|
Does transparent forging work through firewalls?
|
|
|
|
Another bug report Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./counterpartyd.py", line 465, in <module>
deadline = round(datetime.timestamp(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline)))
AttributeError: type object 'datetime.datetime' has no attribute 'timestamp' I have a patch for this diff --git a/counterpartyd.py b/counterpartyd.py
index 779ee12..1bbf2bd 100755
--- a/counterpartyd.py
+++ b/counterpartyd.py
@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ from prettytable import PrettyTable
import time
import dateutil.parser
-from datetime import datetime
+import datetime
+import calendar
from lib import (config, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
from lib import (send, order, btcpay, issuance, broadcast, bet, dividend, burn, cancel, util)
@@ -462,7 +463,7 @@ if __name__ == '__main__':
json_print(bitcoin.transmit(unsigned_tx_hex))
elif args.action == 'bet':
- deadline = round(datetime.timestamp(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline)))
+ deadline = calendar.timegm(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline).utctimetuple())
Look ok? |
|
|
|
smaragda, ricot, vamdor, ImmortAlex, rlh: Please PM your NXT tip account. Thanks for pouring through the code.
FrictionlessCoin send yours too cuz you need a NXT hug.
Post your addresses guys (gals?) I wanna reward your efforts... ricot : 100K ImmortAlex :50K vamdor: 50K rlh: 50K smaragda: 50K Well done guys! |
|
|
|
I'm finally out of dgex.com (still had BTC in the account, bought NXT and got them out after "just" two days) and I am out of buying and selling NXT as long as there is no alternative exchange. (Please no Peercover/Ripple/Private Escrow follow-ups... Thank you.) Allow me some final words regarding dgex.com. 1.) GCInc, thanks a lot for your service over the last weeks. I think the dgex exchange was very important for NXT and you did a good and brave job with setting it up and running it. 2.) GCInc, you are a thief. You've just stolen around US$20 from me and the service you provided for me over the last weeks is worth more than US$20, but still you are thief. It feels like a friend asked you to borrow some money from you and when he pays back, he tells you that he changed his mind and only pays you back 99% of what you borrowed him. You totally lost credibility with your move to change the fees without previous notice, thus I am out of dgex until its under new management. 3.) I came for the quick profit - I stay because of the very cool community. With this NXT community there were other ways to "cover your ass". While you still had a reputation for what you've done for NXT you had a good chance to explain why you lost 800.000 with your exchange and ask for help from the community. After following here over the last weeks, I am convinced you would have gotten help from us. 4.) "Third in command"? This is a PR disaster... Unfortuntely, your way of managing dgex and answering only questions that you think you have good answers for makes me fear that this is in fact how you see yourself. I don't want to make business with you having the feeling that you are the boss and not that were a business partners. 5.) Will you commit to announcing ahead of time any fee INCREASES?
This fee increase was a mistake, yet seemed like the only option. I had to cover my ass in case the source release had exploded the price 3x...4x... god knows how much, every percent tightening the deficit rope around my neck more and more.Well, nobody else jumped onto this, but this was the point when all (remaining) alarm bells began to rang. What you basically said was that we have an exchange that is run in a way to have a NXT market value that the exchange owner is comfortable with. WTF??? So, because you still have 800.000 NXT missing you have an interest in low market values and you actually run the exchange in your interest. This is just beyond me... And it is totally beyond me that anyone still uses dgex after your sentence above. What scares me the most of this situation is that there is 75 million of peoples Nxt sitting in this dgex reserve account: http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=12292439833850569026Do I understand properly that this is a secondary account for dgex deposits made to the main account? Frightening to think that this type of person has control over 7.5% of the coin cap. To be fair, it should comfort you to know that the exchange is well capitalised and, thus, won't default on your deposits. |
|
|
|
|
New dep on python-werkzeug?
Which version should we use?
|
|
|
|
Another bug report Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./counterpartyd.py", line 465, in <module>
deadline = round(datetime.timestamp(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline)))
AttributeError: type object 'datetime.datetime' has no attribute 'timestamp' Hmm. What version of datetime do you have? python3-dateutil_2.0+dfsg1-1_all.deb (debian7) |
|
|
|
Another bug report Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./counterpartyd.py", line 465, in <module>
deadline = round(datetime.timestamp(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline)))
AttributeError: type object 'datetime.datetime' has no attribute 'timestamp' |
|
|
|
|
Is the bitcoin wallet the only thing that needs to be backed up? Does counterparty have its own wallet or other data that requires a backup?
|
|
|
|
|
Can feeds or bets _automatically_ reference the price of an asset in open orders or last trade?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, didn't notice on my last pull.... did you push?
