Topic: GLBSE 2.0 open for testing - page 22. (Read 51751 times)

The issues your SSL, for some reason. dev.glbse.com doesn't use it.

Nefario.

using FF 11.0

Its strange because I get the lines around text boxes and red error messages on dev.glbse.com but not on glbse.com

[large picture] dev on left 2.0 on the right
http://i.imgur.com/fHDWf.png

Yeah, I'm also seeing colour in the error message box, what browser are you using?

I see borders around text boxes.
Firefox 4.01

are you using the python client or web client? if web, which version? when web client 2.0 went live, user orders were not migrated into the claimed 2.0 accounts. also the database can only support one type of clients at one time. so the 1.0 web application is now only good for getting the claim code.

my buy/sell orders did not change since this morning. I have however created them in 2.0 after I migrated my old account there.
afaik only orders in the old version of GLBSE (the blue/black web client 1.0) are gone. they were all canceled.

@Nefario what do you think about: https://sourceforge.net/p/glbseguide/wiki/bip1/ ?

p.s. I can has https://glbse.com/assets/ ?
for 'new visitors' it was the index page of all asset contracts.

Yeah we closed all orders a while after opening. Order processing at the time wasn't working.

It's fine now.

Nefario.

could you put lines around all text boxes?


The error message box should be red too. I think it was red in the 0.2 dev? Its easy to not notice the error and think the site is broken.

I just wanted to report something that happened in the last 24 hours on my account.  I had multiple sell and buy orders, but when I came back the sell and buy orders seemed to be canceled.  They were not there anymore and I did not cancel them and had the proper amount of funds and assets available to be on reserve.

You're right, it's not going to include /app/

@Nefario I noticed the URLs in 2.0 do not contain the /app (you mention this somewhere as an option). Will you keep that?
I'm reviewing the guide I'm writing and that question could save me some effort later.

thanks for linking to it from the 'main' 2.0 page. I'll try to keep up, develop it steadily and add screenshots where appropriate.

Site is down because I found a security risk (not a flaw, but risk), I'm working to mitigate it ASAP.

an open question to those of  you who advocate 'unfunded' buy orders:

how do you prefer your order to be canceled if your bitcoins are spent on another buy order?
what should happen with your "overlapping orders"?

I hope you see the point that if there would be an increased limit of let's say 3x of your bitcoin balance (that could be 'any', 3 is here just for the illustration with 'real' numbers) you would max it out no matter how generous or strictly set. but let's assume it's 3x.

now you have overlapping orders totaling 300, your balance is 100.
now 50 coins are spent and you have remaining 250 btc of open buy orders with 50 btc covering them.
you moved from 1:3 to 1:5 and 100 eur of your orders should be canceled as part of enforcing the agreed limit.

unless glbse would have a clairvoyant wired into it there's no easy way of telling which 100 of orders should be dropped so all your remaining orders would have to be cut by 40% to get you back to 1:3 ratio of covered buy orders.

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

404'ing

well, the orders will be there just at lower prices and in smaller quantities. I agree that this is an issue worth further discussion but I don't see it as a show stopper.

edit: I'm interested in goat's opinion, as he's managing the 'bank' asset and has an open buy order for a 1000 or so shares. that would mean he either keeps the bitcoins in the exchange lying around and not working for him or would have to visit the exchange frequently to keep track of sales and respective buy orders


afaik not yet. withdrawals in 1.0 were subject of charge and limit and were not talked about. you're pioneering this idea with your request

Guessing it's already been suggested, but the option of setting a "payout lock" (having a set withdrawal address requiring email confirmation or 48h to change) would be nice in the future, too.

Cheers.

That's great and all except the orders won't be there to begin with.  It is actually a disincentive to liquidity providers, why should they tie up their money to 100% commit to something that only might happen.  This is a fundamental problem here.

I do agree on this, I liked it when you could place several buy orders on different shares, you could then be prepared for a lot of good trades and if too many purchases were made the order would simply not go through. I would rather have that you can overlap your bidding, possible not by a infinite amount but by say x2-x3 what you have and when you are out of Bitcoins all the orders you are up go down. Something like that

//DeaDTerra

I just tried to make a 4BTC withdrawal. I know it's a lot, but.... 

"Ooops, we done goofed. To keep your bitcoin safe we only keep a small portion in our hot wallet, this means that sometimes (like now) there isn't enough there. Send an email to the Doctor([email protected]) telling him how much you want to take out and he'll top it up right away."

I get your point at it has certain valid logic in it. however currently the exchange is not capable to review buyer's orders and cancel those eventually unfunded if his bitcoins get spent. this way it makes sure no unfunded buy orders remain.

imagine we're the only 2 users. you have buy orders on all my stock and I decide to sell everything.
in your use case I would be able to sell 1st batch of shares and invalidate all your other buy orders (you do not have any more credit on your bitcoin balance)
in the currently implemented use case I could sell all my shares because every buy order displayed is an order backed with blocked bitcoins.

it is not so much pseudo leverage as it is making a proper market.  just because i have a buy for 10@1btc for stock a, doesn't mean i won't jump at the opportunity to take [email protected] of stock b should the market decide to go there (with the same money).  money is limited, people have to keep their options open.  all this will encourage is no standing bids.  credit has to be checked at execution time, that's how it works.