Does this happen only sometimes? Beacause i did burn from multiple addresses from the same wallet and the burn seem to go through fine and I was able to verify the xcp balance on those addresses as well. Yes, it only happens when the client combine two previous outputs of two different addresses. It usually happens when there's no enough BTC in any single addresses. Take the above transaction as an example. Because both addresses have less than 0.5 BTC, but the user wanted to burn 0.5 BTC, so the client has to combine previous outputs in two addresses. Normally, the client only shows the sum of all its addresses, so it's not so easy to know when the client will combine inputs from the different addresses. Therefore, the safest solution is to only burn from a wallet with only one address. Yes, it does look like that is what is happening. Therefore the safest solution as far as the QT client is concerned, is to do a "full" burn from a "NEW" wallet which you have newly funded to a single address. However, after the first burn any remaining balance could get allocated to a different change address. The QT client lacks coin control at the moment. Yes, Qt client will create a new address for the change. After burn once, all the coins left, if any, will go to a new address. Therefore, you will be safe if you never send bitcoin to the same address more than once. Nonetheless, I still think the developers can do just a little bit more work to avoid this tricky part. if all burning are credited to the first input address, these invalid burnings will be valid. |
|
|
|
Which agencies support this function? I suppose not all of them or most of them?
All of those who can traded on ShangHai A-stock. It is like a VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMPANY on ShangHai A-stock market. Any Chinese stock investor can confirm this? This seems to be very secret since I cannot find anything about it through searching the Internet. |
|
|
|
How exactly does one lend money to a bank in China? (I'm in the US)
Start your favourite stock exchange software, type to invest in a virtual company whose code is 200004, the money will be back in your account in 4 days. This money, is lent to any bank who offers the rate of that time, but you are not told which bank has this money. 200028 lends the money for 28 days. There are half a dozen such 'virtual companies'. There is no advertisement or explanation on neither stock exchange agent's website nor in the software, only if you know the code, you can lend the money, anyone who can buy stock option can do so. A lot are doing this. Which agencies support this function? I suppose not all of them or most of them? |
|
|
|
Does this happen only sometimes? Beacause i did burn from multiple addresses from the same wallet and the burn seem to go through fine and I was able to verify the xcp balance on those addresses as well. Yes, it only happens when the client combine two previous outputs of two different addresses. It usually happens when there's no enough BTC in any single addresses. Take the above transaction as an example. Because both addresses have less than 0.5 BTC, but the user wanted to burn 0.5 BTC, so the client has to combine previous outputs in two addresses. Normally, the client only shows the sum of all its addresses, so it's not so easy to know when the client will combine inputs from the different addresses. Therefore, the safest solution is to only burn from a wallet with only one address. |
|
|
|
Attention, I've found the first invalid burning, which has two different input addresses. This may have already caused 0.7 BTC was burnt for nothing. https://blockchain.info/tx/0ffcfaca47b5e962913e5e12ef914cb665bbaecec7132de476bd132c8edce732PhantomPhreak: Is it possible to do as MasterCoin: credit all XCP burnt by this 0.7 BTC to the input address which has the maximum input value? In this case: 1NMwvn6DWFr5LPrHX2M1KAJzxfy6heRSTH or credit to the first input address: 1bPb7NZ1mdH9sQPEWp2j3shPmHS1BMVos? It's totally fine to just ignore this transaction cause you have warned the users all the time already, but just asking whether this is doable to just save this guy from losing 500 bucks. Thanks. ATTENTION: Do not use a wallet having multiple addresses to burn BTC, cause it may burn BTC from two addresses together and currently this kind of transaction is invalid and may cause you lose all the bitcoins for nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Any transaction needs at least 0.0001 BTC as the miner fee.
You can send BTC to your address anytime, so no worry.
|
|
|
|
Note that you will need BTC on this same address to be able to move your XCP. So keep some.
I've emptied a (several) blockchain wallets to burn, is this an issue? do I need to add some bitcoin to them? No need. You could not use XCP with blockchain wallet anyway. Later, you need to export your private key to bitcoind and use couterparyd to use them. |
|
|
|
No, yours is much better. I actually don't have enough time to polish mine and just want to setup an usable tool as soon as possible. Now with yours online I can safely leave it as it is, and hopefully it is still useful as a backup and a double check.  |
|
|
|
Hi Just as a heads up.. I started working on a XCP CounterParty block explorer shortly after the project was publicly posted, and I would like to announce that I have a live beta version available at http://www.blockscan.comThere is some basic search functionality to allow you to look up your block balance easily and also to see the transaction history for burned blocks. At the moment this only included confirmed blocks as per the CounterParty client If you have any suggestions, feedback or bug reports do let me know. Cheers Very cool site. Much better than my version.  I think I really need to squeeze some time to learn bootstrap. |
|
|
|
I have a great idea for these IPO things.
why not have a provably unowned btc address and have people send it to that, something like
1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE
It will distribute the coins without having any way to scam people. If th makers of the coin want to make money, they can put their money where their mouth is.
There's already one. Counterparty https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.0 |
|
|
|
I have burned some BTC for XCP,but how to check the earned XCP?
