Agreed, the database rebuild should only take 20-30 minutes at most (that's around what it took for me). Try looking at your processes and make sure nothing is hogging the CPU or I/O.
I'd love it to take only 30min. I'm at block 279148... So it does take hours and hours and hours on my end. Any help trying to figure why (from anyone) is appreciated. From speedtest.net I got: Ping 7ms, 25.71Mbps on DL, 2.41 Mbps on UP I only know the command top to check CPU/mem usage. Here is the result: top - 12:23:52 up 2 days, 45 min, 4 users, load average: 2,11, 1,97, 1,89
Tasks: 214 total, 1 running, 212 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
%Cpu(s): 10,0 us, 2,5 sy, 0,3 ni, 41,6 id, 45,6 wa, 0,0 hi, 0,0 si, 0,0 st
KiB Mem: 2005716 total, 1762632 used, 243084 free, 3100 buffers
KiB Swap: 2050044 total, 1274540 used, 775504 free, 443924 cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2199 panonym 20 0 1828m 618m 23m S 11,3 31,6 180:13.59 firefox
987 root 20 0 568m 43m 17m S 2,7 2,2 47:02.65 Xorg
19342 panonym 20 0 155m 17m 2288 S 2,7 0,9 18:28.92 python
2194 panonym 20 0 1693m 152m 9368 S 2,0 7,8 35:46.45 btc
2003 panonym 20 0 1255m 25m 7904 S 1,7 1,3 42:11.56 compiz
7274 panonym 20 0 1004m 55m 9524 S 1,7 2,9 21:22.09 plugin-containe
8413 panonym 20 0 1335m 18m 4520 S 1,3 0,9 12:06.88 transmission-gt
2107 panonym 20 0 641m 12m 5144 S 0,7 0,6 0:19.76 gnome-terminal
17 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0,3 0,0 0:55.67 rcu_sched
7442 panonym 20 0 1543m 145m 2092 S 0,3 7,4 4:39.35 ltc
10778 panonym 20 0 29080 1508 1016 R 0,3 0,1 0:01.64 top Of course it fluctuate (%CPU firefox 2.3 only after checking 2min later) I'm short on RAM, 2 GB. Could it be the matter? (2GB wasn't that low a few years ago) free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1958 1883 75 0 5 528
-/+ buffers/cache: 1349 609
Swap: 2001 1241 760
Your firefox instance seems to be pretty greedy. Kill it with fire? In other news, 16GB dedicated servers can be had for not much more than $20/month these days (albeit a very special deal on lowendbox). (Yes, a real dedicated, KVM and power management and all). |
|
|
|
|
The transaction seemed to go through, but I am stuck with Status: 0/unconfirmed without any broadcasts for about 20 minutes so far. Bitcoin-qt is well connected (10 active connections). How long does it take typically?
It did actually go through, though not for 30 minutes.
Also, more error reports:
1. rpc-user and rpc-password should be prefixed with "bitcoind-" in the autogenerated config from the installer. Or at least make that part of it clear.
2. I still get the u2026 unicode errors in windows when doing "counterpartyd market".
Open Orders
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "counterpartyd.py", line 608, in <module>
market(args.give_asset, args.get_asset)
File "counterpartyd.py", line 41, in market
print(str(table.get_string(sortby='Price')))
File "c:\Python33\lib\encodings\cp437.py", line 19, in encode
return codecs.charmap_encode(input,self.errors,encoding_map)[0]
UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2026' in position
483: character maps to <undefined>
This worked before (albeit being blank), so obviously some of the new transactions that have come up in the last day are causing this error.
|
|
|
|
|
I get the following error when trying to make a test order:
C:\Program Files\counterpartyd>COUNTERPARTYD order --from [redacted] --get-quantity 0.1 --get-asset BTC --give-quantity 1 --give-asset XC
P --expiration 65535
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in <module>
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 485, i
n <module>
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\order.py", line 31, in cre
ate
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 292, in
transaction
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 170, in
serialise
File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\importlib\_bootstrap.py", line 1567, in _find_a
nd_load
File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\importlib\_bootstrap.py", line 1514, in _find_a
nd_load_unlocked
File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\importlib\_bootstrap.py", line 313, in _call_wi
th_frames_removed
File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\importlib\_bootstrap.py", line 1567, in _find_a
nd_load
File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\importlib\_bootstrap.py", line 1531, in _find_a
nd_load_unlocked
ImportError: No module named 'pycoin'
Win7, x64, latest windows installer (0.1.0.0)
Thanks
I did an update on an existing counterpartyd install. Is this causing the problem?
