stock exchange works.

(I have a strange pathologically obsessive nature with staying on topic.)

I don't see how making multiple bid orders if I have the available money for any of those orders is not real.  I have the ability to make the purchase and I have the intention.  So once that order is filled my money is taken away and I own whatever contract that is.  Once I don't have any more money then I don't have the ability to make the other purchases so those other orders should be canceled.

With higher volume then yes I don't see a problem with making these reserve requirements, but in that theoretical world a bid would be executed fairly rapidly and there would be a narrow bid/ask spread.  In today's GLBSE world we can only see the demand for a contract as either being there or not, while normally demand would be seen in a continuous matter in the bid side.  People don't want to lock in their bitcoins and have it not working for them.  There will be outrageously low bids, as no one will bid a reasonable amount and lock in a significant amount of bitcoins in the small GLBSE market.

People talked about phantom bids before, now they really are a ghost as you can't see the demand at all anymore.

even in the feature requests thread we are encouraged to discuss the shit out of each other.

we the users,
...

we should be able to request features, argue/discuss them, sort out the differences and if they can not be reconciled at least summarize the problem, know options and arguments pro/contra.

so yes, please, debate other people's requests or nefario starts to implement them in their raw form and will eventually end up reverting the changes. if he programs faster then we discuss we may and up with a glbse we don't want to.

so why should any virtual buying power be allowed? could it be charged with extra fees? and as it is spend the remaining buy orders should be either downsized or right away cancelled but how?
I think having fake bids is worse than having a slow exchange

while that may be so, this will not be solved by allowing users to create nonexistent BID sides.
If trading is slow, demand is slow, your business is not interesting. Or GLBSE isnt popular enough.

If people want to sell, they will lower their ASK.

I can understand your perspective, but the problem is inherent in the system.
stocks should split so they're more attractive visually.
not every other outhouse should go public.

Right now once someone buys a contract they can do two things with it.  Do nothing or put it on a sell order.  If I have a mining company AAA that pays 10% dividend each week I might as well put AAA on a sell at some value higher than I purchased that contract.  So there is no logical reason for anyone that has bought a share to not put it on the order book.  If it doesn't sell then I still get my 10%.  If it does sell then I get some capital gains.

With the current locking of bitcoins there is no reason to put in bids.  Like you said, might as well purchase at the ask price.  But the ask price is way too overpriced.  Now that it is pointless to put in bids, the demand looks soft so there is no clear bid-ask spread.  The ask will be overpriced.  Go through any of the contracts right now and you will see they almost all have about twice as much ask prices than bids.

all orders in the order book MUST represent REAL orders.
else, the whole idea of determining the price of an asset on demand and supply gets screwed.
if you want a stock, buy from the ASK instead of building fake BID walls in every other stock waiting for shit to drop into their lap.

selling my portfolio and discovering that 50% of the bid sides were fakes? nice!

didnt we love these fake bid and ask walls on MTGOX? well, at least there's REAL money behind those.

if you "intend" to buy a share, BUY IT.

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit:  I thought I was in the request thread.)

You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts.


Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC.  This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids.  As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid.  If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids.  In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC.


Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin.