I already successfully used it, so yes it should work. Try using decoderawtransaction and check if you do in fact own the input it's using. Or feel free to paste the decoded transaction if you don't know how to read it and I will take a look at it.


These are all the selling offers. I only display the latest one per address that are not all used up on the website.

There are actually threediscussions going on that might affect the spec. Block-lag, reserved funds and the validation api. I already did a quick glance through the new docs and so far it looks good

What's wrong with the Google Docs? If you can make a spec for what's needed for the website I can ask around with some developer friends if they are interested. I would do it myself but I already have a todo list that only increases in size...

The main problem right now is that for some reason the reference client will only accept x-out-of-y where y is smaller then four. I'm guessing there are more  foundation members then three so right now that's not even an option. I really hope they lessen the restrictions on these type of transactions in the near future.

Split, that could mean they are using x-out-of-y multisig.

Thanks, that worked! Your feed is not valid JSON yet however. Strings and keys need to be surrounded in quotes, I think it should be valid after that.

You can always check your feed using: http://jsonlint.com/

I wouldn't want to make an exception for just one message, it needs to be protocol wide if we want to even consider this.

FYI: I made a small change to the Verification Spec; I changed the url from mastercoin-verify to mastercoin_verify. I also tried checking out your urls but http://mymastercoins.com/jtransaction.aspx?Address=1QF9Hag3nyjAcXRd6mFrL5KyM3r71hVu2T doesn't seem to work.

My verification API is online.

http://mastercoin-explorer.com/mastercoin_verify/addresses
http://mastercoin-explorer.com/mastercoin_verify/transactions/17UDyggWFP6T3tUPTUEHMU8gxRtLZHG322

As soon as I have some tools available I will create a small comparison service.

Then it wouldn't be a valid ECDSA point.

Something has been bothering me when coding up my Mastercoin implementation these last few weeks. There is one thing in the spec that makes coding up Mastercoin implementations a lot harder and, because of this, less reliable then it has to be.

The position of a certain transaction in a given block. You constantly have to do two separate checks, 'is there a transaction in this block that has a position lower then the current one that can influence this message?' if not 'query all previous blocks for the information' that you need. It also contributes to the 'random chance' effect I already spoke about. Depending on the position of your transaction in a given block it might be either invalid or valid.

I hate chance, and I would like to eliminate it as a factor for Mastercoin.

My proposal would make everything a lot cleaner and easier to work with but would introduce a 1 block lag.

Current situation
User A creates a 'Selling Offer' of 1 MSC for 0.1 BTC in block 25
User B creates a 'Purchase Offer' of this 1 MSC while User A modifies it's original order to now sell 1 MSC for 0.9 MSC. Both transactions end up in block 26 but the modified 'Selling offer' ends up above the 'Purchase Offer'.

If user B still wants to buy user a's offer he now needs to pay 0.9 while if luck was different he could have paid 0.1 BTC.

Artificial 1 Block lag
User A creates a 'Selling Offer' of 1 MSC for 0.1 BTC in block 25
User B creates a 'Purchase Offer' of this 1 MSC while User A modifies it's original order to now sell 1 MSC for 0.9 MSC. Both transactions end up in block 26.

However to get all information this time we skip checking the current block and only look at what happend before this block. The offer gets matched up to the original one regardless of which position the changed 'Selling Offer' ended up with.

I understand if this is a controversial topic but I want to bring it up anyway because I really believe this will make everything better.  

Opinions!?

FYI, this is already coded up, but not online yet on mastercoin-explorer. There is nothing really interesting to see yet so I haven't put it online. As soon as we have some transactions going on I will make them visible.

You can add a trade at 50MSC @ 0.11 to the chart-data. I'm happy to say I this transaction (a first ever) was made using my own wallet software and nothing exploded, time for a celebration

Found it, should be fixed.

I'm writing a test-suite and updating my validation rules at the same time. I did not make an exception for Exodus transactions yet and they fail my verification rules... I'm not censoring sorry for giving that impression

I can probably write a script that takes an input and iterates through all permutations of possible up/lower case characters for a given password. I'm not saying you are doing anything illegal here but is there any way you can prove you own this wallet? I don't want to help you hack somebody else's. 

It seems you might have misunderstood what a distributed exchange means. In this case it's not a place you go to exchange. It's a feature of Mastercoin build into the protocol. In order to sell/buy coins you need to send a crafted Mastercoin message with information on what you want to buy/sell. These wallets you talk about offer to do this for you and thus implement the distributed exchange functionality. 

Hmm no, that's weird. It checks my database for all transactions it saw and collects those addresses. I had some problems over the last few days I'm guessing somehow my db might have lost data. Do you have some specifics addresses I can test to see why there are missing?

It can only be decoded by trying to decode the transaction as a Mastercoin transaction. If you would have to do it for every known multisig it would drastically decrease the ease you can identify Mastercoin transactions with.

You mention you have a good idea what the passphrase (you are talking about the password right) could be and that it might be that one of the letters is upcased by accident. Did you try any brute-forcing yet? Did you consider typos? Did you use this wallet often? 

I'm not a lead developer. Just some guy developing on Mastercoin like many others are doing.

I really don't care much about the price of Mastercoin neither. You think Bitcoin developers never sold Bitcoins at 0.10 USD? Your logic is very flawed. I'm not doing this to get rich I'm doing it to help build a protocol that will solve a lot of problems for all kind of different people. My time is a much more precious resource then my MSC, as long as I am spending that you don't have to worry I will jump ship any time soon.

It's not meant to be a chart application but a wallet application. Although I guess we could build in a timer that refreshes the rate. You better open a ticket at Github for a feature request

I'm already writing an rspec test-suite for my Rails implementation. It won't have 100% coverage but it will give you a good explanation of what to test for and how to implement it.

My implementation is based on Bitcoin-ruby, Zathras uses Bitcoin and Grazcoin Obelisk, loads of different backends