Topic: [GLBSE] PureMining: Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond - page 13. (Read 39667 times)

can it be that not migrated accounts are holding the 500 - 353 shares and that screws up the dividend payment?

That's kind of the problem, there is an entry in the asset page but we don't know if it was deducted and credited properly.

If you mean the 0.72943025 BTC total paid, it's a real payment. I'm guessing it was registered when I first tried to pay dividend. But instead of paying 0.00206637 each to 353 shares, it should have paid 0.00145886 each to 500 shares.

It would be ideal if you can make sure the other 147 shares get paid. If all else fails I can do another 0.72943025 BTC payment, but I want to be reasonably assured that it will be distributed to everyone, including those who haven't migrated yet.

Was a dividend really paid at all? I'm not sure it was deducted at all from my account. If not I'll just try again to make a payment.


I doubt it.

Did you import your account to 2.0? When?

I did not receive your dividend.

Perhaps 353 is actually the number of shareholders, many of whom own more than one share?

Yes, but later this week, early next week.

You can see the divided on the puremining asset page.

Is 0.2BTC a normal dividend payment or a test one?

Nefario.

Also, I have no way of accessing my transaction records on the old site, so I can't verify when the previous dividend happened. Will it be possible to access the old records?

If it's any help, I transferred my account before the dividend was paid and it is not reflected in my balance:


My account total is still 45.52791946 even though I own some shares of PUREMINING

Thanks.

Now when I look at the asset page, I get the following entry for the dividends paid:

0.72943025 is indeed the total that should have been paid. But it should have been paid to 500 shares, at 0.00145886 per share.

So what does this mean?
1. Did asset holders receive the described dividend?
2. Was it deducted from my account?
3. Did the holders of the other 147 shares get anything?
4. How do I give payment to them?

GLBSE is back up again, have another go at paying dividends.

The problem was caused by imported data from GLBSE1.0, it was a case of a single account that had your shares that was stopping the whole process.

Sorry for the delay.

That, is actually a very good question, you can be sure that they also get their dividends, they just need to claim their account to get paid.

Nefario.

Sounds like it isn't impossible, just requires spending more time than you have available. This is completely understandable, and I of course respect and appreciate your efforts, but that's not going to change how I feel about the upgrade. It was a complete shock. Yes, I could have tried to prepare better but my time is limited too.


PS What happens to asset holders who have not yet migrated to 2.0 when I pay dividends?

Investigating, I'll post here when it's working.


This isn't possible, the two systems cannot interact and cannot run side by side. They don't use the same dbms, the database structure is different, different application framework, even different methods of authentication. 2.0 has a normal web interface, 1.0 uses a client written in Javascript that uses public key cryptography (which most uses didn't understand, I spent so much time recovering lost accounts) to authenticate. Trying to maintain the two systems would be a complete nightmare.

Give me a little more time to work out the niggles.

Nefario

I tried it again and it still doesn't work.

I understand that, bugs will be bugs, they are not what I'm upset about (but see more below).

Only after the major bugs are fixed it's reasonable to try out the interface and provide feedback.

For this exact reason the upgrade should have been handled differently. (I'm assuming GLBSE 1.0 was disabled because it did not work; please tell me if this is wrong and it was just a DB lock).

Don't twist everyone's arms and force them to upgrade at launch. Offer a transition period and let those who are happily using the existing platform continue to do so for at least a month or two. Those who prefer the new version and want to start a new asset or migrate their old asset can do so. Any bugs and usability issues can be found and fixed. When it's stable you can more actively encourage people to migrate or at least try it out; only after some time you should forcefully upgrade.

Dividends bug has been fixed, you can now make dividend payments, one of the good points about GLBSE2.0 is assets now show full dividend history. I will be importing GLBSE1.0 history in the later part of this week.

Meni, every effort has been made to make GLBSE2.0 bug free, it's been developed in the open with a public beta, plenty of bugs as a result were found and fixed.

One of the problems though in moving from a testing environment to a production one, is that it's not possible to predict every possibility. Things that did work during testing, for various reasons broke on moving to production. Many of them were caught and fixed before launch, some were not.