Searching further, it appears that the windows install is missing the pycoin module. How do I "embed" the module into the exe (installing it into my Python directory didn't seem to work)?
Confirmed, this works with the manual python install. The windows installer should be updated.
|
|
|
|
You could even put sha256 mining code in your contract. So anyone can come along and contract an Ethereum miner to mine bitcoin for them.  That is ... genius. The thought of an idea like that actually being possible. |
|
|
|
Interesting project with a novel algorithm. From what I understand, the algorithm (Dagger) is memory-hard not necessarily in bandwidth, but in space; using something like a GPU (with many threads) would benefit most from having lots of system memory: This algorithm provides a proof of work mining function with memory hardness properties that are not ideal, but that are nevertheless a massive improvement over anything available previously. It takes 512 MB to evaluate, 112 KB memory and 4078 hashes to verify, and even the tinest time-memory tradeoff is not worthwhile to implement because of the bottom-level branching adjustment. These parameters allow Dagger to be much more daring in its memory requirements than Primecoin or scrypt, asking for 512 MB of RAM for a single thread. Because the primary determinant of hardness is memory, and not computation, specialized hardware has only a tiny advantage; even an optimal Dagger mining ASIC would have little to offer over a hobbyist purchasing hundreds of gigabytes of memory cards off the shelf and plugging them into a medium-power GPU. And even in such an equilibrium, mining with ordinary CPUs will likely continue to be practical.
512MB per thread .. wow. |
|
|
|
And why you would store wealth in MSC/XCP, if you have BTC for that?
Why would you store wealth in Yuan/Gold, if you have USD for that? Why would you store wealth in BTC when you have so many other choice? Diversification maybe? Why XCP? Decentralized exchange appeal, new wealth repartition, new rarity, sole alt with exactly the same security as BTC, new possibilities. (glad I'm not in MSC, such happy ambiance in their main post...) Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity. Think the community is already recognizing that, evident from the success of the ipo so far. Ironically a trustless (proof of burn) scheme is key to the "trust model". And as for the diversity of currencies; I won't comment except to say that trading (everything from horse meat to salt to shares of Microsoft to Bitcoins) is built on the idea of exchanging something of value for something else of value. |
|
|
|
Thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly. Unfortunately as someone relatively new to cryptocurrency I doubt my initial stake would be anything but relatively minuscule, however there's some really interesting ideas here so I'd like to get involved. I'm on the forums daily, and have some coding experience in several languages (although only as a hobbyist). I love to tinker, so I'd be more than happy to participate in any rigorous windows-based testing. I like the idea of coloured denominations. Believe it or not, I was thinking of something very similar this morning. Not with colours, but by rating each denomination by a precious metal; tin, copper, iron, silver, gold, so on. It probably does make more sense using colours as they're an abstract and so their value is determined by association rather than preconceptions. With different dominations I feel like it's a way for everyone to get in at their own level. I think this concept could be very powerful in providing variance in any sort of market-based system. I'm sure there will also be a desire to trade in lower dominations for higher denominations and as such a natural consequence will be higher denominations would be seen to be more valuable than the sum of lower denominations they're made from. Purely from perception, at least. Cryddits?
Crypto-Credits was just too many syllables to expect people to actually say, especially if they intend to use metric prefixes in front of it. I quite like CC, for short. If anything, MMORPGs have just about established the color=denomination scheme for the general public. "That house costs 2 plats? That's absurd." "I'll give you 3 coppers for that coffee, if you throw in a cookie." Better than trying to memorizing abbreviations or trying to figure out whether you paid 0.0000017 or 0.000017 BTC for that soda. |
|
|
|
How long can take before burn is complete? I just send 1btc more and I can see that in blockchain.info page that my transfer have go to 1counterpartyXXXX.... and have already 7 confirmations but i dont see that in blockscan.com page... Hope not go wrong  11 confirmations now and cant see in blockscan. I lose that or some possibility its coming late? Wait for blockscan to update to the latest client. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg4470228#msg4470228 |
|
|
|
So if I want to burn more than 1 BTC, it is ok to use the same wallet, just as long as I am making a new adderess for each BTC, correct?
I could be wrong normally & usually I am what was understood was that you could Burn NO more than 1BTC (0.99990000) per address. the other part that needs answering is the Importance of why it's not wise to burning More than 1BTC?? You can burn up to 1 BTC (that is, send 1.0001 BTC to your burn wallet to get 1 BTC + 0.0001 miner's fee) Burning more than 1 BTC from the same address will not give you more XCP than burning just 1 BTC. So if I want to burn more than 1 BTC, it is ok to use the same wallet, just as long as I am making a new adderess for each BTC, correct?
