The explorer seemed to indicate that burns with different inputs or more than one output to non-sending address were invalid. The only definitive confirmation though is to check the counterpatyd client.

PS The explorer seems to be down, last time I checked.

PSS I think it wouldn't be hard to programmatically check every address you get from that table with counterpartyd, and get the burn amount. In fact, an even easier way is to check the counterpartyd logfile, which has a pretty structured log syntax that you can turn into data with a few string commands. Of course this will require running bitcoind and counterpartyd on your remote server.

Example from log file:

I think it wouldn't be hard to programmatically check every address you get from that table with counterpartyd, and get the burn amount. In fact, an even easier way is to check the counterpartyd logfile, which has a pretty structured log syntax that you can turn into data with a few string commands. Of course this will require running bitcoind and counterpartyd on your remote server.

Example from log file:

It's only burn transactions that can even theoretically be constructed with a client that isn't specifically designed to handle Counterparty transactions (which, in every other case, include an OP_RETURN output). This way, the algorithm for parsing a burn is the same as that for parsing any Counterparty transaction with regard to identifying the 'destination': a burn is any valid Counterparty transaction whose destination is the unspendable address.

As others have noted, the change address is unimportant; what matters is the order of the outputs, which counterpartyd picks carefully. I'm going to change the HowToBurn instructions now.

Love your work!

Btw, which address was the first that did a successful burn?

Ah ok.

How are the results being aggregated and then the error thrown where there are multiple transactions on that address?

For example:

https://blockchain.info/address/1BPwZ758qNBAKygmq74s16nDZwNjsP6gu8

1BPwZ758qNBAKygmq74s16nDZwNjsP6gu8   --->   BTC spent: 0.01000000   XCP balance: 0.0000   error: no output address is the burn address

It appears to be a good burn of 0.01 BTC.

Your BTC and XCP values seem to be a multiple of 6 higher than expected. After all each address can't have more than 1 BTC / 1500 XCP.

Also I see a lot of unfortunate people that messed up the burn. This is why you do a test burn, people.

Particularly it's the multiple inputs part that seems to be a problem. The tutorial should emphasize that multiple inputs are NOT accepted.

Great work.

Valid transactions:

1) Where there is change left over from the burn - the first output address must be the burn address, the second output must be the sending address.

2) Where there is NO change left over from the burn - the only output is the burn address.

Source (scroll down to Verification):

http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/HowToBurn.html

This approach is obviously similar to nxt's approach. People right now are calling it a scam. Nxt has been launched and (although not structured) the core code has been labelled as somewhat ingenious work. People now call nxt a scam because of the way it released the coin, only 21 ( I think) bitcoins. The way I see it is, a haterz gonna hate. Take a risk and give to these scammers/geniuses because in reality, we won't know until 3+ months from now and by then it will be too late.

Yes, you will get scammed. Yes, you can make smart decisions by asking questions and critiquing the motives and promised features but I bet the same people calling these so called '2nd generation' coins a scam now will be the same ones that call them a scam when/if they successfully launch.

I say pick a side and with very little contribution to the IPO and very large potential for profits (yes, greed drives people to do stupid things sometimes), these coins should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Although it would help there cause to provide some sort of evidence of this great features.

Just my two eMu's.

Don't know how counterpartyd works, but standard bitcoin client doesn't guarantee outputs order.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L1333

Thanks for the kind words!

The Counterparty team makes no promises regarding returns-on -investment. Our goal. moreover, was not to make investors rich overnight, but rather to create a working and relatively full-featured client, and to that extent returns-on-investment were secondary. At the same time, however, I believe that the situation you describe does not preclude XCP significantly increasing in value. Specifically, unless a Counterparty fork offers some real technical improvement, I think that XCP-2, etc. will be minted only when Counterparty has proved itself a financial success. And even if a Counterparty fork does offer technical advantage, the importance of being the first Counterparty must not be forgotten. In my opinion, certain alt-coins offer definite advantages over Bitcoin (e.g. faster block-time), and yet Bitcoin has still increased in value and the alt-coin market has, in my opinion, at least for now, proven itself to be by-and-large a bubble. Nothing suggests to me that the situation wouldn't be same if alt-Counterpartys were to appear.

once a lot of services get built around the project then it would hard to replicate that support structure isn't it? I would think it would be hard for any copy cat to replicate the counterparty support community after counterparty has a good head start.

