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

[grazcoin]

I just announced mastercoin-tools on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291914
Sources are available on:
https://github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools

At this stage it generates a list with total amount of mastercoins for each address:
https://github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools/blob/master/outputs/msc_per_address.csv

I have compared it with http://mastercoin-explorer.com
An example for disagreement is:
http://mastercoin-explorer.com/addresses/1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT
where the amount of mastercoins on mastercoin-explorer.com is 1504.69444445 and according to mastercoin-tools the amount is 1404.27673743
I could run a comparison test on all addresses, but I though it could be easier for mastercoin-explorer.com maintainer to do it.

The bootstrap values are very important to any implementation, and I suggest that the community agrees on one list (hopefully mine), later implementations could take it as static data and skip the calculations.
I also suggest that once the list is finalized, 1EXoDus address signs it, and it becomes an appendix to the spec which would be living as ascii doc on github.

Generally this package should have live update - direct interaction with the bitcoin network (using sx monitor). It should run without a database and serve as an alternative code base. This way anyone would be able to run a node at home without the need for a database setup.

enjoy!

1404.27673743 would be too low. I assume you mean mastercoin-tools calculates 1504.27673743 instead of 1504.69444445?

checking the bootstrap log:
https://raw.github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools/master/outputs/bootstrap_story.log
and grepping 1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT shows 2 relevant transactions:

https://blockchain.info/tx/1dc56b1abb899c0b613e3bdaf455aa5b379bfd3fd524cbcdd1de00355b52c61e
block 255305 tx hash 1dc56b1abb899c0b613e3bdaf455aa5b379bfd3fd524cbcdd1de00355b52c61e value 1000000000 -> 100336441799 dacoins
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
13GfTmStyPpsVf9BzUC283ngs94KEnqorX sent 100090000 satoshi and got 10041770700 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 100000000 satoshi and got 10032741233 dacoin

total sent 10.0007 BTC
fees 0.0002 BTC
This sums up to 100336441799 dacoins (same as in http://mastercoin-explorer.com/transactions/1dc56b1abb899c0b613e3bdaf455aa5b379bfd3fd524cbcdd1de00355b52c61e)

To divide the mastercoins between the addresses we see how much each address contributed.
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 900000000 satoshi (can be verified at https://blockchain.info/rawtx/1dc56b1abb899c0b613e3bdaf455aa5b379bfd3fd524cbcdd1de00355b52c61e)
13GfTmStyPpsVf9BzUC283ngs94KEnqorX sent 100090000 satoshi
Total sent is 900000000+100090000=1000090000
The share of 1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT is 900000000/1000090000*100336441799=90294671099

https://blockchain.info/tx/2ba57d54d5220f1bf6cdc8930876b52c23d94052477202b6db7a07112a7ca328
block 255318 tx hash 2ba57d54d5220f1bf6cdc8930876b52c23d94052477202b6db7a07112a7ca328 value 500000000 -> 50133002646 dacoins
1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT sent 500900000 satoshi and got 50133002646 dacoin

The sum for 1AGFxUanxnWnrTiwLsY4NyvNZTv3RWFnfT from these 2 tx is then 90294671099+50133002646=140427673745 (or 1404.27673745 mastercoins)
The address 13GfTmStyPpsVf9BzUC283ngs94KEnqorX gets the rest: 100.41770700 mastercoins (and together it is 1504.69444445).
As far as I understood, each address gets its proportional part.

If you would like to understand the exact calculation, check the code. If there is some error, please point me.

I'm trying to understand your suggestion about a package with a live update. Are you suggesting that MasterCoin clients should decouple from the block chain completely and rely on a vetted record of transactions? If so, that would seem to lose our decentralization. If not, what are you suggesting?

The live update is a feature of the command sx-monitor which listens to the bitcoin network on specific address (1EXoDus address in our case), and in real time outputs new tx. The code will parse them on-the-fly and show the mastercoin tx.
A different mechanism will go over the output (optionally also on-the-fly) and decide if the tx is valid or not according to the mastercoin balance of the address (invalid tx if there are not enough funds).

[1714030740]

1714030740

[1714030740]

1714030740

[1714030740]

1714030740

[Tachikoma]

According to the discussion I had with J.R. the address that spend the most coins for a given transactions receives the coins.

[grazcoin]

According to the discussion I had with J.R. the address that spend the most coins for a given transactions receives the coins.

such an agreement should go to the spec, but generally I see no problem with dividing the mastercoins in a fair way between the contributing addresses.
This solves the theoretical problem of few addresses that sent the same amount of bitcoins.

[Tachikoma]

According to the discussion I had with J.R. the address that spend the most coins for a given transactions receives the coins.

such an agreement should go to the spec, but generally I see no problem with dividing the mastercoins in a fair way between the contributing addresses.
This solves the theoretical problem of few addresses that sent the same amount of bitcoins.

I agree, but this is what J.R. told me. Could we get a clarification on this J.R.?