|
|
|
|
Here's patch for a few more issues I ran into diff --git a/lib/bitcoin.py b/lib/bitcoin.py
index c61636b..6d8ed5e 100644
--- a/lib/bitcoin.py
+++ b/lib/bitcoin.py
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ def serialise (inputs, destination_output=None, data_output=None, change_output=
# List of Inputs.
for i in range(len(inputs)):
txin = inputs
- s += binascii.unhexlify(txin['txid'])[::-1] # TxOutHash
+ s += binascii.unhexlify(bytes(txin['txid'], 'UTF-8'))[::-1] # TxOutHash
s += txin['vout'].to_bytes(4, byteorder='little') # TxOutIndex
# No signature.
diff --git a/lib/blocks.py b/lib/blocks.py
index 7a9985b..827a0d6 100644
--- a/lib/blocks.py
+++ b/lib/blocks.py
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ def get_tx_info (tx):
if not data:
asm = vout['scriptPubKey']['asm'].split(' ')
if asm[0] == 'OP_RETURN' and len(asm) == 2:
- data = binascii.unhexlify(asm[1])
+ data = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(asm[1], 'UTF-8'))
# Only look for source if data were found (or destination is UNSPENDABLE), for speed.
if not data and destination != config.UNSPENDABLE:
diff --git a/lib/btcpay.py b/lib/btcpay.py
index 7241c98..8a2501b 100644
--- a/lib/btcpay.py
+++ b/lib/btcpay.py
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ LENGTH = 32 + 32
def create (db, order_match_id, test=False):
tx0_hash, tx1_hash = order_match_id[:64], order_match_id[64:] # UTF‐8 encoding means that the indices are doubled.
- tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(tx0_hash), binascii.unhexlify(tx1_hash)
+ tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx0_hash, 'UTF-8')), binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx1_hash, 'UTF-8'))
data = config.PREFIX + struct.pack(config.TXTYPE_FORMAT, ID)
data += struct.pack(FORMAT, tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes) |
|
|
|
this project and the BTC spent (burnt) depends on the implementation of a feature that may or may not appear on 0.9 and it is uncertain even when.
It is a risk. You block your money for a month, with the possibility to lose it. Therefore the thought in some that the early reward in a bit tiny. But it's true that one month isn't that long either. Whatever. Pretty sure OP_RETURN will be on v0.9, 'coz the block chain is getting messy and messier without it. Good dev like clean thing. In the worst case scenario, the proof of burn are still a record of investment. That let the dev considering alternative development, with coin distribution according to burning. It would rely on trust. But it would be a nice gesture of the dev, 'clearly possible. Let's just hope everything goes smoothly =) What happens if OP_RETURN is never added or there is something wrong with it or for some reason the bitcoin devs decide never to add it? Then all the BTC burnt is as loss for investors. |
|
|
|
Once the initial buy-in period is over, how will the price be determined? Will a decentralized exchange be online then?
On testnet it is online and working. On mainnet the code is the same and work if miner process OP_RETURN. Good chance are all miner will process it with the upload to bitcoind v0.9. This day it will be online and usable. TBH I have yet to see any authorized voice not speaking bad about this, so I wouldnt be so sure to see this finally implemented on .9 . I like this project and how it has been launched, but all this project and the BTC spent (burnt) depends on the implementation of a feature that may or may not appear on 0.9 and it is uncertain even when. I would like to have a more clear roadmap for this nice project. Good point. I am now feeling very nervous.  |
|
|
|
.144 BTC a day would be quite high. Especially if BTC goes up another couple thousand, and supposing that you aren't receiving anything back in fees.
Ah, but you're forgetting that this is based on the min BTC TX fee. If BTC goes up, then the min TX fee is adjusted down. Thus, 0.XXX BTC day should be a reasonable, relatively constant amount hovering around $144 or $0.09 USD per feed post. Perhaps, I've got it wrong though? |
|
|
|
Feeds
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
| Feed Address | Timestamp | Text | Value | Fee Multiplier |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
| mt1N2qE4wHkjdDeumCtRg1NKwxXGMCAx5X | 2014-01-06T16:00:03+00:00 | CoinDesk BPI USD | 922.0817 | 0.0001 |
| mgYWm8Ug76czkAMSVNECJ31iEAGH5V9py1 | 2014-01-06T15:57:53+00:00 | foobar | 3.0 | 10 |
| n1TzSvnJRH4LUKA9j6qvCpiqc2yvxGKSmg | 2014-01-06T15:06:40+00:00 | foobar | 123.0 | 1E-7 |
| mq8srYuaPCrzk4mdKuz3168dxJQAQKv7Wo | 2014-01-05T02:06:34+00:00 | Hello World | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| mtQheFaSfWELRB2MyMBaiWjdDm6ux9Ezns | 2014-01-02T01:41:46+00:00 | foobar | 2.0 | 0.001 |
| mz8qzVaH8RaVp2Rq6m8D2dTiSFirhFf4th | 2014-01-02T01:04:17+00:00 | <Locked> | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| n3EHaCAycMEv6DhMPbrQsEubFsgtUmoin1 | 2014-01-01T13:16:05+00:00 | Test | 0.0 | 0.000001 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
