MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”

[Peter Todd]

Well, retep's report will likely recommend something "controversial", like a more complex design, keeping data in a separate chain etc. Because it just makes sense, I think all Bitcoin core devs will agree with this.

FWIW if I think the best design for MasterCoin is to make use of the Bitcoin blockchain that's exactly what I'll recommend MasterCoin do, and I'll explain how to do it in a way that is as difficult as possible for Bitcoin to block. While I am known in the community for my hard-line stance on scalability and decentralization, I don't think we want to kid ourselves - if there are technical means and economic motivations to stuff data into the blockchain we should face that fact and understand the threat now in detail. Fortunately I think those incentives aren't there, or required, but I'd be fooling the Bitcoin community if I didn't consider all the possibilities carefully and in the interests of the MasterCoin community.

[1713869743]

1713869743

[1713869743]

1713869743

[1713869743]

1713869743

[Tachikoma]

I've added a quick JSON-API on top of mastercoin-explorer. You can find the documentation here.

[mindtomatter]

Is JR the one assigning the winner of the contest, or is it the board?   Seems like it should be the board.

[dacoinminster]

I respect retep's knowledge of bitcoin very much, but as killerstorm suggested, I expect he would recommend a course of action we are unlikely to follow. For instance, his proposal suggests that he may conclude that MasterCoins as a currency may not be needed at all.

I personally believe that MasterCoin's biggest competitive advantage is not the funds we have raised, but the simplicity of our protocol. Because of that simplicity we'll have distributed exchange, smart property, and distributed betting far sooner than any of our competitors. If stabilized currencies are possible (I believe they are) we'll do that first too.

First means a lot in this game, but in addition to being first, we'll also have tremendous flexibility. Each additional feature we add will take less work than our competitors have to expend with their more complicated solutions. It may be that my naive design has missed something important that will bite us later, but I expect someone would have exposed a problem like that by now. If something does come up, I'll be very surprised if it can't be fixed.

I expect that we will be spending a lot of money over the next few months to make sure that progress on this project remains blisteringly fast.

[dacoinminster]

JR, the spec doesn't mention anything about confirmations - have you put much thought into when we would consider a mastercoin transaction confirmed?  3 blocks? 6 blocks?  Thanks

I expect the number of confirmations should be the same as bitcoin - no more, no less. This is because we are relying on bitcoin to solve the double-spending problem for us, and the purpose of waiting for confirmations is to avoid double-spending.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

I am VERY pleased to see this. Note that Tachikoma hasn't decided to release the source code to MasterCoin explorer yet (just the library that runs behind it), and the contest only pays for projects that have source code released. Obviously Tachikoma will have a big payday for releasing that library, but an open-source MasterCoin explorer would win some money too. If he does release source code, you'll have to share.

I'm really excited that you are working on making this into a web wallet. That will be a huge boon to our project (and obviously will be worth some money too).

I'm back in action after being tied to the bed for the last week.

I've released 'Masteroin-ruby' which is the library behind mastercoin-explorer.com. I am trying to keep the readme up-to-date whenever I update it.

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

I've send three (invalid, because the sending address did not buy from Exodus, did not want to send real coins until spec is finalised) multisig transactions, one, two and three.

As always I hope all you other developers working around can also try my implementation so we can finalise the spec. A few things I came across.

• Sequences for multisig public keys need to start with 01 instead of 00. If you don't do this more often then not the public key won't be a valid ECDSA point.
• My transactions were being flagged as non-valid whenever I used 0.00006 for the multisig output, changing this to 0.00006 * 2 fixed this for some reason.
• Bitcoin-qt doesn't recognise multsig-transactions as outputs ready for spending. You will have to manually redeem those outputs.

Tachikoma, while I was doing some comparisons between my work and your (great btw) block explorer - I noticed a minor bug in your block reporting - eg transaction http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/3dcdf1a51ad844ef305a95a08d57e8f2027125bcf982cc0ae6767d0d629b5648 is reported as being included in block 260564 but as of now the network is only up to block 259203.

Thanks! This should now be fixed.

I'd like to seek further validation of my transaction engine so I've opened up the block explorer component of Masterchest @ https://masterchest.info.

This is very alpha so there may be bugs, errors, mistakes and so on present - feedback is most welcome so please post about any errors or unexpected behaviour.

