That's right. Overspends are just ignored. Counterparty also doesn't pay much attention at all to block boundaries: it parses every transaction in a block one-at-a-time, in the order in which the transactions are listed within the block.
Does Counterparty wait for a certain number of confirmed blocks prior to updating the internal balances? I would gather it would have to do this otherwise if it got a block that was eventually replaced by another then the ordering would be different. It doesn't, no. Balances may indeed change on blockchain reorganisations, just like with Bitcoin. I'm curious, how is that implemented? Can you give a sketch of how that is done? The blockchain reorganisation detection algorithm? It's pretty straightforward: everytime counterpartyd sees a new block in Bitcoind, it checks to see whether its parent in the SQLite3 DB is its parent in Bitcoind, if it isn't, then it checks *that* block's parent, and so on; if it is, then counterpartyd deletes the recent, bad blocks from the DB and reparses every transaction from scratch, in order, which takes a couple of minutes. ok... thought there was a more complex algorithm under the covers. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Bzzzt. Other way around. Caps in parallel add together. 1+1=2 ect. In series they divide. Resistors of course do oposite. series adds, parallel is 1/((1/r1)+(1/r2)+ etc.) Arg... I hate when I do it backwards... No wonder I can't ever get my woman pregnant! xD Well, in that case, since I was backwards... the capacitance is half what it should be. Can't believe I reversed parallel and series.  I know that a screw has a resistance of near zero... lol, which was across both pads, where the resistor should have been. Thus, nullifying the existence of the cap, as that was a direct short to the + terminal side, from the - ground. The capacitors are just there to modulate the voltage, it is not really critical that you have a little less than normal. I think the main problem has been the heatsinks. The top heatsinks are too small, the bottom heatsinks have not enough thermal conductivity due to lack of paste. |
|
|
|
@Friction So no meta-coins? Well if you can get it to work I suppose that would be fine. jamaer brought up a good point about orders. How do you do orders without a meta-coin? There is implied escrowing with orders to keep both sides honest. What if someone submits an order with 5 IXC in their wallet, then moves the 5 IXC to another wallet before the order is filled? Does the order just not occur? Does it get canceled immediately when the 5 IXC gets moved?
Let me give an example: how do you plan to implement escrow for IXC (in orders, bets etc.)? XCP is simply a protocol currency, so in the original Counterparty it's simple to do, but IXC is a blockchain currency so the same does not work (as miners need to accept each transaction). So if I want to give 5 IXC for a particular asset, what happens to my IXC while a match is looked for? If a match is found, how those 5 IXC is moved to the previous asset owner?
No need for *a* meta-coin. Anyone can create their own asset. So the foundation can create its own asset that has a 1:1 backing with IXC. You can create an order with IXC. There is just an additional step to pay the IXC. It is just like making an order with BTC using Counterparty. If you want to exchange other alt-coins (i.e. BTC, LTC etc) then you use what is called a 'proxy coin'. Essentially a party provides a 'vending' capability where you exchange say BTC for proxy BTC coins ( let's call those IX-BTC). The IXBTC can then be held in escrow using the order or bet functionality. The equivalent of a counterparty coin would be an IX-IXC. So someone can essentially setup a vending service for alt coins that converts say LTC to IX-LTC for trading. Essentially it is a distributed decentralized exchange. So really what happens now is the creation of trusted parties that vouch for the specific asset. However the actual trading is done in a decentralized manner. So, here is the scenario, you want to buy Gold with BTC. You have a gold bullion vendor that exchanges one ounce of gold for 1 IX-GLD. You have another vendor that exchanges 1 BTC for 1 IX-BTC. A party that want to buy gold makes an buy order for say 3 IX-BTC in exchange for IX-GLD. The buyer gets a match from an existing sell order. The quantities are exchange. The seller redeems his IX-BTC at the BTC vendor. The buyer redeems his IX-GLD at the gold bullion vendor. In no event does the exchange have posession of the BTC or Gold. Only trusted vendors have real ownership. Good info but you didn't answer my specific question. As I think about it more I think we can implement Counterparty without their metacoin, and still allow orders without formal escrowing. My guess is that Counterparty knew they couldn't rely on the Bitcoin developers to add the required transaction validations natively so they had to create their own metacoin to give them the control they needed. So for my question about orders it could work something like this. Let's say a sell order for 5 IXC is placed to buy a CP asset. The order gets recorded in the blockchain with the address of the 5 IXC for everyone to see. Then the owner tries to send the 5 IXC to a new address. Well, the miners need to confirm it first. By adding checks for open orders before performing a send, the miners can cancel the open order if the address balance drops below 5 IXC. Only then would they confirm the send. Or they could just disallow the send all together. Regardless, it's all enforceable natively. The problem Counterparty has doing this using Bitcoin is they can't add the order cancellation to Bitcoin transactions since they are not the Bitcoin devs. They need the metacoin as an intermediary to give them the control they need. They control the metacoin and its transaction rules, but not Bitcoin. In our case our devs control both the IXC blockchain and the Counterparty implimentation. So we can streamline Counterparty and remove the metacoin by moving any new transaction logic to the native blockchain validations. It should work. Yes, they control the metacoin, but any CP asset can act in place of the metacoin. Well in the short term we aren't including transaction logic in the native blockchain validations. That would be a native (hard fork) implementation. So IXC order cancellations are not available just as BTC cancellations are not allowed for CounterParty. But you are right, long term, these validations can be included natively thus making IXC a first class citizen in the Order and Betting protocols. |
|
|
|
That's right. Overspends are just ignored. Counterparty also doesn't pay much attention at all to block boundaries: it parses every transaction in a block one-at-a-time, in the order in which the transactions are listed within the block.