So feeds shows us all feeds being "broadcast", rather than just the ones we care about? The feeds listed first are those that have been most recently broadcast. Won't this pose a risk to spamming? For only 0.144 BTC /day you could spam the Feed list every minute and keep your spam visible on top. , users will most likely determine which feeds they want to bet on with reference to a source outside of the blockchain. Spamming broacasts, then, will probably just cause this, which will happen naturally and of its own accord, to happen more quickly. My question is not about trust (I understood your earlier post). It's about whether the information being displayed is useful. What I'm asking is that if this "Feed info window" has information (including spam) changing randomly every 10 minutes, then how useful is it to display it? Feeds of interest will be selected from another source (e.g. a website or forum post), so perhaps it would be better use to show only the feeds a user is interested in (user configurable). I don't know if that's possible, but just a suggestion. Another solution could be to give feeds a feedback rating (as part of the system), then the "Feed window" could be sorted from highest to lowest feedback rating. Feeds could obtain feedback by decentralised voting. |
|
|
|
ok maybe i am missing something here but how do we know that someone does not have the privkey for this address? https://blockchain.info/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVrAlso, why not just use an address that goes to the Red Cross or Shawns Outpost or whatever random charity. Since you are just using this as way to limit coin generation why not at least have the BTC go toward something that benefits people, planet, something. I know it is too late for that obviously. Counterparty aims at maximizing trustlessness, i.e. not sending Bitcoins to any address for which someone has the prviate key; even though you have suggested donating to good causes, Bitcoins could only be sent to their addresses at the expense of trustlessness and decentralization. EDIT: Regarding the unspendability of the Bitcoins in at CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr please see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg4317890#msg4317890yes one would have to be incredibly lucky to generate that address, however we all still have to trust that you do not own a quantum computer or that you did not come here from the future where you have the key to this address. i do not see the causality between using a charity address at the expense of decentralization, as being fundamentally different than your current state. this is using 1 address to gen coins so whether that address belongs to God or the Devil, or no one it makes little difference since coin minting is centralized to that address during the genesis blocks. i would love to see a real logical argument about why an address that is highly unlikely to be generated put out by a nontransparent group of people is better than a btc address that is publicly published by any well known NGO or nonprofit that puts out corporate responsibility reports and is transparent about who they are. essentially i think if someone does this again it would much better if the coins at least went to something productive, rather than accruing to the rest of btc holders (thanks btw  since obviously even the developers of this coin will not see any of this btc. otherwise looks like a good project. I think the point is that someone working at SaveTheChildren, who has access to the private key of the donation address account (or a hacker who stole it), could infinitely inflate the supply of XCP during the mining period. In other words, they can take the received BTC and burn it, receive it back again and repeat. The devil could work for SaveTheChildren, you never know.... |
|
|
|
Feeds
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
| Feed Address | Timestamp | Text | Value | Fee Multiplier |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
| mt1N2qE4wHkjdDeumCtRg1NKwxXGMCAx5X | 2014-01-06T16:00:03+00:00 | CoinDesk BPI USD | 922.0817 | 0.0001 |
| mgYWm8Ug76czkAMSVNECJ31iEAGH5V9py1 | 2014-01-06T15:57:53+00:00 | foobar | 3.0 | 10 |
| n1TzSvnJRH4LUKA9j6qvCpiqc2yvxGKSmg | 2014-01-06T15:06:40+00:00 | foobar | 123.0 | 1E-7 |
| mq8srYuaPCrzk4mdKuz3168dxJQAQKv7Wo | 2014-01-05T02:06:34+00:00 | Hello World | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| mtQheFaSfWELRB2MyMBaiWjdDm6ux9Ezns | 2014-01-02T01:41:46+00:00 | foobar | 2.0 | 0.001 |
| mz8qzVaH8RaVp2Rq6m8D2dTiSFirhFf4th | 2014-01-02T01:04:17+00:00 | <Locked> | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| n3EHaCAycMEv6DhMPbrQsEubFsgtUmoin1 | 2014-01-01T13:16:05+00:00 | Test | 0.0 | 0.000001 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------+----------------+
So feeds shows us all feeds being "broadcast", rather than just the ones we care about? The feeds listed first are those that have been most recently broadcast. Won't this pose a risk to spamming? For only 0.144 BTC /day you could spam the Feed list every minute and keep your spam visible on top. |
|
|
|
"account" : "",
"address" : "1Wh4bh",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : 0.00000000,
"fee" : -0.00010000,
"confirmations" : 36,
"blockhash" : "0000000002d1ecf1442be4c47b2e3c4c6fff24f77d7162e29c972921b0fa35be", seems like an short address. Is that normal? |
|
|
|
order --from=mtQheFaSfWELRB2MyMBaiWjdDm6ux9Ezns --get-quantity=10 --get-asset=BTC
--give-quantity=20 --give-asset=XCP --expiration=10 --fee_provided=.001
Does real BTC actually get transferred from mtQheFaSfWELRB2MyMBaiWjdDm6ux9Ezns's bitcoin wallet to my bitcoin wallet? |
|
|
|
maybe dev are secretly funded by bitcoin foundation to end those silly greedy mastercoin visacoin nxt bitshare etc
poppycock |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