My Mastercoin friends,

Given all the competition we've seen in this field lately, I no longer feel I can afford to wait for a sky-high price I like before selling some Mastercoins and jumping into the fray full-time. (As you all know, I've never sold a single one of my own Mastercoins, and I've been persistently disdainful of the market price so far).

I had a meeting with my tax advisor, and I'm going to have a HUGE tax bill due in April, so even if I wanted to wait longer, I cannot. So, I'm going to commence selling small amounts on the exchanges and see how it goes. Over the next few days, I will be placing small sell orders above the market price on various exchanges. I'm not in a hurry, and you won't see me dumping a lot of coins onto the bids or anything like that.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE A LARGE CHUNK OF MASTERCOINS WITHOUT MOVING THE MARKET, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE. Please PM me if you would like to get a large chunk of MSC around current market prices. For very large purchases (100 BTC+), I may consider selling slightly below market if you can convince me you are making a long-term investment. Several of you have reached out to me in the past asking to make large purchases of this sort, and I told you I wasn't selling. Now I am.

Please don't PM me about small orders (< 5 BTC). You can easily buy those quantities on the exchanges if you like.

I hope to sell 3-6% of my total MSC holdings (5000-10000 MSC). If there is a big buyer right now, I may do it sooner, otherwise it may be later in the year. If I haven't sold them by August 1st 2014, I'll sell more aggressively, as I will have held them for a year and I'll only have to pay long-term capital gain taxes.

I believe very strongly in Mastercoin, but something like 99% of my personal net worth is currently in Mastercoin, and Ron has convinced me that I have to do SOME diversification, especially since that will allow me to quit my dayjob and throw myself headlong down this rabbit hole

Thanks!

-J.R.

Also posted this on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/mastercoin/comments/1uo0ft/buy_mastercoins_directly_from_jr_founder_of/

humm... does it necessary does?
I thought it was just the result of a function on a private key in relation to a referential clock.
Sure the time ref is centralized. But if that only that it can be solved.
Now maybe the verification need a central server. Haven't thought about that.
Unperfect 2FA technology if that's the case.
'thought it worked with multisignature reconnaissance or something similar.
My understanding is vague, I admit.
But with a net of trust amongst master node, 'well doesn't seem completely impossible.
I cannot solve the tech aspect, that much is certain.

Thing is: current security is not enough.
Doesn't seem to be.
Security is not my strong suit.
But if there is a real risk that someone connect to my computer and stole my unencrypted wallet.dat (let's say), then the risk of him having a keylogger, a live watch on my screen, or something taking screenshort regularly:the risk is pretty much the same.
If the guy have the skill for the first, what prevent the second?
He just have to wait until he see either a privkey or your wallet password.

That's why I'm uncomfortable about not being able to move my XCP.
Sole place my coin are safe to me is in privkey outside wallet who never touched an internet connection.
I entered my wallet password in a terminal with a space upfront.
But it happened many time while 'computer is online.
Has to be to use the soft.

I'm not at peace with that.
I have no clue if my computer is secure enough.
Fresh GNU/Linux is better than old XP for sure, but I don't know much more about security.

The beta test will confirm once for all if this is legit or not.  

If you want to play it safe, just wait until Beta comes out.  If its good, get your investments and btc ready and make a safe bet.  Regardless whether you invest now or after beta test, your still investing pre-launch.  So there's no reason to be greedy which happens to be the main reason for losing money.  So if you're going to make a risky investment between now and beta, just make sure its money that you can afford to lose.

Time will tell if these guys are the next Satoshi Nakamoto 2.0 or just the same bunch of thieves who'll con you out of your btc.