Thanks, that will be sufficient proof. Just wanted to make sure that the community is on the safe side. We've seen our share of scams already. I'll start off with the donations. Again, please pitch in regardless of how much you've burned! I have comparatively little. |
|
|
|
Thanks, that will be sufficient proof. Just wanted to make sure that the community is on the safe side. We've seen our share of scams already. |
|
|
|
The total XCP missing from the wallet--from people who bought from the dump and made hasty withdrawals--is about 7,000 XCP.
I am confused, I thought the hacker double-spent 35,000 XCP yet only 7,000 is missing? And if he walked away with 80 BTC, but only 7,000 is missing, then he sold 80BTC for 7,000? I don't understand what happened exactly... The 35000 spent exploited a protocol bug and thus was reversed (it never existed in the most recent version of the database). The 7000 constitutes withdrawals by people who sold BTC for XCP and so withdrew the "tainted" XCP. That was not reversed. The 80 BTC constitutes funds that the hacker withdrew after selling to the above people, and has not been returned yet. So the parties who were wronged: - People who bought XCP with BTC, but did not withdraw prior to closing (that would be approximately 35000 - 7000 = 28000 XCP) - People who deposited XCP who did not mean to sell at those prices (which the hacker did), that would be whatever balance poloniex has right now, minus 28000 - Poloniex, who is losing out on trading and has a loss of confidence The parties who "benefited": - People who withdrew XCP that they bought before closing (this is the 7000) - The hacker, who is up +80BTC The parties who were unaffected - People who did not have XCP on poloniex Ideally, people who withdrew would deposit funds back into the exchange, the BTC would be redeposited, and all trades reversed, which would result in no one gaining or losing anything. However as this is not actually practical, the exchange is currently soliciting donations to try to cover the remainder. That's the current fund situation right now. |
|
|
|
|
Cool, let me know when you have the new logo up so I can update the site.
Too busy to do much work, but I can spare time to update a logo.
|
|
|
|
But if the feed just provides sub-optimal data, or even starts providing outright lies, how does the scheme incentivize people to get back on the right track? It feels like once we're all pulling from Feed X, anybody who tries to deviate from Feed X is going to get spanked, even if Feed X is now full of shit.
I haven't read the whitepaper yet, so I'm pulling this out of my butt, but...what if we made a contract that said, "On February 20th, Feed Y will be more trustworthy than Feed X," where Feed X is the incumbent feed that you feel has been giving bad data? What if there are 3 feed services and contracts were settled based on the feeds' majority opinion? What if there were 10 services and contracts are settled on a supermajority of 80% of feeds? Otherwise, if you don't have 80% agreement, then the contract is a draw? Like I said I haven't thought this through much. Maybe it's best to just dismiss my ideas. There are two "solutions" to the feed problem: consensus/diversification, and incentivization. The first involves either spreading your bets among different feed operators, or betting on a (trustless) "average" of feeds. If averaging, ideally the algorithm should weigh feeds somehow (e.g. by volume or transaction number), and creating a bet should have a nontrivial cost (to prevent fake volume). The second involves incentivizing operators to report values "close" to the consensus. This could come naturally in the form of participants choosing one operator over another (we assume in this case that feed operators are "fungible", even though that isn't the exact definition), or users betting on a consensus value, with operators that report values "closer" to the consensus getting a larger share of the bet fees. As feeds ostensibly apply to actual truths about the world (as opposed to predictions, estimates, etc), I don't think the "lemming problem" is an issue here. On the other hand, I'm not sure how resistant this scheme is to cartels, but for any easily verifiable value (GDP, stock market index, temperature), collusion and cheating should be easily detected. |
|
|
|
If only there were groups/companies working on developing a provably secure (as far as the non-fiat side is concerned, at least), scalable, decentralized exchange setup *nudge* *wink*
Are you saying there is a viable decentralised exchange in development, or that there's not? If you've made a useful observation in the decentralised exchanges arena, then please share it. Perhaps there are... --- The larger problem though is liquidity. The spreads for localbitcoins are insane, and for good reason too. |
|
|
|
OK, Blockscan (not updated) show on Poloniex's address 15vA2MJ4ESG3Rt1PVQ79D1LFMBBNtcSz1f amount of 13,154 XCP.
Counterpartyd (version 6) show 48,154 XCP, so
Poloniex did get the 35K back after version update.
