Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Counterparty gets more Press from the Finance Industry: The People Who Burn BitcoinsIn January, in one of the lesser-known corners of the Internet, people were burning bitcoins. Depending on where you pegged the price, anywhere from $1.6 million to $2 million worth of the digital currency was effectively destroyed, and a website called Counterparty.co was stoking the coals. Run by a group of anonymous developers, Counterparty was distributing a newly created digital currency in exchange for bitcoins.
Full Read: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/The-People-Who-Burn-Bitcoins-bitcoin/4/16/2014/id/54627
|
|
|
OP_RETURN can be used to store references to external resources, say for example very long meta transactions that don't fit into 40 byte, an asset contract or whatever. The storage pointed to could be a website which lists something like <hash_used_in_op_return_tx><very_long_message> (for the sake of an example), a side chain or a P2P structure like a DHT. To my knowledge this was discussed several times, but never tested on a broader scale.
I've started researching the DHT myself, dexX7. However, a side-chain structure like a DHT would require a good understanding of the particular DHT algorithms that would be a best fit for Counterparty or even Mastercoin or any other possible bitcoin layered protocol. An interesting introduction to the Chord and Kademilia algorithms is by a bitcoin developer here: http://offthelip.org/?p=149Do you have any resources that you've looked at as well?
|
|
|
how much does it actually cost to run some full nodes? I'm thinking Mastercoin Foundation and Counterparty could fund several of these with MinerCoin I'm serious... Then maybe we can start comping people extra for running the op_return 80 patch that LukeJr suggested. Instead of pumping resources into getting 40 additional bytes, why don't we actually start to build an overnet instead? I'm extremely thrilled by the idea and I somehow hope this all gets pushed even further in that direction. Intriguing dexX7! Go on... What are you thinking?
|
|
|
By the way, thanks both to my mysterious benefactor and to whoever thinks I'm Satoshi. I'm not sure my previous comment merits either of those compliments, but I appreciate them. My SX stealth address is SghSgpVgk7yAFx91DxwfE84Dm6r2hwSpMWcFJbR9wQTAv7pgq61Nx3dNsn if anyone is interested - and if they are, I'm sure they can send me a nonce without too much trouble One would expect satoshi to be monitoring the XCP/MSC threads closely and may even provide feedbacks as a detached observer. topynate provided some very insightful posts (in an almost academic-like style), showed us the futility of trying to classify OP_RETURN as carrying non-finanical data, and even quoted satoshi to remind us of the comparable "unstructured simplicity" in an OP_RETURN. That embodies the ideals of satoshi for many. Of course, satoshi would need a stealth address since he could not move those unsteathed coins without being noticed now It's uncanny how topynate was so crisp in his analysis of the blockchain storage issue and his writing of Satoshi's intentions after being away from his Bitcointalk account for about 3 years...eh?
|
|
|
Let's have some figures, shall we? Tarsnap charges 300 picodollars / byte-month. Assume ten thousand full nodes with their own blockchain, that's 3 microdollars / byte-month, or 3*12*80 microdollars / year = 0.3 cents / year for 80 bytes. But of course the cost of storage falls exponentially, let's say a three year halving time; then the total lifetime cost for storing your 80 byte OP_RETURN on every full node in the Bitcoin network is given by the sum of a geometric series with first term 0.3 cents and common ratio 2^(-1/3). That's a total cost of 1.5 cents. At current prices, and with the above generous assumptions made on behalf of miners and other full node operators, the correct maximum additional charge for a filled 80 byte OP_RETURN is 0.025 m BTC (it can be argued that the additional demand for Bitcoin created by permitting new uses is a driver of increased Bitcoin prices and thus should lead to a discount, but that's harder to quantify). So just set that as the default until floating mining fees are introduced in (hopefully) 0.10. Bitcoin users who don't want to "provide" that storage can go ahead and not run a full node. The idea Luke-Jr raises occasionally of a social contract existing between Bitcoin node operators to store and process only financial transactions needs dealing with. Bear in mind that in his maximalist interpretation, absolute consensus between all node operators is morally required to change that contract. It falls through on several grounds, principally vagueness and lack of historical support. Vagueness we've seen in this thread: no-one is quite clear on what makes a transaction financial. Is a transaction transferring a currency other than Bitcoin part of the social contract? Is a transaction containing what is effectively routing data (c.f. stealth addresses) fully financial, or is the additional stuff an anonymity functionality not part of the social contract? And so on. As to historical support, allow me to quote from someone who would know: The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
The thing is, Luke, that like it or not, Satoshi is/was a libertarian, and his creation embodied the 'take it or leave it' aspect of that political philosophy. Consensus means a consensus of mining power. Coordination means passing around proofs of work. If you feel that the amount of storage space the blockchain needs is too onerous to justify running your huge mining network, then by all means take your ball and go home, or for that matter start playing a different game - you have every right to reject whatever blocks you wish. Bitcoin will be just as pure as the majority of mining power wishes it to be. Welcome back, Satoshi. Been a long time.
|
|
|
It's not enough to have a couple of pools mine our transactions. We need to keep the block time as close to ten minutes as possible. Then contact more than a couple of pools. This statement sounds like you wish to force miners to include your transactions; surely you didn't mean it that way? If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057. This is with the understanding that Counterparty will seek to migrate to a more acceptable solution long-term. This is helpful and not the first time Eligius mining pool has offered to help Counterparty. Remember the burn period? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg4318549#msg4318549Nice to see us exploring another opportunity to work together with Eligius, once again. This is very helpful progress and looks like it can combine with some of the other proposals put forward. I dare say the solutions presented are even working out faster than a BIP proposal review!
|
|
|
We'll be issuing a statement on these new proposals, other radical protocol changes that were previously made, and an explanation for recent stakeholder flight in a few hours.
