What other number are there that you're looking at to make determinations, which were not mentioned? Transactions is all I can think of off the top of my head. Well, that certainly depends, but let me first ask: what do you want to measure? My point basically was: you could transfer tokens to 1000x receivers in 1000 transactions, or in a single send-to-owners transaction. Definitely a huge difference in the number of transactions, but would this be all that different? Likewise, looking at the market cap alone can create a skewed impression, say for example, when only a small percentage of all coins are free floating, which appears to be the case with Ripple, as far as I know. That's not meant to slander anyone (e.g. Ripple), but rather: one should probably not get to crazy about one aspect, when the full picture has more than one.  |
|
|
|
Also, if you look at the stats you'll see that although Counterparty has greater than 80% of the transaction volume among Bitcoin blockchain projects, the market capitalization of Maidsafe (on Omni/Mastercoin) is greater than all Counterparty projects combined.
It is undeniable that XCP leads in terms of transaction volume and usage with a very significant difference, but looking at one number alone may leave a sligthly skewed impression, as this is sometimes a comparison between apples and oranges. You'd probably be surprised how many transactions can be associated with "send to many" actions, such as the distribution of LTBcoins. What I learned over the time: the whole eco system is still at a very early stage. |
|
|
|
How did jerry get $11 and Elaine $9? Those numbers seems to be based on the underlying value of what the contract represents: Elaine: I’ve put up an order to sell 1 Seinfeld contract for $10
Jerry: Now I’ve got [...] 1 Seinfled
Elaine: I’ve got -1 Seinfeld, what does that even mean?
Jerry: It means Elaine, you need what I have
Elaine: Hah! But you also need someone to buy that 1 Seinfeld off you if want your money freed up again
Elaine: It says the contract is valued at $100 worth of Seinfeld
Jerry: I’ll put my order at $10.1
Elaine: I’ll buy it back at $10.1
Jerry: Now we both have 0 Seinfeld, I have $11 and you have $9
What’s happening here [...] The protocol parses the index# of the contract that is being netted to 0 and compares the price of that transaction to the price of the contract that nets out the first contract. In this case, both parties in a transaction are netting positions. The price difference between netted contract is a positive number, so a settlement will be paid to the address that is reducing a positive balance by 1. |
|
|
|
Craig, you're great. I can see the blog is available, even with Adblock plugins enabled. Thanks! I'm very happy about: multi-packet transactions ... as this was my first non-trivial issue I created on the spec.  Would you mind to go into some detail about the following two points? 8. Address anchoring for metadata
9. Futures market DEx extension I had a few ideas regarding BTC/MSC options, and the concepts/ideas of Patrick Dugan which I saw some time ago were pretty impressive, so I'm even more curious what this is about. |
|
|
|
The GUI comes with a standalone installer for Windows and a MacOS installer coming soon, and will be configured to run in ‘light’ mode by default, meaning that users will no longer have to run a local instance of bitcoin/counterparty clients or download the blockchain to get started. Global consensus is fragile, so I'm wondering: what is the security model behind this? How could I know whether the data provider for the light mode is honest? |
|
|
|
Is it possible to have multiple vout's using this schema? If so, is it possible to have multiple OP_RETURNs in one transaction?
Hi shamoons, currently only one OP_RETURN output with a size of maximal 40 byte is considered as "accepted standard". Rather recently the default size of Bitcoin Core was raised to 80 byte, although I have no data whether this is adopted on a broader scale at this moment. The size is not a strict rule, and you'll find some OP_RETURN transactions with more than 200 byte on testnet, but on mainnet such transactions usually won't be relayed. |
|
|
|
Related: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/10/secretive-bitcoin-startup-21-reveals-record-funds-hints-at-mass-consumer-play/Secretive Bitcoin Startup 21 Reveals Record Funds, Hints at Mass Consumer Play
For the past year and a half, a Silicon Valley startup has quietly convinced some of the biggest names in venture capital to back its effort to turn the technology behind bitcoin into a mass-marketed phenomenon.
