Author

Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 128. (Read 316680 times)

legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
I'm trying to move my RSM shares from the claim account to my final account. It says that the fee with internal transfers is 0 but when I'm trying to move them it says "You do not have enough funds for that amount."

Also - now I have two btct.co accounts registered under one email address. Isn't it strange? Smiley

That's an error from the wallet page for BTC transfers.  Wink  You probably want to do the asset transfer from the portfolio page.

Cheers.
newbie
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
I'm trying to move my RSM shares from the claim account to my final account. It says that the fee with internal transfers is 0 but when I'm trying to move them it says "You do not have enough funds for that amount."

Also - now I have two btct.co accounts registered under one email address. Isn't it strange? Smiley
legendary
Activity: 4522
Merit: 3426
This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.
Not exactly a bug, but definitely could use some improvement.  It's displaying in thousands for those fields and it's using floor() to round down.  On the LTC side of the site it made sense, but on the BTC side I think I need to scale it down to hundreds instead of thousands or something.

Or perhaps display either way depending on the value.


Another possible improvement: the volume values on the price history graphs are not convenient numbers (multiples of [1,2,5]x10n) and are sometimes not even whole numbers. I think this changed recently.
member
Activity: 61
Merit: 10
I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

There's no option to merge - but you can make your new account then log into the auto-created accounts and transfer the shares/BTC in them across to your new account.  There's no fee on transfers - so it just takes a litle bit of time but costs you nothing.

Excellent, thanks! Smiley
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.

There's no option to merge - but you can make your new account then log into the auto-created accounts and transfer the shares/BTC in them across to your new account.  There's no fee on transfers - so it just takes a litle bit of time but costs you nothing.
member
Activity: 61
Merit: 10
I have 2 accounts (auto set-up) at BTC Trading Corp.
I would like to create my own profile with and easier name etc and merge current accounts and future accounts into my (easier to remember) new log in.

Will this be possible?

Thanks.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.

Not exactly a bug, but definitely could use some improvement.  It's displaying in thousands for those fields and it's using floor() to round down.  On the LTC side of the site it made sense, but on the BTC side I think I need to scale it down to hundreds instead of thousands or something.

Cheers.
legendary
Activity: 4522
Merit: 3426
Who the hell are these two people who voted NO on every Bond without a public comment? I think public comments should be requiered to vote NO.

FYI. A no vote counts as 2, so those bond issues with 2 no votes were actually only 1 vote.

Anyway, I voted no of four of them. Three of those were because they do not pay back the loan. I generally post public comments if there is something in the contract that seems important but is not obvious. Since most mining bonds do not pay back the loan, I didn't bother, but I might start noting this "dirty little secret" in the future.

In case you are interested, my personal criteria for approving a security was posted in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-criteria-for-approving-securites-on-ltc-global-and-btc-trading-corp-129844
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Bold BTC symbol has a problem. There is always a box drawn to the right of it.

Speaking of bugs, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a way to report bugs from the site.
That is pretty strange.
What browser/version OS/version are you running?  (looks good to me in FF on win7)
I am running Chrome 23.0.1271.97 m on windows 7.
Just tested using 23.0.1271.97 in win7, I don't see it in the two places I know about the bold symbol. (orders summary, portfolio.  orders summary, asset trade page)
Can you think of anything that might be different?  (Do you use any custom fonts, or zoom settings?)  Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? 

When it happens, it happens everywhere, but it looks like it is intermittent. Also, one time it occurred on all the non-bold BTC symbols. Sorry I'm not much help.

I've seen this too on Win8 Pro/Chrome.
full member
Activity: 249
Merit: 114
Who is John Galt?
This bug has been around for a long time, so you must be aware of it: the Total Vol and Market Cap columns on the Market page are all 0.
full member
Activity: 249
Merit: 114
Who is John Galt?
Bold BTC symbol has a problem. There is always a box drawn to the right of it.

Speaking of bugs, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a way to report bugs from the site.
That is pretty strange.
What browser/version OS/version are you running?  (looks good to me in FF on win7)
I am running Chrome 23.0.1271.97 m on windows 7.
Just tested using 23.0.1271.97 in win7, I don't see it in the two places I know about the bold symbol. (orders summary, portfolio.  orders summary, asset trade page)
Can you think of anything that might be different?  (Do you use any custom fonts, or zoom settings?)  Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? 

When it happens, it happens everywhere, but it looks like it is intermittent. Also, one time it occurred on all the non-bold BTC symbols. Sorry I'm not much help.
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
RSM import complete.

As with previous imports, if you were expecting an email and you did not receive one, please check your spam folder before contacting Matthew or us for support.  Google in particular has been putting most of our welcome emails into the spam box.

I hope everyone will join us in welcoming RSM refugees to BTC-TC!
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
Maybe it would be relevant to setup a system where specific actions would need to be allowed or disallowed (with or without a vote) at asset creation (with a related sentence or two in the contract). So that moving an asset (or actions like split, issuing shares, changing contract, changing permissions) would require a vote.

What I'm imagining is a little bit like Android permissions where an issuer has to declare ahead of time exactly what would be required, preferably enforced by the system (though just declaring the permissions would be enough to deter some behavior I imagine). As an example: Issuer may not issue additional shares, issuer may add additional shares without vote (Method should still be declared ahead of time), and issuer may issue shares with motion. Although even an asset which originally declares no new shares will be issued can later change this behavior with a shareholder motion of course.

