Win32 build: http://killerstorm.xen.prgmr.com/alex/ngccc-0.0.1-win32.zipExperimental. p2ptrade seems to work now, but it isn't secure. (It doesn't check that we're paid before it signs the transaction.) Instructions are same as for Linux version: ngccc-cli setval testnet true to configure it to use testnet, and then you can use ngccc-gui. We'll make a better release a bit later... |
|
|
|
If you're using Bitcoin-Qt instead of bitcoind, you need to enable RPC interface in config: ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf server=1
rpcuser=rpcuser
rpcpassword=somepasswordhere
(you might want to edit rpcpassword part). Create this file and restart bitcoin-qt. (Note that you don't need -reindex option, but you need other options... Except -daemon, it is useless in this case.) |
|
|
|
Only for 64-bit Linux: http://killerstorm.xen.prgmr.com/alex/ngccc-0.0.1-linux-x86_64-2.7.tar.bz2 (EDIT: this isn't the latest version)p2ptrade doesn't work properly, this build is just to check whether it works in general. You need local bitcoind to run it. 1. on testnet, it requires txindex 2. on mainnet, it might work without txindex, but is faster with txindex Here's how to set it up on testnet: 1. run bitcoind or bitcoin-qt with txindex, e.g: ./bitcoind -testnet -txindex -daemon If you previously ran it without txindex, you need to use reindex option one time only: ./bitcoind -testnet -txindex -reindex -daemon Wait until it downloads/reindexes blocks. 2. Configure ngcccbase to use testnet: ./ngccc-cli setval testnet true 4. From now you can use either command-line version: ./ngccc-cli --help Or GUI: ./ngccc-gui 5. If you need several instances, it's better to copy whole ngccc directory and delete wallet.db in the copy so new wallet will be created. (It is also possible to use different wallet files, e.g. ./ngccc-cli -wallet=testnet.wallet, but it doesn't work properly if you use them simultaneously due to color.db locks.) |
|
|
|
|
We're hiring testers
NGCCC is more-or-less ready now, but we'd like to do some testing internally before releasing it to public. So we're looking for testers.
I'd like to work with tech savvy testers who both understand what software does and aren't afraid of tech stuff like Linux, VM, command-line, etc. Programming experience isn't required, but can be a bonus.
If interested, please PM me and describe what you can do and what compensation you expect.
Also looking for tech writers to write docs.
|
|
|
|
Or, ASICMINER supposedly should launch some sort of colored-coin exchange, though details are vague at best, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that. ASICMINER's exchange isn't related to colored coins, it is just an automated "direct shares" kind of thing with escrowed trading. ActiveMining, however, stated that they want to use colored coins when it will be available. |
|
|
|
I see, so a colored coin always has only one output? No, it can be split into many outputs, but transaction shall be created according to the rules. E.g. colored outputs should be grouped together. |
|
|
|
What happens if an address has a colored coin with an arbitrary value as an input and another non-colored input with arbitrary value, then I make a transaction with two outputs. Who gets the colored coin between the two outputs? Transaction needs to be made with the special software. If you somehow use a normal Bitcoin client, colored coins will get lost. (Neither of two outputs will get it.) |
|
|
|
|
I want to make a demo version. There is a couple of options in terms of requirements:
1. testnet / mainnet
2. requires local bitcoind / requires nothing
3. requires bitcoind with txindex / doesn't require txindex
4. does full scan / works without full scan
The problem is, most secure and straightforward option (bitcoind with txindex, full scan) is also slowest and most cumbersome to setup.
I'd like to know what people would like to test.