Don't change that Bitcoin2.0 dial! Stay Tuned on the Counterparty Cable Channel!
|
|
|
I don't think the fee should be destroyed. It would be a much better idea to pay it to Bitcoin miners or XCP holders. No? Maybe I don't understand it well enough.
But yeah 5 xcp seems a bit much.
Destroying the fee is paying it to XCP holders. "Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." PS: I'd say 1 XCP for new assets. I like round & prime numbers. I'm afraid to see a wave a spam issuances like COKE/CRACK/METH/DILDO/FRENCHGIRL coming from the same guy if you lower it too much... Fear stifles our thinking and actions. It creates indecisiveness that results in stagnation. I have known talented people who procrastinate indefinitely rather than risk failure. Lost opportunities cause erosion of confidence, and the downward spiral begins. Charles StanleyLet's keep it at 0.5 and agree to monitor the risk of SPAM issuances going forward. This platform is iterating quickly. Let's not let our fears hold others back from building and increasing our XCP value. Also, Phantom did say we will have Proof of Stake voting in the near future so I am optimistic SPAM won't stop serious companies from launching successful assets. Let there be more Bountyful Counterparty Assets! Bountyful
|
|
|
We created http://bountyfulcoins.com to increase visibility of bitcoin projects. We welcome the community feedback on how we can make this better for the many projects that are here, but hidden from the rest of the world of talent. Bountyful Team
|
|
|
At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~
I believe that I brought this idea of subscription fees for the asset in discussion previously here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,150.0.htmlI am not sure what the devs have decided, but the recommendation by Global_trade_Repo and by GLaDOS were very helpful. It's my view that asset issuance will be hobbled by this 5XCP price and this will also depress the value of XCP as companies cannot build quickly enough on the platform.
|
|
|
Hey guys, is there currently a more updated version of The Counterparty Protocol on GitHub available or is it all in the code, so to speak? Quite impressive to see what's going on here. Dexx7 is in the house. Welcome.
|
|
|
I think Omniwallet can definitely host XCP and benefit both communities. This is open source software and I would definitely recommend that the Counterparty devs reach out to Mastercoin and offer to have XCP hosted on their wallet. The benefits to both parties is a bigger slice of a bigger pie.
|
|
|
Hi, when issuance an asset I find a error:
raise exceptions.RPCError('{}'.format(response_json['error']))lib.exceptions.RPCError: {'message': 'Server error', 'code': -32000, 'data': {'message': "'address'", 'args': ['address'], 'type': 'KeyError'}}
what happened to my address???my command is "counterpartyd issuance --source=1Ej2******b --asset=****--quantity=10000000 --divisible --description=""
need help. thanks
I know you might have tried this, but I would recommend downgrading to the latest version of Counterparty which is v6.3 or the master branch. Try that with your issuance commands and then let us know what happened to you.
|
|
|
Hi, when issuance an asset I find a error:
raise exceptions.RPCError('{}'.format(response_json['error']))lib.exceptions.RPCError: {'message': 'Server error', 'code': -32000, 'data': {'message': "'address'", 'args': ['address'], 'type': 'KeyError'}}
what happened to my address???my command is "counterpartyd issuance --source=1Ej2******b --asset=****--quantity=10000000 --divisible --description=""
need help. thanks
Someone else just showed me a similar error. Which branch are you using? Are you on the develop branch?
|
|
|
Phantom is working on the spec. right now, and I have posted a wiki on assets (which includes information on issuing assets, trading on the DEX, paying dividends, etc.): https://wiki.counterparty.co/w/Assets. The wiki on broadcasts and bets is undergoing another revision right now and will be up shortly. Between these two wikis, Counterparty's basic functionality ought to be covered. The wikis have had to undergo several revisions in order to become more user-friendly, and any criticisms/suggestions are greatly appreciated, and, for the assets wiki, can be posted here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,142.0.html. EDIT: Note that the section on trades involving BTC is quite short right now because we are currently considering whether and how to revise it. For those who are interested in the discussion, please see the thread on the official forums: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,132.0.html. The Wiki looks great. Do you need any help with any of the content? You tell me. I think that all the *content* that is needed is there, but in terms of presentation I am very interested in hearing what the community has to say. Absolutely. My pleasure. I wrote up an example of a way to give examples in the wiki that make it easy for people to use the correct form in the examples. https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,142.msg1083.html#msg1083
|
|
|
Phantom is working on the spec. right now, and I have posted a wiki on assets (which includes information on issuing assets, trading on the DEX, paying dividends, etc.): https://wiki.counterparty.co/w/Assets. The wiki on broadcasts and bets is undergoing another revision right now and will be up shortly. Between these two wikis, Counterparty's basic functionality ought to be covered. The wikis have had to undergo several revisions in order to become more user-friendly, and any criticisms/suggestions are greatly appreciated, and, for the assets wiki, can be posted here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,142.0.html. EDIT: Note that the section on trades involving BTC is quite short right now because we are currently considering whether and how to revise it. For those who are interested in the discussion, please see the thread on the official forums: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,132.0.html. The Wiki looks great. Do you need any help with any of the content?
|
|
|
|