Woops; grats! Diversity is a good thing

Everybody working on MasterCoin projects should either be looking closely at Tachikoma's source code for his library, or just using it

I've added a quick JSON-API on top of mastercoin-explorer. You can find the documentation here.

Nice! This will help a lot of other projects move forward faster.

Is JR the one assigning the winner of the contest, or is it the board?   Seems like it should be the board.

I'll be soliciting feedback from the contest participants about how they would distribute the funds to the other participants if they weren't in the contest. I'll combine that feedback with my own, and take those numbers to the board, who may have their own feedback. Once the board is happy, we'll pay out.

We'll probably start another contest of some sort immediately after the current one. Possibly instead of having an end date for the next contest, we'll have an end-feature. Once the feature is fully implemented (web wallet, PC wallet, and library), we'd pay out to everyone who helped us get there. What do you guys think of that idea?

[dacoinminster]

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

This is HUGE! I tried to create a new transaction, but got an error. Should "New Transaction" be working right now?

Hopefully the rest of you are working on parsing these transactions too! All our new features beyond simple send will use this method (until we find a better way such as if we decide to switch to OP_RETURN once it is fully supported by the network).

[Tachikoma]

The latest version supports sending multisig Mastercoin-transaction via Bitcoin-Qt (or Bitcoind). However as always please be very careful what you do. It's very basic but the same logic could be used by any full-fledged Mastercoin client. Mastercoin-explorer will also recognise multsig transactions now.

This is HUGE! I tried to create a new transaction, but got an error. Should "New Transaction" be working right now?

Hopefully the rest of you are working on parsing these transactions too! All our new features beyond simple send will use this method (until we find a better way such as if we decide to switch to OP_RETURN once it is fully supported by the network).

Yeah it should work but it's very fragile at the moment. You can paste the error here but I rather do it over pm or irc (#mastercoin) so we don't pollute the topic. I'm already working on turning this into a 'real' wallet that should be less fragile.

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

[jgarzik]

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

+1

Decentralized is better.  Our big central entities of money handling -- pools and web wallets -- all have a history of poor security.

[dacoinminster]

Noticed of proposed expenditure of project funds:

David Johnston (angel investor and MasterCoin Foundation Board member) has filed the official paperwork to register the MasterCoin Foundation as a non-profit in the state of Delaware (for reasons outlined in his email below). I will be reimbursing the $1042 he spent on this to his bitcoin address: 1AHXnT1eLRfBv7WZXcHNzomjETBFLrw3yx

I will probably send this on Monday.

David's reimbursement: http://blockchain.info/tx/3b837ee468d89a26e251023f6e844aa7778aa65fcc3a622773eb28ad501c3bc7

0.169 BTC change went to: 19qSCYuwAQEa34NasQjRyNPPMY4DrXfXNc

At some point I may consolidate our change addresses back to 1Exodus so all the money is easy to see in one place.

[ASICSRUS]

are you thinking of buying out our MST shares to smooth the transition moving up on eXchanges~good idea imo!;) easyyyyyy

[zathras]

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

I want to be very clear on this - the web wallet I'm building is proof of concept code to be open sourced for others to use should they wish in production implementations.  The idea is for testers to use a small amount of coin to evaluate things like security & functionality via Masterchest but no-one should be using it for any serious coin storage - that should be left for a production service.

I did mention further back that I wanted to limit each account to <100 MSC. <10 MSC would be even better however unfortunately once the web wallet gives out an address there is no real way to limit the coins sent to said address so any limit would have to be treated as more of a guideline than a restriction.

As such rather than try and discourage people from using the web wallet for any substantial coin storage I'm going to change tac slightly and build a simple desktop GUI wallet using the Masterchest transaction engine first. Choice is king and hopefully by having other easy options for coin storage (ie simple desktop client), users won't do something silly like deposit a large amount of coins in an untested unverified web wallet.

As to web wallet security there are a huge number of factors influencing design decisions and I'm not finished - there are some obvious security measures (back-end limits number and size of tranactions front-end is allowed to send etc) and some not so obvious ones.  

[ASICSRUS]

I wanted to say one thing about web-wallets. Please don't host other peoples money; if you really want to build a web-wallet please make it at least client-side encoded so that no important data can be leaked. It would be very easy to build-in a web-wallet to mastercoin-explorer but I'm not doing this for a reason, it will get hacked. If not sooner, then later.