I could be wrong normally & usually I am what was understood was that you could Burn NO more than 1BTC (0.99990000) per address. 2nd burn MUST Be from a new wallet, new address only 1 BTC per address the other part that needs answering is the Importance of why it's not wise to burn More than 1BTC?? Hold on, PhantomPhreak can you please clarify this? Do we need to make a new wallet for every burn, or can we simply make a new address within the same wallet? "Wallets" in bitcoin-qt are comprised of one or multiple addresses. The terminology is confusing because some people denote an address as a wallet (and the fact that the client hides change wallets by default doesn't help). Each burn can expend a maximum of 1 BTC, per address. |
|
|
|
well, my frustration stems from the fact that this doesn't seem to be a thing that anyone can answer. I assume SOMEONE can, but nobody on the mastercoin subreddit or in the general bitcointalk forum can.
it seems as if the currency aspect of the technology is limiting the flow of objective information, with the speculative nature of the currency unit hampering technical discussion
but, as someone that has considered buying mastercoin, I want to be able to do my own objective analysis of mastercoin's future demand, and so far this requires me to understand how many mastercoin people will actually need to do anything
Bingo. I'm guessing 90% of the people here don't understand or don't know how mastercoin will actually work. I have yet to receive a response from someone knowledgeable: What can 1MSC do that .1 MSC cannot? What does an MSC (the kind selling at .17 BTC) actually DO? Is it SHARES in the mastercoin protocol corporation?Are MSC going to be used to launch 3rd layer applications? And if so, how many will be needed for each particular application? Crossposted from the XCP thread. Perhaps I'm not understanding stslimited, but isn't that analogous to asking what is the functional difference between 1 BTC, 1 mBTC, 1 uBTC, and 1 satoshi? All of those monetary units can be used as a basic transfer of wealth (of which 99.99% of it is used for that purpose right now), to send messages, to denote proof of ownership (colored coins), etc. (the latter two are not the primary uses of BTC right now, but could be). Similarly with MSC and XCP, I expect similar analogies to apply -- a store of value, until a network can be built that utilizes the other functions of these coins. How many bitcoin do you need "to do anything"? What someone is willing to take for them in exchange for goods and services. Where I could understand is if stslimited considers MSC and XCP transactional currencies, rather than stores of value. And that is right to an extent; the non store-of-value features of these currencies has been a selling point, so to speak. However, in light of this view, I'd like to point to several posts highlighting the transactional currency status of BTC itself, which the community has (by now) embraced the store-of-value concept. Thus, I don't think at all that the transactional and store-of-value concepts should be segregated at all, at least when talking about these. |
|
|
|
XCP is more like MSC than Nxt. Nxt is an altcoin having its own blockchain, but XCP is based on bitcoin blockchain just as MSC.
The benefit to have its own blockchain is the low level protocol can be designed from the scratch to make all high-level protocols easier to be implemented and parsing more efficient. On the other hand, the benefit of basing on bitcoin blockchain is there's already secure hashing rate and a lot of users are already using bitcoin. Moreover, implementation is easier since there's no need to worry about all those mining things.
BTW, one large advantage of Nxt is it's transparent forging (mining). According to what the dev said, it can help to make 51% attack almost impossible. I'm sure everyone agree that 51% attack is almost the pain of bitcoin and all its copycats.
Thanks. What about comparison to MSC? If Mastercoin is the most apt comparison, you may want to review the questions stslimited has been raising about Mastercoin over the last few days in this (Mastercoin) thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.2780. It seems to me, at least at first glance, that his concerns may have some relevance to Counterparty as well. Questions like: what is the functional difference between 10 XCP or 1 XCP or .1 XCP? How many XCP would someone actually need to use any aspects of this additional protocol layer? What would require someone to spend XCP or go get more XCP from the open market? Perhaps I'm not understanding stslimited, but isn't that analogous to asking what is the functional difference between 1 BTC, 1 mBTC, 1 uBTC, and 1 satoshi? All of those monetary units can be used as a basic transfer of wealth (of which 99.99% of it is used for that purpose right now), to send messages, to denote proof of ownership (colored coins), etc. (the latter two are not the primary uses of BTC right now, but could be). Similarly with MSC and XCP, I expect similar analogies to apply -- a store of value, until a network can be built that utilizes the other functions of these coins. How many bitcoin do you need "to do anything"? What someone is willing to take for them in exchange for goods and services. Where I could understand is if stslimited considers MSC and XCP transactional currencies, rather than stores of value. And that is right to an extent; the non store-of-value features of these currencies has been a selling point, so to speak. However, in light of this view, I'd like to point to several posts highlighting the transactional currency status of BTC itself, which the community has (by now) embraced the store-of-value concept. Thus, I don't think at all that the transactional and store-of-value concepts should be segregated at all, at least when talking about these. |
|
|
|
|
Watching with interest.