Search for your send address after the transaction has been confirmed in the blockchain: http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/Thank you ,got it. But cannt found my transaction. All confirmed transactions will be included. Is it possible for you to share your address (or PM me) and I will check for you. Thank you ,bitthink. 1JYC15vo3HEk2oUD2Y17aFSrj66Ueoz6GM May be I was wrong because of the wrong set X and fee? It's there 346 1JYC15vo3HEk2oUD2Y17aFSrj66Ueoz6GM BTC spent: 0.10900000 XCP balance: 152.4514 |
|
|
|
according to the instruction Without using counterpartyd http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/HowToBurn.htmle.g,I want to burn 1BTC from address A,so I should set the X=0.9999BTC, and set Miners fee=0.0001 BTC. If you want to burn X BTC (where X <= 1 BTC) from address A, then make sure that there is exactly X + .001 BTC in address A Why A addresss is exactly X + .001 BTC other than X + .0001 BTC(fee) ? So what should I set the X and the fee? Many thanks. I think that's a typo, but I am not the authority. It's safe to set X <= 1 and any miner fee >= 0.0001 |
|
|
|
In that case, I would have to respectfully disagree. While exponential decay of rewards allows distribution by PoB to continue, it either ends up a) putting an artificial constraint on price or b) unfairly dilutes early contributors. For a continuous PoB scheme, I'm not sure that any distribution would manage to satisfy both early and late investors (correct me if I'm wrong). The establishment of a market to trade the coins along with useful services is more likely to foster adoption.
I agree there is no distribution that would satisfy everyone. In terms of participation, so far 335.9079 BTC has been burnt. Ignoring the USD/BTC rate, how does this compare with the initial offerings from NXT and Mastercoin? It is impossible to know how many different people have burnt BTC for XCP though... As far as I know, 21 BTC for Nxt and around 500 BTC for Mastercoin. |
|
|
|
I agree, it would be unfair to change the terms of the contract now. But once the idea is out of the bag there is nothing stopping someone from forking the code and making a version with longer proof-of-burn. And that widely-distributed version will eventually win out given its wider adoption base.
Innovator's Dilemma FTW
The point of XCP is not the coin, but the distributed exchange. If Counterparty can be the first distributed exchange in the market, it will attract many issuers. Coins can be copied easily, but not the exchange. Therefore, the key is to launch the exchange as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
I have burned some BTC for XCP,but how to check the earned XCP?
Search for your send address after the transaction has been confirmed in the blockchain: http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/Thank you ,got it. But cannt found my transaction. All confirmed transactions will be included. Is it possible for you to share your address (or PM me) and I will check for you. |
|
|
|
In order to allow for wider distribution, why not allow for a longer burning time period with exponentially decaying rewards to burning?
The short IPO period seems arbitrary and designed to create scarcity. I understand the need to incentivize early adopters, but I think it's important for liquidity and long-term stability to allow late adopters to burn as well.
As an analogy, GPU miners are what caused the scrypt altcoin scene to flourish. And in a proof-of-burn scheme, burnt coins = mining rigs. People need to feel like they can acquire a fair stake in a new coin without having to buy coins from early adopters and feel like they've been pump-and-dumped.
Although this could be a good idea, but once the first investor burnt some BTC the contract should have been finalized. It will be unfair to people already burnt BTC if the contract is changed now. |
|
|
|
Sorry to send the market bouncing around guys! Most of you seem to get what is going on here, but for those who have any question about my commitment to the project, here is a clarification I just posted on reddit: Edit:
I'm sorry that the post above did not adequately convey my excitement to get a chance to work on Mastercoin full-time! Ripper is completely correct in his posts below. I have taken a lot of criticisim for not diversifying in the past, and now I am finally doing so, with the added benefit of getting to work on my passion full-time.
As for the concern that people would dump coins on the market and then try to buy them back cheaply from me, I will not sell in such a situation. The price would have to stay down for a long time before I would accept it as a new market equilibrium. I'm very sensitive to the lack of volume on our exchanges, so I'm prepared to wait a long time for the right buyer(s) to come along. There will be no "dumping".
Please keep in mind that this is only a tiny fraction of the Mastercoins I have, and the ONLY reason I'm selling them is to pay pressing bills and get more time in on Mastercoin. I am so excited to be a part of this, and I MUST get more involved!
Thanks! if you set the price 0.17 ,then the market price will never be higher than 0.17 ,peopel will buy from the market not from you. and selling Behavior also make some people to keep away from msc .what you should do is giving good news ,attract more people in msc. when the markt is large enough , you can easily sell your msc on the market . So you are encouraging pump and dump here? I will never complain JR selling MSC as long as he still hold considerable amount. My only complaint is about the progress of the project. Once MSC becomes successful, the price of MSC will naturally increases. Only speculators care about the current market price, when there's nothing have implemented for MSC yet. Long term believers will either be happy about the lower price, or just worry about the slow progress may kill this project. |
|
|
|
Hi, PhantomPhreak. It's too heavy to install bitcoind. Currently I am using the blockchain.info API and this explorer is just a very lightweight Go program running on Heroku without any dependency. Moreover, I think a separate parsing program may help standardize the protocol specification. That said, I will follow the changes in the python source since now the source is the specification. Hi. That sounds fine. Re-implementations, which should indeed help test the protocol, are great. We should come up with a standard way of comparing different implementations, of course, when it's time. Yes, a complete set of tests can help a lot. For example, btcd (a Go implementation of bitcoind) passed all the tests of bitcoind. Moreover, the tests can help the reference implementation itself too for regression testing. This is certainly not a priority for now. In current stage, when I get time I will setup a couterpartd in my own laptop and create a script to compare the results periodically. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
