Further info.... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/19401/developing-story-bitcoin-foundation-elections-shambles-candidates-call-restart/In short, there wasn't any technical problem, but the way it was handled was clunky and required a lot of steps (not surprisingly since everybody voting would have had to register a BTC address from which they were voting), and apparently the guy who decided to go with the plan didn't consult with everybody first and some folks got a little pissy about some of the implementation details such as whose name was listed first in the voting.... ah, politics. Furthermore, some people had valid concerns about the public's ability to see the results in real-time, which could discourage others from voting or otherwise affect the outcome. The Election result are out at https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/election-results/The irony here is that the "END" results were actually similar to the "rebooted" Blockchain Vote that was held earlier. Going by the results at https://blockscan.com/votecampaign/btcfoundationOlivier Janssens - 63 Yes Votes Jim Harper - 59 Yes Votes Michael Perklin - 37 Yes Votes Bruce Fenton - 45 Yes Which basically means both Olivier Janssens and Jim Harper would have made the cut either way, with the first and second most number of votes. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Blockchain*  corrected ... Lol |
|
|
|
A feature request: Provide a way to search description text. I'd like to be able to provide a link that shows any and all assets that have a certain hash in their description ordered by block number. The reason is that I've put out a set of artworks that each come with a Counterparty token and the way the artwork is connected with the token is by putting a hash of an image of the artwork in the description field of the token when it's first issued.
An advanced asset search is now available at http://blockscan.com/search?mod=assetWorks great. I'm going to have to write a general asset + proof of existence type article based on this. Great! Let me know when your article is complete and I will put a link in the "what's new" section of Blockscan's main page to your article. |
|
|
|
A feature request: Provide a way to search description text. I'd like to be able to provide a link that shows any and all assets that have a certain hash in their description ordered by block number. The reason is that I've put out a set of artworks that each come with a Counterparty token and the way the artwork is connected with the token is by putting a hash of an image of the artwork in the description field of the token when it's first issued.
An advanced asset search is now available at http://blockscan.com/search?mod=asset |
|
|
|
When logged in to counterwallet, can you actually locate your address above? I think you did something to fix it, nice job Looks like blockscan is updating. A Crashed daemon. Looks like some memory leak issues with the cli. The daemon has been restarted and updated . |
|
|
|
When logged in to counterwallet, can you actually locate your address above? |
|
|
|
I don't think it should be too difficult but I have not looked at the Trezor API. Does it support offline raw transaction signing ?
The reply I got: Anybody know any tool for signing raw TX using Trezor?
Hmm, maybe electrum can do this. I use python-trezor for this. You have to write a small python program, as the example program cmdtr.py does not support signing transactions. If you use the Python API you have to supply the inputs and outputs of the raw transaction manually. devices = HidTransport.enumerate()
transport = HidTransport(devices[0])
client = TrezorClient(transport)
client.set_tx_api(TXAPIBitcoin())
(signatures, serialized_tx) = client.sign_tx('Bitcoin', [proto_types.TxInputType(address_n=client.expand_path("44'/0'/0'/0/1"), prev_hash=binascii.unhexlify("6cd0..."), prev_index=0)], [proto_types.TxOutputType(amount=100000, script_type=proto_types.PAYTOADDRESS, address="12dR...")])
print binascii.hexlify(serialized_tx)
Look into cmdtr.py/Helloworld.py for examples that use python-trezor. -MZ I think the easiest way to do this is to build the raw transaction using counterparty-lib, sign the raw tx with trezor and then broadcast the signed hex tx using blockchain.info |
|
|
|
Hello! This is Robert with FoldingCoin Inc. If you haven’t heard it , myself and our lead dev James had a 3.5 hour interview on the Dogedcoindark radio show. You can find the embedded audio on our webpage http://foldingcoin.net/the-coin/Rick the host over there is really interested in Counterparty and loves what we are all doing. He runs a 24/7 radio found here http://dogecoindark.net/radio/He asked me to come back on the show to discus more about Counterparty in general. I suggested that we find some other Counterparty devs from various projects to come join in on the discussion and he enjoyed that idea. I was wondering if any of you would be interested in going on the show with me to discus how counterparty can help shape the future of digital assets and currency. It could be a long one, so prepare for a long show (the live casts are also at night beginning around 10pm EST). Rick gets some pretty good guests on there and i recommend you see who has gone on his show in the past https://www.mixcloud.com/dogedradio/No time is set in stone yet, we are just trying to get a headcount of who is interested. You can email me rross@foldingcoin.net Thanks You could ping mtbitcoin at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=31979He's the dev for blockscan.com Thank you! Just sent him a message I think the best person for this would be "Chris Derose" :-) He's a natural |
|
|
|
We really need some kind of counterparty wallet which supports offline signing with a TREZOR or something.