[dacoinminster]

According to the discussion I had with J.R. the address that spend the most coins for a given transactions receives the coins.

such an agreement should go to the spec, but generally I see no problem with dividing the mastercoins in a fair way between the contributing addresses.
This solves the theoretical problem of few addresses that sent the same amount of bitcoins.

I agree, but this is what J.R. told me. Could we get a clarification on this J.R.?

Yup, biggest contributor gets the coins. I believe the latest rev of the spec now says this explicitly.

This is a convenience for the user, especially those that bought from twenty different addresses at once. I know it makes the parsing a bit trickier . . .

[zathras]

Tachikoma, could you add a trim function to the address input field?  I've noticed if for example you paste an address with a trailing space it does not find the address.  Thanks

Edit: Also to say thanks for such a great service - mastercoin-explorer.com is clearly becoming the 'goto' place for Mastercoin transaction info.

[lishbtc]

JR, I've made a booboo and sent an MSC transaction using the incorrect number of decimal places (0.0006 instead of 0.00006).

This is an invalid transaction per the spec, but before I resend using the correct 0.00006 values could you confirm that the transaction with 0.0006 will be considered invalid?

Please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287145.msg3126417#msg3126417

Thanks!

[milkyman]

I was wondering about what will happen to the test mastercoins... will they be deleted when the protocol is working? Otherwise, it could be that they become valuable as well.

Testnet bitcoins aren't valuable. Everyone knows test mastercoins should not be used for serious purposes, and nobody is promoting their use for serious purposes, so nobody will use them for serious purposes and they will have no value.

Testnet bitcoins are running on a separate block chain. Test mastercoins however are on the same block chain as regular mastercoins. And if they basically can do the same things as normal mastercoins, why shouldn't they be used and gain in value?

If testnet was merged mined against mainnet, tesetnet bitcoins still wouldn't have value. When something is branded as "testing" the Schelling point is that it will be used for testing (especially when it offers no advantage over something branded as "real").

If test mastercoins would so easily have value, it will be trivial to generate 1000000 different Mastercoin "flavors", each following the same protocol but with a different "version byte" (or whatever there is there). If all flavors will have equal value then mastercoins have no chance to have value to begin with. But if not then mastercoins will have a huge advantage over test mastercoins by virtue of being intended for actual use.

But test mastercoins were released together with real mastercoins simultaneously. As far as I understand, you can do the same thing with test coins as with real coins. So, if there will be an exchange trading them in the future, they WILL be useful, and you can trade them back to bitcoins or whatever and buy something with it.
There are so many other cryptocurrencies with hardly any innovation in them, but still they have some value, because you can exchange them with other currencies.

I just wanted to mention this possibility, because ultimately, test coins might lower the value of real coins because of more supply. So it might be good to destroy them at some point, before it's too late. And of course let people know early enough about that action. I think this helps, because people can actually treat them as test coins and therefore also 'waste' them for testing purpuses.

[zathras]

JR, I've made a booboo and sent an MSC transaction using the incorrect number of decimal places (0.0006 instead of 0.00006).

This is an invalid transaction per the spec, but before I resend using the correct 0.00006 values could you confirm that the transaction with 0.0006 will be considered invalid?

Please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287145.msg3126417#msg3126417

Thanks!

FYI Tachikoma this transaction should be invalid (0.0006 not 0.00006) but shows as a valid transaction on mastercoin-explorer.

[lishbtc]

JR, I've made a booboo and sent an MSC transaction using the incorrect number of decimal places (0.0006 instead of 0.00006).

This is an invalid transaction per the spec, but before I resend using the correct 0.00006 values could you confirm that the transaction with 0.0006 will be considered invalid?

Please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287145.msg3126417#msg3126417

Thanks!

FYI Tachikoma this transaction should be invalid (0.0006 not 0.00006) but shows as a valid transaction on mastercoin-explorer.

Hey JR,

Apparently you also did this during the giveaway (sending 0.0006 instead of 0.00006) and those are still considered valid?  If that's the case this would then make my initial transaction valid?

Cheers!

[Meni Rosenfeld]

But test mastercoins were released together with real mastercoins simultaneously. As far as I understand, you can do the same thing with test coins as with real coins. So, if there will be an exchange trading them in the future, they WILL be useful, and you can trade them back to bitcoins or whatever and buy something with it.

Still not different from testnet bitcoins.

There are so many other cryptocurrencies with hardly any innovation in them, but still they have some value, because you can exchange them with other currencies.

These alts have people advocating their use, which results in people speculating they have a chance to catch on (and they still capture only a small percentage of Bitcoin's market cap). For test coins you have no such thing.

Actually, what you're doing right here is a form of advocacy that testcoins should be used. Keep doing that and you might fulfill your prophecy.

I just wanted to mention this possibility, because ultimately, test coins might lower the value of real coins because of more supply. So it might be good to destroy them at some point, before it's too late. And of course let people know early enough about that action. I think this helps, because people can actually treat them as test coins and therefore also 'waste' them for testing purpuses.

Test mastercoins are effectively a clone of mastercoins. If you fear that mastercoins can lose their value due to the existence of a clone, and clones are trivial to create, why do you think mastercoins can have any value at all?

