Edit: I'm guessing this is because there is no selling order to match to? You consider that an invalid transaction? I think this is a good way to go, shall I add this to the spec?
Same here. No selling order to match the transaction, it is invalid. |
|
|
|
Another scenario.
User A sells 10 msc
User B and User C buys 10 at the same (block) time.
Who gets the 10 msc?
I'm thinking it should be order by time, then address.
The person with the highest position in the block. This already has been decided a long time ago and goes for all transactions types. Ok thanks again Tachikoma. |
|
|
|
I just released 0.0.8 and put a real selling offer online right now for 10 MSC @ 0.2! It's hosted on address 1EAuHj8Z6rTCHPxXfaGzzPsZevC2mg1XAj. I am guaranteeing this offer, which means that if you buy it and it becomes invalidated because of a spec change at a later date I will return the Bitcoins back to you. Version 0.0.8 can be used to try and purchase this offer. Prove I own the address: GzhVvJFfYXTDtPyuqdkOFXp+EA2+7mK/uOhCgj/Tg37cAB97Lf0xgzuqZhC5Om0Ghjgi9AP1/1U7p3WeLaHDLVA=
Sold by Tachikoma
first msc offer confirmed Someone should buy it this is historic  congrats Tachikoma ! http://mymastercoins.com/Orders.aspx?CurrencyID=1 |
|
|
|
|
Another scenario.
User A sells 10 msc
User B and User C buys 10 at the same (block) time.
Who gets the 10 msc?
I'm thinking it should be order by time, then address.
|
|
|
|
Developers; I've been thinking about invalidating Purchase Offers which want to buy from a Selling Offer when the Selling Offer is exhausted. Normally you adjust the amount bough to the total amount for sale. But it's not stated what to do when the amount is actually zero. Technically it doesn't matter anyway because both transactions have zero impact on the balance but just to let people know what's going on, and make sure they don't end up paying I would still like to invalidate these type of transactions.
Just an example to make sure everybody understands me.
User A sells 10 MSC
User B buys 8 MSC and gets them
User C buys 2 MSC and gets them
User D sends his request for 5MSC just a little after C and gets added behind him in the block.
Right now user D's transaction would come through but the accepted amount would be 0 MSC. I would propose to invalid this transaction so it's clear this offer is sold out.
+1 User D's transaction should be invalid. |
|
|
|
Speaking of which - Tachikoma, I'm keen to identify why our orderbook states don't match. I've taken a quick look at Bitoy's site and his orderbook state looks like mine - I'll look into each transaction to see if I can figure out where we differ. Is your orderbook on mastercoin-explorer your latest?
Good to know our order book matches I only recalculate and validate dev mastercoins only if the exodus address sends msc. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0I am hereby announcing the first release of a the first patch for miners to filter address reuse:
unique_spk_mempool for bitcoind 0.8.5
For now, since this is still somewhat common, this just deprioritises it to one reuse per block.
If I have time, I plan to write patches to be more and less aggressive that miners can choose between (or maybe others will beat me to it!).
This is an interesting problem to solve. Without the exodus address, we can just parse the block looking for .000006 transactions. (Right now I just check the exodus address for transactions) Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Tested the new peek and decode algorithm. This transaction looks valid.
fd093d901c4baf20ea2525fe3b36b2519b9a7915683b45b996023fe2b5dd04e6
Date: 11/15/2013 12:57:28 PM
Sender: 14hm8rTdknVCDpqXGY5nFqVWruU9UBeuHd
Amount Sent: 0.20000000 MSC
Recipient: 1P8GMhC3qYkuvRRBsS5gqGegT7GvQoxAwY
|
|
|
|
Actually, no. 8932.02057119
I have almost the same number 8932.0225039472534 (1 - (0.5 ^ ( (1385856000 - 1377993600) / 31557600))) * 56316.23576222 |
|
|
|
Just bought MSC for 0.25 each.
0.25 MSC is now $103.50 (BTC @ $414 |
|
|
|
Beside blockexplorer and blockchain are there other json api that show bitcoin transactions?
Check out this API based on bitcoin-ruby: http://webbtc.com/api Thanks Tachikoma, i will look at it. I'll be rewriting the codes to speed up parsing. Looking forward to see more transactions with the release of the wallets |
|
|
|
|
Beside blockexplorer and blockchain are there other json api that show bitcoin transactions?
|
|
|
|
We're going ahead with the 1500 MSC.
You guys are a huge part of the reason those coins are worth what they are.
It will still take me awhile to set this up. I'm very sorry about that, but 1500 MSC it will be. (split 4 ways, so 375 MSC for each of the four webmasters)
thank you JR for the generous bonus ! |
|
|
|
To make coding shorter, I did peak and decode to get the data address then get the largest sequence as the receipient address.
Quick note, recipient address sequence number is not necessarily the largest - eg change output may be or if the data sequence number is 255 then the recipient will be smallest sequence (0) Thanks Zarthas If there are 3 address and the data sequence is 255 receipt must be sequence zero. I forgot about that |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a transaction that I botched a couple of days ago. The sequence numbers are ascending instead of descending.
It is now valid because of the new specs in 1.2 "peek and decode". (Unless I read wrong Sorry guys, I've been snowed the last week or so. I see JR has included my appendix in the latest revision of the spec  which is great news - that means peek & decode is officially in so zbx's case in question would now be valid yep regardless of the bad sequence numbers (credit though; peek & decode was Tachikoma's idea, I just helped flesh it out and documented it ). Note I'll need to cut a little code for this which I'll include in the coming Masterchest update. Somehow my current implementation isn't quite up to scratch 
...
Else
If isvalidtx = False Then '### fall back to peek and decode
'peek and decode routine here
End If
End If
....
To make coding shorter, I did peak and decode to get the data address then get the largest sequence as the receipient address. |
|
|
|
Over 2600 MSC traded yesterday. All time high! http://mymastercoins.com/About.aspxMSC is $68.78 Added an MSC price in $USD by manually entering the price from the order book. Is there a way to get the last traded price from the order book via URL link? |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a transaction that I botched a couple of days ago. The sequence numbers are ascending instead of descending.
It is now valid because of the new specs in 1.2 "peek and decode". (Unless I read wrong |
|
|
|
|
Hi Tachikoma
I've updated the parsing (all class A is now "peek and decode") and Master Explorer and MyMastercoins has the same balances (yehey!)
Except for one address
15a4XCuWmx2cCQVf8wZK7mqdvj5uwo1vby
MM=575 ME=570
It is TX
ecb77ee990de29745de949462e1f6e44584c310a0da12c9fbdf86dbe6ffabcfc
btw First line of your API there is a null address with balance 5.0
[{"address":null,"balance":"5.0"}
|
|
|
|
Mastercoin explorer has 2617.47620688 for 1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT but Bitboy has 2617.48620688
Mastercoin explorer has 200 for 1MBrNtFBw9QQ1owGsTs6Nd1iL1Err2H4yp but Bitboy has 199.99
Mastercoin explorer has 757.23987298 for 1Q1sFqsi8S5DxV5hz6sWLamGBp9To93iG7 but Bitboy has 752.23987298
Much easier to find which transactions to fix now. Thanks Tachikoma, I'll fix the the missing transactions. Btw the "peek and decode" is already approved. I'll update and run checks again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