Does Counterparty wait for a certain number of confirmed blocks prior to updating the internal balances? I would gather it would have to do this otherwise if it got a block that was eventually replaced by another then the ordering would be different. It doesn't, no. Balances may indeed change on blockchain reorganisations, just like with Bitcoin. I'm curious, how is that implemented? Can you give a sketch of how that is done? |
|
|
|
That's right. Overspends are just ignored. Counterparty also doesn't pay much attention at all to block boundaries: it parses every transaction in a block one-at-a-time, in the order in which the transactions are listed within the block.
Does Counterparty wait for a certain number of confirmed blocks prior to updating the internal balances? I would gather it would have to do this otherwise if it got a block that was eventually replaced by another then the ordering would be different. |
|
|
|
Ok I lied,
One more question. Do you have any plans to and or would you consider adding coinjoin to ix?
-On mastercoin vs Counterparty, end result to users is same functionality right? So does it really matter then? I think mastercoin has 1 additional method of encoding their data so as to be extra extra hard to kick from a blockchain.
coinjoin... no it will depend really on which group has a more robust and stable implementation. |
|
|
|
Thanks for all of the clarity. My feeble mind was having a hard time grasping at what you were talking about. I'm looking forward to seeing this, so will stop bugging you with questions for a while.  anyone else want to weigh in on this? Cinnamon? Not a problem. These discussions help be solidify my understanding of these. The one big question I have is, why Counterparty and not Mastercoin? It think this boils down to what is available in open source and what is not. |
|
|
|
I got a question that may have been explained prior.
How does counterparty prevent double spending of assets?
I couldn't find a website link, which I'm also rather sure there was. Anyways Counterparty assets just like Bitcoins do not exist as a 'thing', it is a ledger starting from the burn address (or issuer address) keeping track of what is where by embedding the information into Bitcoin transactions, which Counterparty nodes (by parsing the Bitcoin blockchain) interpret according to the protocol rules. Accordingly as with Bitcoin transactions debits to an address for amounts&/assets it does not have will not be accepted by Counterparty Nodes, and the Counterparty protocol does not use unconfirmed transactions - therefore the possibility of a double spend on Counterparty is the same as of a Bitcoin blockchain fork (the reason for using the Bitcoin blockchain - as opposed to side chains, or other coins etc.) One difference to note is in Bitcoin consensus is established by evaluating the transactions through a scripting language, where as Counterparty transactions are evaluated through an api. With Bitcoin miners validate the script to ensure validity prior to inclusion in the blockchain. With CounterParty invalid data can get itself into the blockchain. However, as I understand it correctly, invalid data cannot find itself into the working memory of the CounterParty nodes. Therefore, even though they are rejected, they are essentially ignored? What happens though if an address overspends in the same block? How does CounterParty resolve which payment to make out of all the payments in the block? |
|
|
|
Would you say that this is a cross of colored coins and counterparty? Or more similar to one then the other?
No.... it is a subset of Counterparty. No burning. Counterparty is a superset of colored coins. I'm actually incorrect about Mastercoin, you can't issue new coins in Mastercoin without declaring their exchange rate with some other coin. So therefore, the first coins issued by Mastercoin require mastercoins. That is why Safecoin required mastercoins where donated to safecoin so they could acquire their own coin! |
|
|
|
so because user defined assets can be thought of as a metacoin,
they can therefore also perform counterparty features (which require the use of a metacoin).