Can confirm that 6.0 wipes out the relevant transactions: --- 2014-02-19-T19:09:09Central Standard Time Block: 286700 2014-02-19-T19:09:11Central Standard Time Block: 286701 2014-02-19-T19:09:11Central Standard Time Block: 286702 2014-02-19-T19:09:16Central Standard Time Block: 286703 2014-02-19-T19:09:17Central Standard Time Block: 286704 2014-02-19-T19:09:18Central Standard Time Block: 286705 2014-02-19-T19:09:21Central Standard Time Block: 286706 2014-02-19-T19:09:22Central Standard Time Block: 286707 2014-02-19-T19:09:22Central Standard Time Block: 286708 2014-02-19-T19:09:24Central Standard Time Block: 286709 2014-02-19-T19:09:24Central Standard Time Block: 286710 2014-02-19-T19:09:25Central Standard Time Block: 286711 2014-02-19-T19:09:29Central Standard Time Send: 0.0 XCP from 19rVQ91AgrYmbpX6Sjxw6qCoP2Q1YFcn5b to 15vA2MJ4ESG3Rt1PVQ79D1LFMBBNtcSz1f (550188a54801105d506fab507995eb8aef15dfcd4d2d2cbf5e6948b831e92b4c) [invalid: zero quantity] 2014-02-19-T19:09:29Central Standard Time Block: 286712 2014-02-19-T19:09:31Central Standard Time Block: 286713 --- Some sort of resolution to make the most parties happy still has to occur on poloniex before trading can be opened up. The most agreeable resolution would be for the hacker to return the BTCs, all trades after block 286712 to be cancelled, and the BTC refunded as appropriate. I don't know about the XCPs withdrawn from purchasing at the dump. Again I should emphasize that such incidents are hardly unique to any coin. Bitcoin had similarily serious issues at a far more mature stage, and Nxt just has a critical issue last week despite a much larger market cap. |
|
|
|
That's the one thing thats kinda cool about not having mining pools to generate coins, is that when something like this happens, its actually possible for the developers to referee.. I am not quite sure that this is what Satoshi wanted. I believe he would have stood by the decision to let the negative consequences of the bug stand and allow the hacker to keep or give back at his discretion.
I would say Satoshi would be more interested in the negative consequences of a trustless system than the positive benefits of a trust-based system where we can simply decide to make roll backs on the block chain. I would assume just the possibility that human intervention is possible with such ease where so many balances are at stake would not be within the vision of a trustless protocol. That being said, many will disagree just based on the fact that they would not be able to see beyond their own balances as to what would be the correct implementation. And I understand that. As I would prefer a rollback personally had I lost a serious amount of XCP.
Keep in mind though something like this would be much harder to do with a mineable coin. So the real question is where do we go from here. Do we allow the possibility for a referee ? With Bitcoin of course this isn't possible unless you could somehow convince 51% or more to rollback (noob assumption, not sure)
Anyways, my 2 1/2 cents.
I hope this is some kind of edge case where still in Alpha no serious money has been spent and not much damage can be done by doing something like this. Also the attack is apparently a showcase of fraudulent abuse, so no one would contradict. But I would like the devs to make a statement like this as well. If we allow further "corrections" at will on the hands of a few in power how could we ever gain the trust of the common user? Intervention by "relatively small groups" is hardly unique to counterparty. Most people talk about the infamous bitcoin fork, but the bug that most closely parallels today's is the integer overflow bug back in 2010. And yes, in both of those cases a relatively small group of developers (who represent the community) intervened (the second case being downloading some random user's working blockchain). The community admittedly was very different then (satoshi was still around, for Christ's sake), and most people here (including me) weren't around. |
|
|
|
|
You're using the frequency domain to encode data right? (Pardon me, not an EE). How much degradation can you take and still produce something remotely readable? And wouldn't something like a bit encoding system that encodes in discrete chunks give something more error tolerant?
|
|
|
|
Those 35K coins, were the XCP deposits in Poloniex central account. The white hat hacker, withdrew these coins from the central address and deposited it back to Poloniex and sold then on the exchange for a low price.
The order depth in Poloniex was around 100 BTC. So, the hacker took these BTC, but left some of them in the exchange.
And what happens from here? The white hat will return both XCP and BTC back to Poloniex? The white hat return the XCP to Poloniex. The BTC is still under discussion. It depends on the benevolence of the hacker. Also, the protocol has been patched, re-indexing the database and resetting the XCP from the transactions. The same cannot be done for BTC. Final word is still from busoni, but most likely what will happen is that all trades after the 35000 deposit will be cancelled and reversed. I'm guessing XCP/BTC withdrawals will be handled separately.Busoni: "The dump will stand". |
|
|
|
Sure: https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty and https://counterparty.co/wiki/main/You're also welcome to register on the forums. Like any other real asset, it is what you do with the asset that matters. There are currently a lot of junk assets left over from the development period on there; however asset issuances now cost a non-trivial amount of money, and recently the asset system has been proposed as a way, for example, for ASICMINER-like projects. The "lack of trust" is reflected not by who is using the system, but the fact that these operations (ordering, exchanging) do not rely on the presence of a middleman or escrow agent. There is no way to make a fundamentally untrustable system (otherwise, no trades would take place), but there are ways to formally delineate boundaries of trust. As I mentioned in some discussion a while ago, "who do you trust? A stranger? Your exchange? NYSE? CNN? NIST?" |
|
|
|
|
Good to see that the community is right on top of this. This is what makes this project tick.