Of course, eventually one would be able to choose what to run in config, and all of them will be secure, but currently we need to focus on something specific.
|
|
|
|
but we ended up getting 1/3 of a block? is that right? If it was actual solo mining (not p2pool), he got 0 blocks with it. Solo mining cannot yield fractions of a block. Whatever coins he was able to mine, he got them from pool, mineb.tc, as he says. |
|
|
|
I find it insulting he would claim to waste 700GH on a doomed hope of solo-mining. Well, if code_red's calculations are right, he was expected to solo-mine two blocks. But there was significant probability he would mine zero, of course... Problem is not so much "doomed hope" as zero accountability: there is no way for us to know how many block he have mined this way. |
|
|
|
http://SimplyBook.me/Description: Booking system for dentists, medical services, hair & beauty salons, repair services, event planners, rental agencies, educational services, government agencies, school counsellors and more ... It comes with Bitcoin payments integration, that is, you can accept bitcoins this way. (Customer pays during booking.) There is a video talk plug-in, i.e. somebody can book a video talk, pay for it with bitcoin... (Sadly, adult video is not allowed.) Service also accepts bitcoins for premium packages. (SMS, plug-ins, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know anything about ad units 508 and 5028?
They generate lots of clicks and CTR is through the roof. This is very suspicious.
|
|
|
|
Coloredcoins are better? We get that. You've mentioned it repeatedly while criticizing this project. But somehow you are very interested in Mastercoin! Colored coins and Mastercoin have somewhat different niche. They are different things, one isn't better than another. As I mentioned, colored coins simply cannot do escrow-backed currencies, and escrow-backed currencies were the original selling point of Mastercoin, IIRC. I see you're very protective because you invested in Mastercoin, but I'm just providing an objective comparison. Trust me, I still work on colored coins, posting to Mastercoin thread once in a while takes very little of my time. And, FYI, J. R. Willett was an active member of colored coin mailing list before he made his final spec. E.g. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoinx/9_YJ_3qi41c/PWEp1WI4E10JI don't think ad hominem attacks earn you anything, If you disagree with me, attack my arguments, not me. |
|
|
|
Now MSC project is like a startup with the founder holding the majority non-diluted (and increasing) shares and then stepping down as a pure investor just after the company founded. There's nothing unfair here, but this kind of companies seldom succeed. But it isn't a startup, it is a currency, so it's much worse. J.R. could dump his stash to crash the price of MSC, which would result in cascading crash of all escrow-backed currencies. Of course, J.R. isn't that dumb, but what if his private key is stolen? There is $20+M price tag on it now, it is sufficient to warrant highly targeted cyber attack or even physical attack. It's a shitty situation. The key feature of Mastercoin is in uses which depend on Mastercoin price, such as CFDs and escrow-backed currencies. Owner of a large stash of mastercoins can significantly affect the price, so it is absolutely crucial to secure these stashes. (I don't think that distributed exchange is the key feature: colored coins are better at that, as colored coins-based exchange is faster and works with thin clients. But colored coins can't do what I mentioned above, at least, not now  ) |
|
|
|
Killerstorm is a pussy. He has worked his ass off for Colored Coins - and it is worth nothing. Nice try. Well, colored coins are not supposed to be worth anything, it's just a concept, a technology. When people will issue securities using this approach, those securities will be worth something. But I won't get anything from it, of course. It isn't about "market cap". FYI currently I'm financing colored coins project out of my own pocket now. And it costs a lot. Say, developers got 7.5 BTC for the last week. A problem with funding just doesn't exist. (I have to thank Bitcoin price for it: it wasn't possible when it was $100.) And it is going nowhere. I've spent two months on making a new client, and it is almost ready... FYI at some point J.R. proposed to make Mastercoin-style colored coins, and I killed that proposal. |
|
|
|
Isn't the thread starter the same guy that is developing colored coins, the competitor? LOL I mentioned it in the last paragraph, didn't I? If I was mean I would not write an article, I would write code and demonstrate exploit in practice. You gotta understand the context: I tried to explain this politely first. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.msg3734731#msg3734731If I was malicious, why would I explain how to fix issues? Note that it was 1 day ago. I suppose we should create a thread "Colorcoins is a joke" but we are better than that. Well, you should try, that would be hilarious. |