I believe there's a bounty for this. Just surprised why still nobody claims for it. With the Trezor API, it is not so difficult to add this function. Actually, for personal usage, it is possible to develop a super lightweight wallet to support 'send' function at least. The idea is like this: 1: Check the balance by using Blockscan API (it is safe to skip this step if you are sure you have enough balance in your address. But I don't think BlockScan will mind if we use their API, since it is not so different with we just querying the balance in their website. Correct me if I am wrong, Mtbitcoin. :-) ) 2: Generate the 'send' transaction with the help of counterparty lib (coding it follows the specification in other language is also easy. Recommend to use the OP_RETURN version if you don't mind maybe a little bit longer confirmation time). 3: Sign the transaction with Trezor API. 4: broadcast the transaction in https://blockchain.info/pushtx. This client does not need any bitcoin full node and even counterpartyd running. I just don't have time to implement by myself. If anyone is interested, feel free to implement it to get the bounty. Moreover, I think if Mtbitcoin can implement this in Blockscan, it will be even better. All these can be written in Python and Javascript. Due to the feature of Trezor, nobody needs to worry about leaking the private key when using this function. I don't think it should be too difficult but I have not looked at the Trezor API. Does it support offline raw transaction signing ? The counterparty Dev team is working hard on the desktop client, so once that goes out it resolve most of the "client" issues. |
|
|
|
Inspired by our convo at the XCP forums, I think it would be good for your asset issuances detail page to show the description and any other data pertinent to an issuance. For example, I can't see the description given when FLDC was issued in this transaction: http://blockscan.com/txInfo/429963I've updated the issuance page to show the description with the initial asset issuance and also the associated address responsible for additional issuance. If there is any other "pertinent" data that is left out let me know. Given that the issuance page is basically a high level overview, certain information such as fees, etc have been left out http://blockscan.com/assetInfo/FLDC#issuance |
|
|
|
PS: I need a funny Vanityname for a Wallet which will soon get to the XCP Richlist on various block explorers ;-) Ideas appreciated.
This is the list to beat http://www.blockscan.com/balance :-) |
|
|
|
Main benefits:
- Clear distinction between block explorer and wallet dependencies: Applications like CW not needs any more to have a running Wallet in the server. This mades possible for instance to add support for BTCD very easily. Also light wallet is easiest to develop with this architecture: you can use a distant block explorer (like BCI) and a local light wallet (like pyrpcwallet)
- Clear distinction between applications and library: One can develop easily an alternative CLI or GUI (or any other "Crypto Application") just by using `counterparty-lib` as a classical Python library. Also `counterparty-lib` contains now only code related to the protocol, this makes clearer what should be covered by the test suite in priority, and in general makes easier to maintain the "core" code.
In short this update is another step forward to make Counterparty the standard framework to develop Bitcoin 2.0 Applications.
I am really liking the separation of the core counterpartyd into a separate library. Its really slick.. +1. The standalone command line tools are also great. Thank you ! |
|
|
|
Yes we had exactly the same issue. We had so many different issue that I am unsure now how we solved this one, I think that we just switched onto btcdrake bitcoind. We might also have used a bootstrap database afterwards.
We were blocked at block 280xxx
But we did not run the tests from bitcoin core tests, of that I am 100% sure.
It indeed seems like a recent issue that has been affecting a lot of people and its probably unrelated to counterparty, its unliky for us that it struct us several times when we were working with XCP. It might have been because we made a migration from ubuntu 12 to 14 and thus upgraded all our library, ending in the possible open SSL incompatibility
I think this had to do with the 0.9.2 jmcorgan build. On a few instances I had similar issues with it hanging on block 28xxxx. It had something to do with the sequence of running, downloading the blocks, addrindex and reindex. And at times if I had to stop it half way and came back to run it again it would fail. The latest bitcore addrindex 0.10.x builds though appears to have solved those issues. The issue appears to be Not counterparty related, but the addrindex bitcore builds failing to parse all of the blocks. What I have found though is as long as you have at least one good instance of block data already indexed, just copy that over. Works like a charm. And on a another note, with the additional load of address indexing I would recommend doing this with a SSD drive (at least for the initial run) |
|
|
|
There were some code changes made to the address page to reduce the number of postbacks required. I've tested this in both IE, Chrome and Safari. May I know what browser are you running ? Firefox? I see the issue and am looking into it. It appears firefox interprets the frame tags differently Ok. It should be fixed now. Let me know if you are still running into issues |
|
|
|
There were some code changes made to the address page to reduce the number of postbacks required. I've tested this in both IE, Chrome and Safari. May I know what browser are you running ? Firefox? I see the issue and am looking into it. It appears firefox interprets the frame tags differently |
|
|
|
There were some code changes made to the address page to reduce the number of postbacks required. I've tested this in both IE, Chrome and Safari. May I know what browser are you running ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
