I think the MasterCoin protocol is super awesome. It it works then bitcoin becomes more robust and demand goes up. Mastercoin is revolutionary and takes away more financial controls from the old system and decentralizes them for the people.

I'll second Mastercoin. As has been said elsewhere, it's definitely not just another altcoin. Moreover, development of the protocol is progressing rapidly, thanks to the simplicity of its design. (Full disclosure: I own some Mastercoin.)

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM, David Johnston wrote:

Yeah, she knows that we now have a lot more of that crazy theoretical money

I really feel that the MSC price has a long way to go, and regardless of the price I doubt I will sell any at all before the new tax year starts, as I'd rather not have to deal with the tax implications any sooner than necessary. I'm more optimistic about future MSC values than even the wildest speculations I have seen (mostly based on my belief that the escrow funds will lock up most of the MSC float someday), but if we see another 10x of growth, I'd be able to quit my job after selling about 1% of my MSC, which would be pretty hard to resist.

I don't know how soon any of that might happen, but for now I'm not doing anything hasty . . .

Thanks!

This post needs to be copied onto Reddit and then tweeted.

Hi David, J.R, Ron, Sam and Lee:

The MasterCoin has been very hot topic recently in China.

Please allow me introduce Mr. really Lee to you guys.

Really has translated the Mastercoin's white paper into Chinese version, he is running a Mastercoin community via QQ group with 65 members now. (Chines skype)

He told me that there are some Chinese are willing to purchase the Mastercoins, but they have no idea how to buy from second market, and they do not know
how to involve in the project development.....

IMHO: That will be great if you guys invite some Chinese into your group/foundation, help promote and protect Mastercoin project in China.

Anything I could be in assistance, please let me.

Any comments?

Cheers,

Bo

Hi Lee!

I've posted a copy of this email in our project thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3429668#msg3429668

We're happy to support our Chinese friends getting involved with MasterCoin, although we don't have any websites or services in Chinese yet. That might be a good starting point for someone who wants to get involved, especially if they speak enough English to work with our developers making English sites. Note that someone who creates such a site will probably be eligible for some payment from our coding contest (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.240). The potential Chinese buyers may want to pool their money and choose an English-speaking representative to make the purchase on their behalf on the ad-hoc exchange MaxMint is running (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287145.0), then distribute the coins purchased to the people who contributed. Otherwise, they can use the distributed exchange when that is ready.

Thanks!

-J.R.

No, there will never be more mastercoins. You can't change that, even by forking. You can create other currencies by forking, but not mastercoins.

Why would you need to use the copy?  The alt-coins would be cheaper to acquire to use for the same effect.

You don't build Mastercoin2, you simply fork Mastercoin1 and there you go.  There is no advantage from network effect, everything can be cloned, and you have useless tokens.

I had an interesting conversation this week with Vitalik from the Bitcoin Magazine, and he suggested this cool feature:

Spending Limit

This feature would limit the rate at which a particular address can send mastercoins.

Here is how I would specify the feature: We would add two new operations SETUP_LIMITED_ACCOUNT and SET_LIMIT.

SETUP_LIMITED_ACCOUNT(priv_key_x, pub_key_y)

This operation would designate address Y as the "limiting address" of address X.
This means the owner of address Y can control the spending limits of address X.

SET_LIMIT(priv_key_y, pub_key_x, currency_ID, limit, time_period)

After a SET_LIMIT operation is transmitted (by the owner of address Y), only if there was a prior matching SETUP_LIMITED_ACCOUNT with Y's public key, then from now on outgoing transactions from address X in the specified currency are limited - for any window of blocks with length time_period, if any send operation would cause the sum of all send operations from address X within this window to cross limit, this send operation would be invalid.

The reason to use two different addresses is that we want to prevent an attacker that gained the private key of X to cheat the system by changing the send limit. You would use a more secure address Y to specify a send limit on address X (just like the Saving Account feature uses a Guardian Address (Y)).


The above is just my initial specification, we can beautify and formalize this a bit more.
I think it's a useful easy to implement feature and would love to see it in an upcoming version of the whitepaper.

Are you out of your mind?!!! WTF?  Did you blame your mother . . .

(abusive flame deleted)

Things I have done/am doing to promote Mastercoin:

• Sent up a tweet about Mastercoin:  https://twitter.com/TravisPatron
• Currently working on writing an article about the potential impacts of Mastercoin, will update when finished
• Currently developing 'Minimum one website showing BTC/MSC price charts derived from these messages', JR I will update when I've made necessary progress

My Mt.Gox address is 1F9qoTaTr4WrT4uvmKpZuM7QYxhjVrtT8x.

Feel free to send over whatever you feel is deserved.

Thanks, Dacoinminster and Tachikoma, for your responses.

Tachikoma, I've not known about the possibility of signing a raw transaction at Coinbase. I'll definitely try that one on Olaf, and report back.

Dacoinminster, I'm no expert and so I'll be the first to admit to being mistaken about what one shouldn't do with Mastercoin. However I did read the majority of this thread before 31 August to try to understand what I was doing, but, as it turns out, I ended up with the wrong idea.

I was clear that an Mt.Gox wallet wouldn't offer "full control" over my addresses and therefore wouldn't work. However a Blockchain wallet would work, even though it's a web wallet. Unfortunately I found no clear description of what "full control" constitutes, and so I made the mistake of assuming that because Coinbase supports address creation and retains a list of addresses used, that this was a sufficient level of control. This conclusion was based on the fact that Mt.Gox addresses associated with my account are not retained for me to access, whereas Coinbase addresses are.

So yes, I was mistaken. But I think that there was a significant lack of clarity about what would and wouldn't work. A simple list of wallets that wouldn't work would've sufficed. I spent several hours trawling this thread for clarity, but ended up being misled.

It would be great to work together but we both have obligations to our respective investors.  Perhapse we can join forces once a winner is found. 

Ok, from Coinbase's perspective, they'd have to implement these transaction classes for users, because they don't give users private keys.

I'll relay this to Olaf from Coinbase, who's been sympathetic, though unfortunately unable to get me out of this mess.

I think we should start a thread to address this issue. It would warn people about it, and help others who, like me, are victims of the decision to only support sendmany transactions - which was not made known until after the window period to initially buy Mastercoins came to an end.

To have supported this project and subsequently found that the Mastercoins I bought are locked ad infinitum is a horrible thing. Something should be done about it.

. . . At least you are going about this whole thing more honestly than Dacoinminister with his demands of money up front in exchange for a 100% pre-mined non-functional alt-coin.