Some questions:
1. What did you base your assessment of 40% address activity on? Monthly BTC exchanged? Days destroyed? etc. Specifically, if the amount of "cryddits" claimed through the process is significantly less than what you anticipate, what will you do then? (based on the popularity of bitcoin compared with, well, any alt, I suspect this is the case).
2. Assuming that the distribution goes on, I expect 28 months to elapse before you get the coins necessary for your "pre-mine". How do you plan to fund the project in the interim? Bounties, marketing (if any), etc
3. Several coins that heavily weigh a PoS scheme vs PoW have susceptibility to spending attacks where a single holder mines the majority of PoS blocks (see yacoin for instance) without a PoW block appearing. What measures in PoS block generation do you propose to mitigate that?
4. You mention using transactions to determine if an address is valid. What is a transaction? Sending bitcoins to a non-exchange affilitated address?
|
|
|
|
I have nothing invested in this ... but wait, seriously? At least I would expect him to use an exchange to try to launder first? Elementary fail. |
|
|
|
So if I want to burn more than 1 BTC, it is ok to use the same wallet, just as long as I am making a new adderess for each BTC, correct?
I could be wrong normally & usually I am what was understood was that you could Burn NO more than 1BTC (0.99990000) per address. the other part that needs answering is the Importance of why it's not wise to burning More than 1BTC?? You can burn up to 1 BTC (that is, send 1.0001 BTC to your burn wallet to get 1 BTC + 0.0001 miner's fee) Burning more than 1 BTC from the same address will not give you more XCP than burning just 1 BTC. |
|
|
|
Bitcoins in POB are destroyed forever?
Yes in this case.. Unless you somehow managed to get hold of the exodus address which is very unlikely Cheers Everyone has the probability of 1 / (2 ^ 160) in generating a new address which happens to be same as the burn address. 2^160 is larger than the number of atoms of all the found planets in our universe.  In case you were thinking of using vanitygen: Difficulty: 22199299170684466653133678645756 [227.01 Kkey/s][total 492032][Prob 0.0%][50% in 2.149399e+18y]
Get cracking already. The heat death of the universe awaits. |
|
|
|
|
rNBQUZ5LP727yZ9DGsfLBu9D3cdsxogfGz
lol
|
|
|
|
Proof of stake and proof of burn.. Human "hashing" would be a proof of work function ... interesting but I can't think of a way to implement it (captchas?) Any "per-user" or "per-computer" scheme is vulnerable to Sybil attacks, no matter what you use (addresses/IPs/MAC addresses/etc), except if you're a government (i.e. centralization).
|
|
|
|
Before more comments and ad hominem attacks, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burnComments should focus on whether PoB makes sense as an alternative to distribution to PoW and PoS(honestly, I don't know), not if "the developer will run with the coins" (they mathematically can't, and the record of them sending multiple BTC to the address is already in the blockchain). There is always the possibility that said developers are major holders (as in 100K+ bitcoins) and would like to see BTC destroyed to enrich their wallet; however that speculation should be discussed separately. |
|
|
|
Yes, proof of burn was proposed long before last December. The value of this project is not just the proof by burn, but also the workable exchange and open source. At least 2012, if not before: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131139.0Side note: note the number of hero members with high activity discussing the topic. In particular XCP was inspired by Sergio's proposal of a PoBet scheme. (Phantom, xnova, can you confirm?) Actually it's quite different, NVM. However, the prospect of greed has left PoB implementations to take a back seat to more ... ahem traditional methods of funding. |
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak don't you think its important to have "reward XCP" to be able to pay developers?
for example in the case of MSC: 10% of the total 619478 MSC are "reward mastercoins" granted to the MasterCoin foundation over the years following launch. The formula for percent vested is: 1-(0.5^y) where y is the number of years since launch, including partial years.
Thanks PhantomPhreak, xnova for developing this coin in your own time and rendering this service to the community. However, I think we should also have some portion of coins allocated to future development bounties (e.g., 2% per year), with community based voting of project allocation and control of funds etc... This will ensure that the product stays fresh and we are not limited by any sort of resource or time constraints. 2% is a small price to pay for the assurance that the project will be well funded and stay updated with time. It's pretty obvious from a cursory glance that the devs have at least 4 BTC invested in this project, if not more. Also, they do have a donation address if you feel inclined to contribute to bounties... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
