Quote from: Ichthyo on December 20, 2013, 01:41:05 AM

Quote from: TwinWinNerD on December 20, 2013, 12:29:28 AM

But! What happend yesterday ist just unacceptable. You said that the balances had a glitch? How come that i SAW my trades get executed? How come that when i checked the "public trading history" that i saw these trades getting executed at these rates? How come that everything matched up?

maybe you should recall that what you "see" on a computer monitor is not "real" as in brick and mortar. All you see is the response of a computer program. And any one of these has bugs and glitches. Needless to add, that a LTC rate of $1 for an sustained period looks unlikely. But in the end, the rate is formed by deals carried through, and what gets carried through is being decided by the trading engine.

@ 1$ rate of LTC. It was a market crash. Those things happen, and why should I be the one that pays for that?
@ not real argument: obviously you are right, but isn't the fact that we trust the website we use that everything is correct the thing we most desire? If i use a site where every action i take can be executed or not, and i am only sure hours later, i am not sure that i want that...

Thus I see two lines of argumentation.

First off, you should check if your overall balance is correct. That means, if some trade was wound back, the balances on both LTC and USD (or BTC in case of LTC/BTC) should be changed by the exact reversal of that trade, including the reversal of the fees. Since you have made screenshots (a very good idea!), you can do the math and verify "they" did the math correct on their part.

@i will do the math tomorrow as i am very tired at the moment, but when i went over the numbers, it looked like the deal was just annuled. USD was added and LTC deducted

Then there is another line of argumentation. You might want argue that you have a right to get that deal executed. But, honestly, your chances to make this into a serious argumentation are near zero, since you have no insight into the inner workings of the platform.

@ Isn't the fact that there were 3 orders, @ 1, @ 1,5 @ 3,01 and two of those got executed and 1 got reversed, a strong enough argument that all 3 should be executed?

At that point I'd like to add two general observations

in the traditional finance industry, this kind of dispute is exactly what gets all that regulatory overhead started. There are irregularities and mismatches, and there are some clever people benefiting from those. And, at some point then, regulation is a self-runner.
also in the traditional finance industry, such situations are communicated proactively in each individual case, since experience shows that such an dispute doesn't even start when both sides know there was a technical glitch. While this may seem perfect, we should note that a huge load of the overall cost of the traditional industry is sucked away by paying all those people to care for communication on each and every occasion. So there is a price tag for sure

I dont need perfect communication on all parts. But i want Infos. Any at all..