I'll also earmark 10% of my poloniex balance for this "security bounty".
Rebuilding will take a few hours. Please check balances then.
|
|
|
|
Hi; sounds like an interesting project. You may be interested to hear what Counterparty is trying to do (providing trustless, decentralized bets on feeds -- anything from coin prices, to weather conditions, to Super Bowl results.) Funding can also be achieved through issuance of assets, which represent shareholder interest. Alternative approaches are definitely welcome though; so far bitcoin lacks a truly robust derivatives market. |
|
|
|
The same error, the server command does not work now: c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd server
c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Status: RESTART
Block: 286524
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 694, in <module>
blocks.follow(db)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 678, in follow
parse_block(db, block_index, block_time)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 78, in parse_block
parse_tx(db, tx)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 35, in parse_tx
order.parse(db, tx, message)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\order.py", line 107, in parse
match(db, tx)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\order.py", line 160, in match
fee = int(D(tx1['fee_required']) * D(forward_amount) / D(tx0_give_remaining))
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'tx0_give_remaining' referenced before assignment Does it mean that v5.1 will come out later? Yes network appears down at the moment.Bug fixed, do a git pull. |
|
|
|
Counterparty Team,
As I promote the XCP to some people, lots of doubt sound come again like the beginning of burning BTC for XCP. How to prove that the Counterparty team will never issue more XCPs in the future? If you can explain as easily as to the general people, it could be better, because most us do not know the code. Thanks.
The code is open-source. No possible for more XCPs! Actually the XCPs is slightly deflationary. You can see the Counterparty Announcement on the first post: Description Counterparty is a protocol for the creation and use of decentralised financial instruments using Bitcoin as a transport layer. The protocol's native currency, XCP, is un-mined and slightly deflationary, with 2.6 million XCP created by burning bitcoins in January. We need a general evidence to explain to a non-tech guy. Most of people do not have the knowledge to review the code, right? Simple. Anyone can fork bitcoin and create a version that doesn't decrement the rewards, instead keeping it at 50 BTC per block. The problem is that no one would accept it, and it'll basically be an altcoin after a hard fork. Same as counterparty; the code is out there, anyone can make the appropriate changes, but it won't be accepted by the network. Again, hard fork. If you edited the client to generate "post-burn" coins and attempted to do anything with then (sell them, send them to some one else), that tx would simply be rejected because it doesn't refer to a valid output that they have. The beauty of cryptocurrencies is that no one needs to be there to "enforce" what is the correct version to use. Even if the developers make a change, if the rest of the community doesn't agree, they might as well have done nothing. |
|
|
|
About the price: XCP is glaringly undervalued right now. Big holders are dumping thousands of XCP on poloniex to recoup their investments.
The price will rise back up to at least .025 BTC/XCP once the dumping is over to make the Counterparty market cap even with Mastercoin's (main competitor with no functioning DEX).
I imagine that we'll go through about a few thousand BTC in "dumps" (or in other words, distribution) before early adopters are satisfied. Then watch for the rise. I for one don't plan on any more liquidation in the next few months. In other news, the poloniex "wallet" has nearly 2% of XCP. I believe most of these are comprised of coins in the name of holders that don't have a wallet installed yet. Only about 4% have successfully withdrawn their coin. |
|
|
|
i think the following are the big mistakes this greedy community did:
1. You were all too greedy and tried to overprice this coin from the start
2. You should've waiting till a stable GUI client released before even thinking of launching on exchanges
3. No one bothered to donate to dev, so they r broke now
4. You got greedy
Indeed, but you can't get greed out of the equation. Every coin, every stock, every asset, every currency has been pumped one day, dumped another by greedy people, manipulators, whatever... At least you should admit that PoB was a nice way to deal with the launch of a something new in this greedy sea of whales, sharkes and littles fishes... To all stakeholders: please sell some of your stakes for profit now, so the coin gets decentralized and the community gets bigger. Wow, the troll is strong today on this thread. You should probably review the order history on blockscan.com. I began selling amounts all the way from 700 XCP/BTC (a ridiculously, laughably low price). Do I regret it? Not really, if it helps distribution. Meanwhile I've changed my sig, made posts, bumped up reddit posts, all the way back from January to get more exposure for the project. There are a massive amount of sell orders right now on poloniex (unfortunately the orders on blockscan were consumed by trolls, which we should have a fix for already). They're going for 1/2 of the price 2 days ago. Are you going to buy now, or will you wait? The nature of markets is that everyone wants to buy something that is going up (when it has the most to lose), and sell when it's going down (when it has the most to gain). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