Now, that company, which bears the name 21 Inc., is emerging from stealth to announce it has raised $116 million in venture funding, the most ever by a startup in the digital-currency sector, based on data from bitcoin news service Coindesk.
What it's not yet publicizing is the precise nature of its operations, Chief Executive and co-founder Matthew Pauker will only say there will be "several interesting developments over the next weeks and months" about software and hardware products designed "to drive mainstream adoption of bitcoin."
Since its launch six years ago by a mysterious coder who used the presumed pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoin has drawn media attention as a wildly volatile digital currency. But amid stories of scandal, theft and turbulent prices, the general public has largely ignored the arguments of vocal supporters, who tout the digital currency's potential to cut costs by removing middlemen from finance and commerce.
According to Silicon Valley investors such as those taking stakes in 21, say that failure to gain mass adoption is partly because the public's attention has been misguidedly focused on bitcoin's limited potential as a digital alternative to traditional currencies. In reality, they say, its underlying technology has far wider applications than that. Unlike the currency transactions that are generally associated with bitcoin, these new uses could range from lawyer-free smart contracts to tamper-proof online voting systems.
21's lead investors include U.S. venture-capital heavyweights Andreessen Horowitz and RRE Ventures, along with Chinese private-equity firm Yuan Capital, with a strategic stake going to chipmaker Qualcomm Inc.QCOM +0.25% through its venture-capital unit.
Additionally, Khosla Ventures and Data Collective have invested in 21, as well as chief executives and founders from various tech companies, including PayPal co-founders Peter Thiel and Max Levchin, eBay Inc. co-founder Jeff Skoll, Dropbox Inc. CEO Drew Houston, Expedia Inc. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and Zynga Inc. co-founder Mark Pincus.
Mr. Pauker said Qualcomm's involvement is key. He hopes to exploit the Bridgewater, N.J., chipmaker's mass-marketing and production capabilities in the development of a suite of consumer products that integrate with bitcoin's core technology called the "blockchain." This technology takes the form of a public, digital ledger that's maintained by a decentralized network of thousands of independently owned computers.
Qualcomm's involvement could spur speculation that 21 has its sights on the so-called "Internet of Things." That's the idea that a myriad of smart, Internet-connected appliances will in the future communicate with servers, networks and each other to optimize their operation, maintenance and energy usage without direct human involvement.
Some developers believe that bitcoin technology could play a key role in transparently managing the vast flow of information generated by these smart gadgets. The decentralized blockchain ledgers are free from the control of any one party, so smart appliances can in theory connect with computers built by other entities safely without worrying that the information was manipulated.
Starting out under the earlier name of 21e6, the company – which takes its name from the 21-million limit that bitcoin's managing algorithm imposes on the total number of bitcoins to be released – spurred intense speculation in November 2013, when a regulatory filing revealed a $5 million fundraise.
Members of the bitcoin community speculated about a secret vehicle for Silicon Valley elites to develop high-powered equipment that could dominate bitcoin mining. Mr. Pauker's comments about a consumer focus suggest that isn't where the company has ended up.
The initial secrecy around 21 was "solely for pragmatic reasons – we didn't have anything to say to the world," – says co-founder Balaji Srinivasan, who is also a partner at Andreessen Horowitz. He compares 21's work in building bitcoin products for the general public to the sequential development of 56-kilobit Internet modems, international fiber cables and wireless Internet towers, which all helped bring the Internet into people's homes in the late 1990s.
This notion also has parallels with the mass Internet appeal achieved in the 1990s by the development of the Netscape browser by Marc Andreessen, a co-founder of Mr. Srinivasan's firm. Asked for his views on 21, Mr. Andreessen said it "is working on what they — and we — consider to be core infrastructure for mainstreaming bitcoin."
21's announcement extends this year's upswing in venture capitalists' digital-currency investments, highlighted by January's $75 million fundraising for San Francisco-based bitcoin wallet provider Coinbase Inc., whose investors include the New York Stock Exchange. Bitcoin-focused venture capital more than tripled to $347 million in 2014 from a year earlier, according Coindesk.
The money flow is paving the way for products and services aimed at transitioning bitcoin from its volatile, Wild West beginnings into an era of more secure infrastructure and mass appeal.