I agree, I need to ask more questions about the security at creation time.  Some of that could be enforced.  Some of it just becomes an informational blurb on the contract page.

Another one is "What percentage of the shares does it take to pass a motion?".

Appreciate the input.  It'll be a bit before I get to it, but I will definitely integrate this stuff in to the asset creation stage.

Cheers.
sr. member
Activity: 389
Merit: 250
Some of you probably noticed that Ian has locked BAKEWELL.  This is his post:

Trading of BAKEWELL on btct.co has been halted.

BAKEWELL is in the process of moving to BitFunder.com. Please prepare to claim your shares on that platform.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

We are thankful for btct.co extending help to us during the glbse fiasco, they have a great team and make a wonderful platform.

I'm a little sad to see him go.  I don't see a motion on this anywhere, which means his shareholders were not given a vote on this.  That is a little unfortunate.  (I'm a shareholder, it's definitely annoying on a personal level...)

The more important point though is that this proves that the tools we give asset issuers make it really easy to do transitions like this.  Our hard work is being put to the test, and the product is holding up to real-life situations and meeting the rapidly changing needs of the community.  (be sure that if you do transition, the other side has the same tools, or you may find yourself locked in and unable to come back.)  So while this is a slight setback for the exchange overall, it validates and reinforces a lot of our hard work.

Cheers.
Maybe it would be relevant to setup a system where specific actions would need to be allowed or disallowed (with or without a vote) at asset creation (with a related sentence or two in the contract). So that moving an asset (or actions like split, issuing shares, changing contract, changing permissions) would require a vote.

What I'm imagining is a little bit like Android permissions where an issuer has to declare ahead of time exactly what would be required, preferably enforced by the system (though just declaring the permissions would be enough to deter some behavior I imagine). As an example: Issuer may not issue additional shares, issuer may add additional shares without vote (Method should still be declared ahead of time), and issuer may issue shares with motion. Although even an asset which originally declares no new shares will be issued can later change this behavior with a shareholder motion of course.
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
Great to see that all the locked assets where moved to the Locked section.
You should move locked assets which are in the approval process there too.

Why was BTCI frozen by you?

BTCT-TC shouldn't list assets witch are locked for public trading under "These assets need your vote!". There is no point voting on these assets.

Who the hell are these two people who voted NO on every Bond without a public comment? I think public comments should be requiered to vote NO.

BTCI was frozen (and removed) at the request of the issuer.

Good call on the locked assets awaiting approval.  They are now on the locked tab as well.

Public comments are not required when voting NO because sometimes the voter would prefer the comments to be private.  A NO vote does require a comment, either public or private, so in theory the asset issuer is getting good feedback either way.

Thank you for using BTC-TC!
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
Hey mods, quick request that you take a fresh look at RSM.

The contract wasn't there because of an issue with the form XSS filtering.  (The contract had a < in it.)  The bug is now fixed.

hero member
Activity: 968
Merit: 547
Great to see that all the locked assets where moved to the Locked section.
You should move locked assets which are in the approval process there too.

Why was BTCI frozen by you?

BTCT-TC shouldn't list assets witch are locked for public trading under "These assets need your vote!". There is no point voting on these assets.

Who the hell are these two people who voted NO on every Bond without a public comment? I think public comments should be requiered to vote NO.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
Some of you probably noticed that Ian has locked BAKEWELL.  This is his post:

Trading of BAKEWELL on btct.co has been halted.

BAKEWELL is in the process of moving to BitFunder.com. Please prepare to claim your shares on that platform.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

We are thankful for btct.co extending help to us during the glbse fiasco, they have a great team and make a wonderful platform.

I'm a little sad to see him go.  I don't see a motion on this anywhere, which means his shareholders were not given a vote on this.  That is a little unfortunate.  (I'm a shareholder, it's definitely annoying on a personal level...)

The more important point though is that this proves that the tools we give asset issuers make it really easy to do transitions like this.  Our hard work is being put to the test, and the product is holding up to real-life situations and meeting the rapidly changing needs of the community.  (be sure that if you do transition, the other side has the same tools, or you may find yourself locked in and unable to come back.)  So while this is a slight setback for the exchange overall, it validates and reinforces a lot of our hard work.

Cheers.


legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
Feature request:

Receiving a e-mail: "LTC-GLOBAL Purchase Notification" is really nice, but the e-mail subject is kinda useless Smiley
 If it's possible, maybe you can please make the Subject a bit more informative.

How about:

Code:
"LTC-GLOBAL: Purchase of [NUMBER OF SHARES] [SYMBOL] @ [PRICE]" 

So this will look like:  LTC-GLOBAL: Purchase of 1000 ART @ 1.19

Same for Sale and share transfers.

Thank you.


Good idea.  I submitted a patch that implements this.  Thanks!
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
Feature request:

Receiving a e-mail: "LTC-GLOBAL Purchase Notification" is really nice, but the e-mail subject is kinda useless Smiley
 If it's possible, maybe you can please make the Subject a bit more informative.

How about:

Code:
"LTC-GLOBAL: Purchase of [NUMBER OF SHARES] [SYMBOL] @ [PRICE]" 

So this will look like:  LTC-GLOBAL: Purchase of 1000 ART @ 1.19

Same for Sale and share transfers.

Thank you.
Jump to: