You could freeze them if you don't want to spend them.

I've just updated http://mastercoin-explorer.com/.

I've fixed the issue with multiple inputs reported by dacoinminster earlier in this thread and put a web-version of the python advisor online. For now I would appreciate if somebody else would confirm the reference client gives the same output as the web-version.  


Awesome; just what we need. I will see if I can grab the same results from my codebase so we can compare them so we have some test vectors to code against.

Edit: There was a small bug right after posting this where it would set currency_id to 0 and 1 instead of 1 and 2. This has been fixed.

Yeah all it does is decode the transaction itself; it does not validate in any way if the coins are actually on that address at the time of the transaction. I will add a specific disclaimer to the transaction result page to make sure people understand that.

It's on the todo-list. The main problem is that this is actually very hard to figure out because there are different cases to account for.

If you want to check the balance of your account and you did not buy from the Exodus address I first need to backtrace the transactions to your address. I need to make sure that address _did_ buy from the Exodus address and that at the time he did the transaction to your address he actually held enough Mastercoins for the transaction. This is not an easy feat when you consider the tons of data that are in the bitcoin blockchain and the fact that ever Mastercoin transaction is pretty much virtual and might not or might have happened based on how a client implements these cases.

I think the foundation needs to set up some test vectors to make sure every implementation of the protocol works exactly the same or else you might have 100 Mastercoins using one client and zero using an other. 

I don't think much can be predicted this week. We don't know if they need more money to investment in the 2nd-gen hardware. This will be the biggest factor in the size of the dividend payment for this week.

I think as soon as the foundation exists a multi-sig address will be created so nobody has the power to spend the coins without consent of the other members. 

It will be hard to figure out the value of a Mastercoin before sufficient software has been written to enable users to easily trade them. Especially if the bounties are meant to encourage people to build/implement just that.

Neh not looking to get hired. I have way too much going on as it is already. Just trying to contribute where there is nothing yet. I'm sure others will take over but for now there is at least something.

Thanks for all these edge cases; I will put out a fix when I can.


My blockchain is behind again so the library throws an error which I am not catching on the website. Will make sure I fix that and update the blockchain.
Edit: Blockchain caught up to this transaction and errors are now properly handled.


Thanks

(I think) I've fixed the reported problems when calculating coins bought with multiple inputs and updated the url to the easier to remember http://mastercoin-explorer.com/.

The next feature I will add is a (webbased) Mastercoin Advisor clone so everybody has easy access to it.

Yeah rbdrbd has reported this last night and I will work on an update as soon as my life presents me with a slot of free time


The times I have don't match up exactly but it's close. Blockchain.info displays the propagation time by default. If you check this transaction. You can see the received time and the included at in blocks time. Since received time is different for every running server it seems only logical to include the included in block time.

It will be once there is a reference spec and I'm done with the internal structure. Right now it's mostly assuming and it won't do any good if it gets released before the reference spec since people might build faulty tools on top of it.

I've added the option to look-up MasterCoin transactions. If you know of a mastercoin transaction happening on the blockchain take the bitcoin tx hash and use it to lookup the details. You can see an example here.   

My blockchain is still catching up; so it is possible some transactions are missing.


That would require a different type of query; I will see if I can add that to my todo list.

I've been working on some proof of concept code for Mastercoin since there is not much around yet. I decided to put my work to some practical purpose and made a quick page that uses the Mastercoin libraries to run through the blockchain and count how much coins were bought by a specific address.

A huge disclaimer: This is not the official code and things are often guestimated. For instance the whitepaper does not mention which time to use as basis for the extra coins for early adopters. I've opted in to use the time your transaction got added to a block but the reference spec might change this, although I'm not sure how.

You can check how many Mastercoins you bought here.

Full transparency; IPs for visits site are currently logged by the webserver software. If you don't want your ip in combination with your bitcoin address logged don't use it.

I might be crazy; but why do we need a foundation; or paid developers to begin with?

If the open source community proved anything it's that financial incentive is not needed to build great software. Satoshi build the first reference client without getting paid a dime. Why do you feel Mastercoin needs this much structure behind it?

I'm getting somewhere with the ruby implementation (on testnet):

Building a data transaction.

Parsing a bitcoin transction via Mastercoin.

However I'm having trouble generating the same sequence as the python script.

I was wondering if you could explain what base58_found.b58decode returns exactly; my terminal doesn't really know what it is suppose to be: http://cl.ly/image/0p343M1G3d0I.
My ruby version returns a pretty string (like 6ff5ef3b2e5adb597313a91ea898ae1314032bbbe4df3360d0) so I am not creating the same sequences as you are; which is pretty important ^^

Trying to wrap my head around everything so please bear with me.

• I buy a few MasterCoins by sending a payment from 'mmFjJ4P1bC43yd7v7FNMHPtezn6re2HCrA' to the exodus address.
  
• I want to send one of my MasterCoins to a friend so I fund mmFjJ4P1bC43yd7v7FNMHPtezn6re2HCrA again so I have some coins with which I can create transactions.
• I create a transaction guided by the advisor and set up one payment of 0.00006 to the exodus address an other one of 0.00006 to the address of my friend n3wLS8G69kD96Czw3xbUg17ipsb2W1NGvB and the data packet n3fpVfk96uq3kiGMQBsTPdhFfhc3hF9cef.
  
• I press send but I forgot that I send more then 0.00006 * 3 to that address so now there is also a change address involved.
  

How would MasterCoin interpret this transaction? Would it be invalid and reject? Would it assume the receiving address is is the address that had the 0.00006 payment and not the one with the change address? Would it divide the the amount send over the two outputs that were neither the exodus address nor data addresses?

Or am I misunderstanding everything all together? 

Yeah; I looked at it and it's pretty straightforward. I just wanted to try to make a 'real' wallet-client; one that can do the actual sending as well; and give you a balance etc.

Currently I'm messing around (with ruby) to see if I can get a simple wallet software going on top of bitcoin-ruby. I'm pretty sure I will fudge up a few transactions while developing so I just figured I would make the risk as small as possible. My master coins currently reside on a Electrum address which I rather not import in development software for the obvious reasons. Although I can solve this by 'buying' some more on a development specific address so I guess I will opt in for that option.

The problem is that developing clients is much easier on testnet without risking your real life bitcoins. As I understand it I need to send real bitcoins around in order to create MasterCoin transactions; plus I need to use real public/private keypairs in my codebases. I rather use testnet for these purposes as exposure of keys or wrong transactions are not hurtful.

tl;dr I rather send testnet bitcoins to oblivion then normal bitcoins.