A week after its funding announcement, Coinbase unveiled the first licensed U.S bitcoin currency exchange. Later, high-tech security company BitGo Inc. launched a unique insurance program, while the New York-based Digital Currency Group's Bitcoin Investment Trust earned regulatory approval to become the first publicly offered fund dedicated to owning bitcoin.
Well-funded custodial and financial services companies Xapo Ltd. and Circle Internet Financial Ltd. have also developed high-tech security and insurance projects. Meanwhile, San Francisco startup BitFury Holding BV has launched new, high-powered chips to take bitcoin mining to a new level of intensity.
None of this will matter if bitcoin doesn't achieve mass adoption, says Mr. Pauker.
"Bitcoin is going to change the way that people and businesses and even machines interact with each other," he says. "But for bitcoin to realize that vision we need mass adoption. It can't just be for Silicon Valley." |
|
|
|
Not significantly but "within 6 blocks" could actually take an hour, which is not always convenient especially when it's a trade on the dex.
The point I was trying to make: blockchain.info's indicator is not necessarily accurate. I have no idea what software and policy they are using, but it surely is not Bitcoin Core with default settings. A good example: according to blockchain.info the OP code "OP_RETURN" is non-standard, which the majority of the network disagrees with for quite some time:  For what it's worth: those values are not static and an integrator or end user can choose the settings according to needs and personal preference via the parameters "minrelayfee" and "mintxfee"/"paytxfee". As per default Omni Core uses 0.0001 BTC/KB with output values of 0.00000546-0.00000882 BTC. If I'm not mistaken, then Omni Wallet still uses higher values, whereby the end goal is certainly to allow user defined settings as well. Edit: some more background information: the screen capture shows a transaction I made from the faucet and new users receive two rewards: one with Mastercoin and one with Test Mastercoin. The later has an OP-RETURN output attached to monitor network adoption and eventually delays. I do similar experiments from time to time and after my second pitch those low values were adopted as new standard setting last year in September. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin/Mastercoin transactions don't have a "from" address and problems like the above come from that. If you try and dance around it you encourage address reuse (or worse!) which is a bad practice and has some security/anonymity problems. I'm not thrilled by the address reuse, but in the context of Mastercoin this is only half of the truth. In fact, "identify" is indeed bound to pubkey- and script-hashes instead of transaction outputs, in contrast to the (pure) colored coins model for example. Just made a maidsafe transaction from poloniex and I see that its Medium Priority (Within 6 Blocks) while the fee is 0.0001.  I figured the issue: it's likely blockchain.info's "priority" indicator. The underlying reason are the low output values of 0.00000546-0.00000883 BTC. According to the last larger data sample (10k+ transactions) I collected about 3-5 months ago, the average confirmation time was far less than 18 minutes, and basically all data indicated there is no gain in using higher-than-dust-threshold values. I'd be very interested in learning about the contrary though. Did you have the impression those transactions are significantly delayed? |
|
|
|
Thinking more about it this is along the lines of Bitcoin address blacklisting, and my opinion there is that blacklisting "dirty" coins causes more problems than any problems that are perceived to be associated with allowing use of said coins. I share this opinion, in particular because there is no distinct line where (almost any) "blacklisting" should start or end, or whether it's justified or not. Furthermore I would assume exchanges have an inceive to act in good faith, as a negative or positive outcome may have implications for their own business. But this is still an interesting point: users would have to move tokens from an exchange to participate in a vote, which creates friction to some degree, but I don't see a quick solution for this. It would be nice though if Omni Wallet for example, or other wallets, would provide any means to facilitate a vote by offering an option to cast a vote. This is just a guess, but given that there was basically no end user faced release of a desktop wallet since the MasterChest wallet, it's likely that most active tokens are either held in a web wallet or exchange. As a side note some reading material about block chain based voting to learn from for the future: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1255-blockchain-voting/ |
|
|
|
How many board seats are up for grabs?
