Friction, new development for counterparty:



Announcement: Over the past few weeks, we've been doing a lot of work on the fee algorithm that Counterparty uses, and now transactions are effectively much cheaper than before. In particular, 'send' transactions can store all of their Counterparty metadata in a 40-byte OP_RETURN output, and you can now specify the exact fees paid for each transaction, as well as the default fee-per-KB amount, dust sizes, and so on. Multi-sig outputs need not be used, so no difficult-to-spend funds need to be sent back to your self at all.

This transaction is an example of a modern send transaction that cost only US $0.01 in fees, with a $0.03 output to the destination. It was constructed and broadcast with the following command: counterpartyd.py send --source=SOURCE --destination=DEST --quantity=1 --asset=XCP --encoding='opreturn' --fee=.00002, and it was confirmed almost immediately. If you're moving lots of assets around, or sending one asset to many users, you can use this script to automate the process and keep costs as low as possible.

We have some level shifters we made for the ref boards. We could make a bigger batch for sale. Any interest out there?

A New interview with CEX.io CIO and iXcoin Board Member, Jeffrey Smith.


http://bitcoinmagazine.com/14317/interview-jeffrey-smith-cio-ghash-io/



[So it begins!]

Fair point. Yea if they don't do anything soon its on them. You are right though the paper-trail is getting larger.

Yea no kidding. It would be nice to just have the stuff arrive and be done with.

You contradict yourself with what you just said....you want to take them to small claims saying its a slam dunk but then in the next sentence you question your chances? You are right though they have failed to deliver a known working miner to anyone at this point.

Yea don't really know the real deal yet until people have the hardware. But going after bitmine is a waste of time for a couple of reasons...A: They are not AMT just their supplier. B: Takes years just to get a process going in Switzerland. Its an even lengthier process than it is here in the US. At this point it seems the lawsuit never reached class status. So doesn’t look like that’s going to happen least not without another lengthy appeal process, presuming that was not shut down (no new info on that anywhere it seems).

Really the only thing is to just keep making a papertrail (via emails) and if you have the option go after them yourself. That might really be the only recourse. Small claims may or may not work out. But it gets costly if you have to toss it into collections and you won't get all your money back as some of that has to be paid to the collections agency. Its ugly stuff.

Yea it seems like an overcomplicated mess I agree with that.  And at least one successful RMA would be nice to know about.

No...and I am not sure why you are taking the word of the dual identity RickJames aka sirminesalot troll either. I called FEDEX...They owned that mistake...rik_khaos also apparently did from what he posted went through he same issue. In this instance it was actually FEDEX who fucked up. He did not do his due diligence in checking the premises. There are more businesses than just AMT on there. AMT has had to correct the issue by posting a sign saying they are around the back just to cover themselves. But even with that sign the driver seemed to ignore it.

I will be trying again soon as I get new labels. That said this one as much as people want to pin it on AMT is not on them. FEDEX even owned this issue. Not sure what the deal is with reshipping it yet. That would be on AMT. The mrpark shipping issue was squarely on AMT not accepting it. That happened a couple months ago.

Fedex isn't doing a damn thing wrong, if there isn't someone at an address, or a supposed "business" is actually working out of an unmarked closet at the shipping address, what do you expect them to do? I remember AMT saying they were going to pick up the package from one of the customers many times, and it never happened. All lies from them, all the time.

At this point, it is too late. Nothing they can ship you will ever make a dent in the amount of money you lost purchasing hardware from them that should have been shipped months ago.

I was sent a shipping label when following the RMA process exactly as described by the process on the site. I can't speak to anyone else's experience with that, but my own was a very smooth process until the driver failed to walk around the building to AMT's actual address and to deliver the miner.

Actually not to correct you here, but NONE of the American companies have good reputations and right now the most well known and reputable mining companies happen to be mostly Chinese (spondoolies being Israeli). But yea its a fucked situation we all in that’s for sure. The issue is pre-orders in general. No assurances or previous track record just lead to this being a mess for alot of people.

Please forward your request to sales@advancedminers.com

What's up with the class action guys?  Clenell's big date came and went and not a peep from our favorite peanut gallery.

Would have thought Clenell would have address his followers by now, or at least mentioned something to those who are interested, he is their leader of it after all.  We feel that since we're the ones being sued its not our place to bring up the specifics (hence why we have not mentioned it thus far).  

We did notice however that he was searching for more distant AMT clients on a new thread, maybe because he's realized his that his cocktail of psychiatric problems,  obsessive compulsive disorder mixed with a hint of narcissism and just a dab of paranoia (AMT and it's employees are not clinical psychiatrists, and are no way inferring that Clenell suffers from OCD or anything alike, nor do we have any information that states otherwise)  have once again lead him down a path of no resolve.

Or maybe because a few local plaintiffs (like the 3 that came to us within the last day which have opted out) finally realize that Clenell possibly suffers from something and dragged everyone into a situation which was already pretty bad (our doing and choices) and potentially made it worse. What is nice is that now we can work with those opt outs on their orders individually. Maybe some clients are coming to their senses  or maybe not.

Could be, who knows..

Only time will tell right.

Just an idea at this stage. Found an improvement. Each Obelisk node, has a public key. We hash the public key into an address and then it stores 10 coins in an output owned by that address.

It does not add a cost. It just proves that you own 10 coins. It proves you know the private key, for a public key, whose address has 10 coins in it. You can still spend the coins.

The idea is that it upper bounds the number of nodes. If 10 coins must be held and there are 100 million coins, then it upper bounds the network at 10 million nodes. The upper bound does not appear to be mathematically useful right now, but is something we should keep in mind.

When a new Obelisk node is run, it will "trust" some random peers. The user can also add a few nodes by hand that it trusts (exchanges or trusted community members). A node is identified by its public key hash and found by DHT. Its not like Bitcoin where nodes are IP:port pairs. You can move your computer around and the identity of the node does not depend on its IP address.

We want the network to be secure with random nodes being chosen. We dont want a situation like Ripple, where the three developers nodes control the network. However, we wanted to prevent a situation, where someone runs 200,000 nodes and tries to collect the trust relationships from new users. These Sybil attacks nodes, still cannot 51% attack generally, but anything that increases the cost of the attack is still useful.

Maybe, we restrict it so that new user will only randomly trust nodes that have a coin balance. Trust relationships wont be severed if the node does not have a coin balance, but they just wont get new random users.

The connectivity graph for trust relationships, is supposed to be a fully connected random graph. A few nodes (trusted community members, exchanges, websites, organizations) will have more trust relationships and that helps the convergence time for block consensus a bit. It reduces the network diameter a bit.  Some nodes will be used to verify consensus (you choose a bunch of exchanges or different public keys), these nodes do not affect consensus decisions, but are "consensus oracles" to check if your node has converged with network.

If two large exchanges have different consensus for a particular, block, that is a problem. It could indicate a netsplit or an attack on the network. Exchanges may want to suspend trading until the issue is resolved.

So Ixcoin has over 90% of it's hash from one miner?  How is that secure?

Correct. If we can execute on the proper updates while also getting the right partners [abd raising awareness] then Litecoin will look like cheap left-overs in a very short timespan.

So u are saying NEX is a venture?

Development Update:

We figured out way of preventing Sybil attack using a hybrid Proof of Stake system.

To create a node, you must prove you have coins. Say 10 coins. You send 10 coins to address A. Then you send the 10 coins from address A to address B. Then you add a signature using the public key in address A to sign a message in your Obelisk blockchain.

Alternatively, you could publish the public key for address A and then just sign a message with that public key. The node would have to publish a signature every time period, or within some number of blocks of the reserve coins being moved, in order to maintain valid trust relationships with other peers.

Alternatively, proof of burn could be required, where the coins are sent from address A to an address B that has no private key. Proof of burn conflicts with the requirement that no one should need to download the whole blockchain from the beginning to operate a full node, so is unlikely.

This system upper bounds the number of Obelisk nodes and restricts the ability to run Obelisk nodes to coin holders.  The upper bound on the number of nodes and coin requirements adds another layer of Sybil attack protection.