thus no need for a counterparty style metacoin as ix has a user defined asset that performs as the metacoin
Yes, all you need are two user defined assets. Say you define A and B, then you can create an order for A and B. Say you did not have a user defined asset? You can't do anything because you can't create an order. Why is there only one metacoin for counterparty or mastercoin and not two? Because the other one is not a metacoin (i.e. btc). You can create an order for counterparty and BTC, but BTC is handled differently in that it is not escrowed. You want full escrow? You need two metacoins. You want to send someone something? You need at least one metacoin. The only way to require a metacoin is to demand a fee for every counterparty or mastercoin transaction. However, that is not part of these protocols. This is different from Ripple and Bitcoin that requires that fees be present. |
|
|
|
Can you explain your mechanism that allows ix to do counterparty without the use of metacoins
Let me quailify... we out the use of *a special* metacoin. All user defined assets are all metacoins. Ask yourself a question: "What can a CounterParty or MasterCoin do that a User defined asset can't do?" decentralized escrow? Of course this will work with any meta-coin. It is not clear why this is not obvious. Can you explain to me why *a special* metacoin is needed at all? All that is needed is *any* metacoin. In fact, xnova alluded to that in the end of his interview. I think the main intellectual stumbling block is the realization that the counterpartycoin and the mastercoin does not serve any purpose different than any other user defined asset. It is the mechanism that is valuable and not the coin. This is very different from bitcoin where the coin carries value. |
|
|
|
|
I question the D+ rating of AMT.
They've delivered only a fraction of the miners to users. Out of the fraction of miners delivered, a majority of them don't work.
They have not provided a single customer with a user.
They also provide zero communication to users not only about the status of their purchase but provide nothing for post-delivery support.
I think a rating of Z would be more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Yea after the fact lol. Honestly that should be a sticky on this forum IMO. I commented there to vote for sticky status. I suggest others do to just to get it there. That page alone is huge in deterring people away from scams or incompetent vendors.
AMT wants to make the argument that all vendors are having trouble like they are. Well, yes, most of them have problems, but most of them have been known to deliver something. |
|
|
|
Can you explain your mechanism that allows ix to do counterparty without the use of metacoins
Let me quailify... we out the use of *a special* metacoin. All user defined assets are all metacoins. Ask yourself a question: "What can a CounterParty or MasterCoin do that a User defined asset can't do?" |
|
|
|
As per my summary post above they will use multi sig
also as per above as well, they have debated moving to another chain.
Oh, I didn't read that: The second method puts the data in the second public key in multiple one-of-two multisig outputs.
This could be also banned by Bitcoin in the future since the usecase for one-of-two is almost identical to one-of-one! In fact the plans have been talked about: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/30705609/Well, this apparently the method that Mastercoin currently uses. It is also the method of the CoinPrism colored coin approach. This indeed interesting. Oh... one massive advantage of IXC for user define assets vs. BTC. IXC blockchain is so much smaller! The entire block chain can download in a few hours, unlike BTC which can take several days. |
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone saw these ratings: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691.0
Rating systemPosition in the list signifies trustworthiness, the higher the better. Criteria includes the use of preorders, delayed shipping, immoral behaviour, withholding of refunds etc. A = Highly established, top tier firm B = Established, mid tier firm C = Mid tier firm with problems, or new firm yet to prove products D = Mid tier firm with problems, or new firm yet to prove products + ethical problems E = Firm with horrendous problems (including bankruptcy) Z = BFL.
Ratings| Company | Product Lines | Thread | Website | Delivered? | OnTime? | Rating | Comments | | ASICMiner | Erupters, Blades, Cubes | Link | N/A | Yes | Yes | A+ | Publicly floated company, only sells in hand hardware. Any minor problems resolved immediately. New generation soon. | | Bitmain | Antminer S1, U1 | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | A+ | Only sells in hand hardware, continued success. | | Bitfury | H-boards, chips | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | A | First company to deliver on time, in quantity and without any problems. | | KNC Miner | Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B+ | Slight delays on most recent generation, but has compensated users and honors refunds. | | Avalon | Avalon, Avalon 2, chips | Link | Link | Mostly | No | B+ | Community boycotted due to the handling and delay of B3 and chip orders. Trade in orders were never refunded. B1 and B2 suffered no problems. | | SpondooliesTech | SP10, SP30 | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B | Best product release of any company to date. Sold preorders quite far into the future. No problems to date. | | CoinTerra | Terraminer IV | Link | Link | Yes | Mostly | C+ | Products did not achieve advertised hash rates. Compensation not sufficiently being provided. | | Black Arrow | Prospero, X1, X3, Minion | Link | Link | Yes (prev) | No | C+ | Historically reputable, suffering delays on current generation. Delaying refunds until first products are shipping. | | BitMine | Coincraft A1, Rig, Desk | Link | Link | Yes | No | C+ | Continuing delays, communication has improved. | | VMC | Fast Hash One | Link | Link | No (yet) | No | C | Offered and honoured refunds from the start. Clones now appearing, original chips not yet ready. | | HashFast | Sierra, Babyjet | Link | Link | Yes | Delayed | D+ | Finally delivering, however high failure rates in initial batch. Batches continue to be delayed. MPP scheme soon to be shipping | | BFL | Jalapeno, Single, Monarch | Link | Link | Yes | Delayed | Z- | Delayed products 6-12 months, refused refunds. Constant unethical and illegal practices. Tries to swindle newbies into buying obsolete hardware. | | | | | | | | | | | ChipIntegrators | | | | | | | | | Lightning ASIC | LA1THS, LA5U, LA3M | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B+ | Products being delivered consistently, no problems. Only sells in hand hardware. | | Technobit | S-Hash, Hex8A1, Hex16A2 | Link | Link | Yes | Mostly | B | Offers boards based off multiple chips, some delayed, some excellent. | | OneStringMiner | OSM | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B | Uses Bitfury chips, only sells in hand hardware. | | Drillbit | Drillbit 8 board, Thumb | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B | Uses Bitfury and Avalon chips. | | Redhash | Redhash 105 Avalon Clone | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | B | Uses Avalon chips for clone. | | ASIC Runner | Hexfury USB | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | C+ | Uses Bitfury chips. No reported problems. | | Big Picture Mining | Blue fury USBs | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | C+ | Use bitfury chips. Problems with overheating, refunds and replacements still pending. | | Starfire X | BTCGarden Blades | Link | Link | Yes | Yes | C+ | Use BTCGarden chips. Small sales, no reported problems. | | AMT | 80-1200 GH Coin Miner | Link | Link | Yes | No | D+ | Very delayed, no communication. |
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to recognize that ixcoin is one your babies friction, and we in no way wish to harm it.
however, are we doing what friction wants
or what the
ixcoin community wants?
cause we should make this distinction.
edit( I like the road map, I have no problems with it)
Listen to this interview: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterpartyThe CounterParty port is the cheapest and least intrusive way to get a lot of new functionality into iXcoin. In fact, it elevates iXcoin into not just a Bitcoin clone, but one that is a second generation crypto-currency. Correct. and I'm listening to it now to determine if I've missed something. You know I was an exodus investor in mastercoin as well remember when Robby proposed his mastercoind in python that later became counterpartyd. I also called him out on the original but now gone talk.mastercoin by providing the means, motive and opportunity for him being phantomphreak. I was wrong, he was xnova. My question to you. Will you be allowing an 80 byte op_return in the ix code? And will you be fine if someone else also builds their own version of counterparty on ix to compete with your version? This was how counterparty came about after all, with its competition with mastercoin. It does not matter if someone else comes along to build another counterparty to ix. Unlike counterparty and mastercoin, this port doesn't have its own coins. It actually doesn't even make sense why counterparty and mastercoin should have their own *special* coins. That's because any body can make their own coin, and any of these coin function the same way as any other coin. The only thing that makes a user defined coin valuable is if it is backed by something (i.e. IXC, BTC, gold, shares, etc) We will keep the original 80 byte op return. I don't know what counterparty is going to do to circumvent the 40 byte limit of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'd also like to recognize that ixcoin is one your babies friction, and we in no way wish to harm it.
however, are we doing what friction wants
or what the
ixcoin community wants?
cause we should make this distinction.
edit( I like the road map, I have no problems with it)
Listen to this interview: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterpartyThe CounterParty port is the cheapest and least intrusive way to get a lot of new functionality into iXcoin. In fact, it elevates iXcoin into not just a Bitcoin clone, but one that is a second generation crypto-currency. |
|
|
|
I'm getting a little confused as to your exact proposal Friction.. Maybe a little clarity.?
So what is the road map that you are proposing?
1. Port Counterparty with x features.
-requires a small update
(which features, 1 more time please, and how will they work on a mechanical level? ie: class a, class b, class c)
2. Native colored coins
3. Altcoin exchange?
Port Counterparty with two changes: (1) No burning of a meta-coin. (2) Issuance of assets have a fee. Fee is donated or burned. Native colored coins in some future date. The exchange already comes with Counterparty! |
|
|
|
Counterparty offers such a great incentive to Bitcoin by the use of its asset issuance, but I believe this technology is ahead of its time.
There is a huge benefit to Bitcoin because Counterparty allows companies to IPO at 0 cost. Basically, they can sell shares for Bitcoin, and get paid dividends in Bitcoin.
This creates a large demand in Bitcoin, but until the regulations are clear, no business will touch it because they don't want to get in trouble with the SEC.
What specifically would be legal issues for an IPO on Counterparty? It depends exactly what you are selling. If you are selling something that is equivalent to an investment then there is indeed a lot of legal issues in the U.S. I believe counterparty circumvented the issue by having the proceeds of the investment go to nowhere (i.e. burned). Safecoin circumvents the issue by selling tokens that are equivalent to storage space. Ripple circumvents the issue by selling tokens that are equivalent to toll passes. Bitcoin circumvents the issue because there is no IPO, you just have to mine shares on your own. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