I want to be very clear on this - the web wallet I'm building is proof of concept code to be open sourced for others to use should they wish in production implementations.  The idea is for testers to use a small amount of coin to evaluate things like security & functionality via Masterchest but no-one should be using it for any serious coin storage - that should be left for a production service.

I did mention further back that I wanted to limit each account to <100 MSC. <10 MSC would be even better however unfortunately once the web wallet gives out an address there is no real way to limit the coins sent to said address so any limit would have to be treated as more of a guideline than a restriction.

As such rather than try and discourage people from using the web wallet for any substantial coin storage I'm going to change tac slightly and build a simple desktop GUI wallet using the Masterchest transaction engine first. Choice is king and hopefully by having other easy options for coin storage (ie simple desktop client), users won't do something silly like deposit a large amount of coins in an untested unverified web wallet.

As to web wallet security there are a huge number of factors influencing design decisions and I'm not finished - there are some obvious security measures (back-end limits number and size of tranactions front-end is allowed to send etc) and some not so obvious ones.  

what about the other Mastercoin/MST camp?~did youes filed the name with copywrite office?=) tia!

[Loozik]

• Watch this video of my explaining MasterCoin to the bitangels investor group, in which I use screen-sharing to explain MasterCoin and demonstrate what it could already do at that time (we've come a long way since): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3nInaIJVqrtc3NqdkloLTZNOXM/edit?usp=sharing

The video is not working / no longer available / internal error - something like this. Can you repost this video on YT please?

MasterCoins are intended to be an investment opportunity [...]

Is there a chart service showing the value of this investment over time?

[dacoinminster]

• Watch this video of my explaining MasterCoin to the bitangels investor group, in which I use screen-sharing to explain MasterCoin and demonstrate what it could already do at that time (we've come a long way since): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3nInaIJVqrtc3NqdkloLTZNOXM/edit?usp=sharing

The video is not working / no longer available / internal error - something like this. Can you repost this video on YT please?

MasterCoins are intended to be an investment opportunity [...]

Is there a chart service showing the value of this investment over time?

The video is working for me at that link. Is anybody else seeing errors at that URL?

No charts yet. That will undoubtedly come with implementations of the distributed exchange

[Loozik]

The video is working for me at that link. Is anybody else seeing errors at that URL?

Working now   Sorry for troubling you.

No charts yet. That will undoubtedly come with implementations of the distributed exchange

1. Please consider integrating the exchange with these charting & trading front-ends: Multicharts, Ninjatrader and maybe Metatrader.

2. These two free charting services have reasonable chart quality for an average trader - you should hook your data to them: https://www.tradingview.com/e/?symbol=MTGOX:BTCUSD# http://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mtgox/btcusd

3. Please consider selling / distributing the data feed to data distribution companies, e.g.: http://www.iqfeed.net/

4. Please consider availing the trading gateway (placing orders) through broker aggregating companies, e.g.: https://www.tradingtechnologies.com/

[zathras]

Just a quick suggestion btw - perception of good security for all these concepts and services will only help the Mastercoin project.

I would suggest that future contests also include bounties for things like PT & VA (penetration testing & vulnerability assessment), those so inclined can then review code looking for exploits etc and claim bounties for highlighting attack vectors (eg similar to D'aniel & Bytemaster).  

[zathras]

As I mentioned a few posts back I'm transitioning priority from web wallet to desktop wallet - could I solicit a little feedback on UI design?  What do you guys think?  I'm thinking of dropping test mastercoins from the overview as my feeling is most 'regular' users wouldn't be interested - thoughts?



Thanks

[W2014]

As I mentioned a few posts back I'm transitioning priority from web wallet to desktop wallet, could I solicit a little feedback on UI design?  What do you guys think?  I'm thinking of dropping test mastercoins from the overview as my feeling is most 'regular' users wouldn't be interested - thoughts?



Thanks

Nice! I'd like to see it with a white background and black font - reversed basically.

[Tachikoma]

As I mentioned a few posts back I'm transitioning priority from web wallet to desktop wallet - could I solicit a little feedback on UI design?  What do you guys think?  I'm thinking of dropping test mastercoins from the overview as my feeling is most 'regular' users wouldn't be interested - thoughts?



Thanks

That looks pretty awesome

[dacoinminster]

That looks beautiful

A full  MasterCoin wallet will eventually have to support display of dozens and dozens of currencies (and smart properties). Most users may not care about Test MasterCoins right now, but handling both coins is a good way to start thinking about the UI needed for all those kinds of coins.