|
|
|
Seriously this is so childish. Sorry, but it's you being childish. It was the only way to get your attention, otherwise you just dismissed me. Also, it was a very bad idea to enable distributed exchange on real MSC. Now there are transactions in the wild, so you can't retroactively enable the rule like "only simple sends are allowed before block 300000, other Mastercoin transactions are ignored" without pissing somebody off. I hope you understand that enabling something on mastercoin-explorer.com can have dire consequences, as it's probably the first site people look at. You're playing with other people's money. I really don't get why you, Killerstorm, are on such a witch-hunt to bring so much negative attention to the project. What do you think to gain by this? Most likely I won't get anything, but Mastercoin project now has a chance to make security the top priority, which can prevent people from being scammed, and thus can prevent PR disaster. Let me tell you something: there is a lot of very clever hackers, finding a way how to scam people using this distributed exchange thingie is pretty much trivial for them. What they normally do is much, much more complex. There are people who know both the tech side and social engineering. It is only a matter of time before they notice this. |
|
|
|
Perhaps Killerstorm would be interested. I'm not interested, but I have few recommendations on how to fix the immediate problem, see below. As it is, he appears to already be dedicating more time to mastercoin than colored coins anyways. I was temporary distracted by mastercoin for a couple of days (I wasn't very productive with code anyway, for a couple of reasons). But three other developers are working on colored coin software now (NGCCC), so it's not like we aren't making progress... So, recommendations... First of all, try to hire security people (practicing cryptographers, basically) and ask them to help to fix surface problems. Something like this: 1. disable everything except simple send and decentralized exchange. as few as possible things need to be enabled 2. if possible, restrict decentralized exchange 3. compartmentalize distributed exchange feature: people should be able to tell whether coins came to them only through simple sends, or whether decentralized exchange was involved. paranoid people would want coins of the first kind. 4. introduce a notion of a reference implementation, say, Tachikoma's one. if people disagree about how to implement the spec, they should look into how it is implemented in the reference one. (This is how it works for Bitcoin: Satoshi's implementation is the reference, and people who make other implementations had to read its source code.) 5. make it versioned. Say, current rules are guaranteed to be valid until block 300000. At that point old version of instalable clients will stop and ask user to upgrade. This way you can enable more and more features gradually without compromising the security. Then it is at least workable... HTH |
|
|
|
Killerstorm had some valid concerns around it. Unfortunately, this project seems to lack the technical leadership at this time to have adequately responded to his questions and factored his concerns into the development process. He probably got a bit miffed and then took it publicly. You're one of few people who gets it. |
|
|
|
Your second argument is valid. I'm sorry, I don't quite get you... Does this mean that it is possible to fool person who uses something other than mastercoin-explorer.com to check whether he received transactions? I tried a couple of mastercoin sites on this address: 1EAuHj8Z6rTCHPxXfaGzzPsZevC2mg1XAj 1. mastercoin-explorer. com shows its balance as 0.2 MSC ( http://mastercoin-explorer.com/addresses/1EAuHj8Z6rTCHPxXfaGzzPsZevC2mg1XAj) 2. masterchest.info shows that it is 0 MSC ( https://masterchest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1EAuHj8Z6rTCHPxXfaGzzPsZevC2mg1XAj) 3. masterchain.info show it as 10 MSC ( https://masterchain.info/Address.html?addr=1EAuHj8Z6rTCHPxXfaGzzPsZevC2mg1XAj) 4. mymastercoins.com shows 0.7 MSC I understand that distributed exchange is in development, but the problem is that it affects people who think that they receive mastercoins via simple send: even if you receive a transaction via simple send, it is possible that at some point in history balance was influenced by a distributed exchange transaction, and from that point discrepancy can propagate. How are people supposed to user mastercoins? Should they check all 4 available sites? What should they do if they received a payment and after that they see a discrepancy? From what I see, it is currently impossible to use Mastercoin in a safe way. (Even if one tries to use only simple sends.) Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