5, as per the blog post, albeit information I should've repeated. The blog is unfortunally currently not readable for users with AdBlock or similar browser plugins, but I forwarded this issue and it hopefully should get addressed soon. |
|
|
|
David Gilman
15fH5mspYMqqRkbUvY1gVbVuiQpsEwMa9
This is not a valid address. |
|
|
|
Did I leave anything else open for interpretation? Thanks, this leaves no questions from my side! Maybe one last question, which might be interesting for some: are candidates allowed to or going to participate in the vote? |
|
|
|
Again, all you have to do is send a dust transaction from an omni-holding address to send an equivalent amount of votes to a candidate. Hi vokain, those instructions are a bit short in my opinion. In particular: - Who is eligible to vote? - When does the vote end? 20th March 2015 12:00 AM EST - How does one vote? Assuming eligible voters are Mastercoin holders, and from what I read of your message, it appears holders should send dust to the above mentioned destinations. I further assume votes are going to be counted based on the Mastercoin balance when the vote ends, but it's unclear to me, if there is any relation between the amount to send (e.g. 0.00001 BTC or 0.001 BTC) and the vote weight? Or does sending "any" amount of BTC equal "vote with the weight of the whole balance I have"? Is a standard Bitcoin transaction sufficient, or does it require a special Master/Omni transaction, or an output to the Exodus address? |
|
|
|
It would be nice to get a working http://redeem.bitwatch.co/ or else get Counterwallet to work properly with that. Because it doesn't work right now, and its irritating and makes trading on Counterwallet rather unaffordable/impractical compared to your competitors. Hey there, I maintain redeem.bitwatch.co. Last I checked, which was some time ago though, it worked with Counter Wallet. Which problem did you face? |
|
|
|
mishax, I'm looking into the priority stuff now and it looks like some of the more recent transactions are being broadcast with smaller miner fees. Are you seeing this on transaction you are broadcasting or is this just a general observation ?
Doesn't seem like a small transaction fee (0.00011 BTC , 0.00011923 BTC , 0.00012746 BTC). Those are my "send msc" transactions. *I just tested it again and everything seem to be back to normal. Hey mishax1, the coin selection selects unspent outputs randomly, until the amount to spent is collected. Those amounts are usually not high enough to get a free pass or anything alike, so let's call it bad luck, if you had the impression of a delayed confirmation. |
|
|
|
Why not for the sake of caution start with a conservative number like 2, ...? I really haven't made up my opinion on the whole topic, but one thing keeps repeating in my mind.. During the last great rise at the end of 2013, the soft block size limit of 250 kB/block of the Core default value was hit, which a majority of pools where using, with Eligius as one of the few exceptions, pushing blocks with 700+ kKB/block, if I recall correctly. This chart illustrates well where I'm getting:  What makes me wonder: the average block size increased significantly since then, but consider another, maybe even more explosive, adoption movement of 5-30x, triggered by some black swan event. What would happen? I think there is much value of having this discussion, and seemingly crazy proposals, better much sooner than later, to be prepared for that moment. |
|
|
|
The part about showing the limitations based on average txn size of the last million transactions is quite interesting. I guess the idea of 7 tps limit did not take into account the variability of tx sizes. It is always good to over estimate (or under) to make sure your estimations are likely to be within the bounds of the claims being mentioned. Clearly the 7tps claim did not account for that.
According to my data the average transaction size is higher than expected, and slowly growing.  Average on the chart equals average of all transactions, where data points are based on the average of 2500 block intervals. The full data table is available here, though as image and only until block 327500, but it should provide a ballpark: somewhere around 500-600 byte per transaction. |
|
|
|
... blog post.
Hi there, you mentioned you run jmcorgan's address indexed branch (actually sipa's, but kept updated by jmc) on Ubuntu 14.04., and faced a problem of block processing. There was recently an OpenSSL incompatibility ( details + more), which may have affected you. Just out of curiosity: did you run the Bitcoin Core tests with src/test/test_bitcoin by any chance? A few days ago a user reported an issue in this context over at mastercore and even though the issue was resolved successfully, the whole situation is still a bit opaque to me, and it would be interesting to hear, if you were affected by the same issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