The public beta was also there so users could become familiar with the new interface, not just test for bugs, it was also used to get feedback from the community on what you want from your exchange.

Unless you spell out specifically whats wrong and what you need I won't be able to build it into the system. Give me something to go on so that I can build the functionality into it.

Please keep in mind that some things, such as transfers have just not been implemented yet, and will be towards the end of the week.

GLBSE1.0 and 2.0 are two completely separate, different systems, they cannot operate or interact with each other. Give me some more time and I'll bring in the  history from 1.0

Nefario

I don't have any spare time to dedicate to beta-testing this software and I did not at any point volunteer to do so.

GLBSE is a service provided by nefario and I have already paid 20 BTC in fees for this service. It is not reasonable to expect that I should donate my time as well.

What is reasonable to expect is that the problems would be fixed before forcing everyone to switch to the new version.


But that's all missing the point. The bugs are not what I'm disappointed about. Everything about GLBSE 2.0 is more rigid, less intuitive, less usable, and less compatible with a bond model than 1.0.

You had the opportunity to test the beta before it went live and help him fix any issues. Last I saw, only mila was actively poking the beta and finding bugs.

Give Nefario some time, I am sure that the bugs in GLBSE V2 will be fixed over the next couple of days
//DeaDTerra

GLBSE 2.0 is out and it's absolutely awful.

What's worse, it seems GLBSE 1.0 can no longer be used. (Either that or the database locked up again.) So I imported my accounts, and after much searching managed to locate the feature to pay dividends. But trying to use it leads to an "internal server error". Because of this, coupons for block #172703 from last night are still pending.

I've contacted nefario about this and I hope it will be resolved soon.

To whomever it may concern, the fact that using GLBSE 2.0 is intolerable is also delaying my plans to issue new bonds.

One problem with that is that if the issue price is lower than his bid, he'll pay more than he could have gotten it otherwise. To my disappointment, it is currently impossible in GLBSE to force the issue to take place at the lower price.

Without extensive validation (which I am not currently equipped to do), I wouldn't trust a script to do any more automatically than it currently does. I have payment amounts automatically calculated and email notifications of new key blocks. I'm also training my family to handle payments in my absence (in fact I'm holding off payment on the recent block #172367 to save it for a training session in a few hours).

Inaba is in custody of the actual hardware (which hasn't arrived yet), so he should be able to confirm there is hardware owned by me. I've come to devise this asset after a train of thought starting from wanting to invest in mining, so I have no intention to bet against that (and in fact will likely almost always have spare capacity as my own investment).

But my claim to legitimacy rests primarily on
 - Planning the issue so that even if I had no hardware, I would be able to cover my obligations from personal assets (buying back if needed);
 - Committing to do so should the need arise due to unforeseeable circumstances; and
 - Staking my reputation on this commitment.

So it basically boils down to how much I am trusted not to run away with the money. This will likely be a more limiting factor as I scale up the venture, and I will be looking for ways to inspire confidence.

If you're interested in buying you can anyways put an offer at your desired price on GLBSE and just wait if either someone sells their bonds or Meni issues some at that price or lower.

@Meni: Very interesting enterprise - I would from experience however strongly recommend to automate payments as much as possible (e.g. Write a script that checks for these key blocks, extracts the necessary info and you just have to press enter to send a few more BTC for the next payment to GLBSE + issue the current dividend).

Great to see a different twist on the (interestingly nowadays "standard") "mining financed by GLBSE" thingie.

As I have already quite some experience with selling MH/s values for a fixed amount of BTC I'm not sure if I'd buy in anytime soon at ~1/3rd BTC a million hashes/sec but as your transparency is great everyone can make up their own mind and do their own calculations.

Actually I thought of doing something like this too, but it would just be too easy and tempting to do it ponzi style instead. Maybe you could battle this by mining on p2pool or Eligius and sign a message with the private key of the payout address with the generations inside? This would prove in the blockchain that you are capable of mining fresh coins and not just using the ones you got from bonds (which at the moment would be _very_ easy). As you calculated yourself in the starting post - even without selling new bonds you would be able to keep this running for nearly a year.