[Tachikoma]

JR, I've made a booboo and sent an MSC transaction using the incorrect number of decimal places (0.0006 instead of 0.00006).

This is an invalid transaction per the spec, but before I resend using the correct 0.00006 values could you confirm that the transaction with 0.0006 will be considered invalid?

Please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287145.msg3126417#msg3126417

Thanks!

FYI Tachikoma this transaction should be invalid (0.0006 not 0.00006) but shows as a valid transaction on mastercoin-explorer.

J.R. did the same thing with some early payments and I always considered those payments to be fine. If you want to pay more to send a transactions that is up to you. I personally don't think those payments should be considered invalid since it's your money that you are sending. However I will await J.R.'s answer as always

Tachikoma, could you add a trim function to the address input field?  I've noticed if for example you paste an address with a trailing space it does not find the address.  Thanks

Edit: Also to say thanks for such a great service - mastercoin-explorer.com is clearly becoming the 'goto' place for Mastercoin transaction info.

This should be fixed now.

[dacoinminster]

Regarding using 0.0006 instead of 0.00006, that is a perfectly valid transaction. The only real constraint is that the amounts must all be the same in the transaction, and be above the dust threshold. The guys on the buyer/seller thread came to the same conclusion, and I confirmed it there too.

Requiring the amounts to all be the same is important, since it reduces the likelihood that the change address will get confused with the reference address or the data address and make an invalid transaction. Speaking of that situation, I don't know if current implementations do this, but if there is any ambiguity about which address is change, the transaction should be treated as invalid. Otherwise we risk making a different transaction than intended!

It might be interesting to try to set up some transactions which have change coming back in the amount of 0.00006 BTC, to see what happens

[dacoinminster]

But test mastercoins were released together with real mastercoins simultaneously. As far as I understand, you can do the same thing with test coins as with real coins. So, if there will be an exchange trading them in the future, they WILL be useful, and you can trade them back to bitcoins or whatever and buy something with it.

Still not different from testnet bitcoins.

There are so many other cryptocurrencies with hardly any innovation in them, but still they have some value, because you can exchange them with other currencies.

These alts have people advocating their use, which results in people speculating they have a chance to catch on (and they still capture only a small percentage of Bitcoin's market cap). For test coins you have no such thing.

Actually, what you're doing right here is a form of advocacy that testcoins should be used. Keep doing that and you might fulfill your prophecy.

I just wanted to mention this possibility, because ultimately, test coins might lower the value of real coins because of more supply. So it might be good to destroy them at some point, before it's too late. And of course let people know early enough about that action. I think this helps, because people can actually treat them as test coins and therefore also 'waste' them for testing purpuses.

Test mastercoins are effectively a clone of mastercoins. If you fear that mastercoins can lose their value due to the existence of a clone, and clones are trivial to create, why do you think mastercoins can have any value at all?

We already have existing test cases for all of this. For instance, bitcoin has testnet coins, which do have some value (while they are frequently given away, they CAN be bought and sold). And bitcoin has plenty of clones.

I don't see any reason things won't play out any differently for MasterCoin, although I actually expect we are more vulnerable to clones than bitcoin, since MasterCoin is just so darn easy to understand and implement and improve upon. You don't need to understand cryptography to improve on MasterCoin (I still have a lot to learn myself in fact). All you need is to be able to think of nifty things to do with messages. That's it. The distributed exchange described in our spec is ridiculously, stupidly simple. The distributed betting on data feeds are equally simple. It took me about 20 minutes and less than a page to describe how to create smart property for IPOs and titles/deeds in our most recent spec. That's one reason I'll be watching clones closely, looking for good ideas to steal

I've said this many times before: I just can't understand why someone hasn't done this already. It just seems too easy. (Although maybe it just seems that way to me since I have been thinking about it constantly for a couple of years now)

[lebing]

I've said this many times before: I just can't understand why someone hasn't done this already. It just seems too easy. (Although maybe it just seems that way to me since I have been thinking about it constantly for a couple of years now)

When you think about/ practice something for that long, it does seem easy, sometimes trivial even. Don't sell yourself short, this has the potential to be an amazing solution to many of the issues currently facing the cryptographic currency space. If it was that easy, someone else would have thought of it earlier.

[grazcoin]

Yup, biggest contributor gets the coins. I believe the latest rev of the spec now says this explicitly.

This is a convenience for the user, especially those that bought from twenty different addresses at once. I know it makes the parsing a bit trickier . . .

https://github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools got updated.
Tachikoma: can you please verify that mastercoin per address of mastercoin-tools and mastercoin-explorer is identical?
https://raw.github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools/master/outputs/msc_per_address.csv

[Tachikoma]

Yup, biggest contributor gets the coins. I believe the latest rev of the spec now says this explicitly.

This is a convenience for the user, especially those that bought from twenty different addresses at once. I know it makes the parsing a bit trickier . . .

https://github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools got updated.
Tachikoma: can you please verify that mastercoin per address of mastercoin-tools and mastercoin-explorer is identical?
https://raw.github.com/grazcoin/mastercoin-tools/master/outputs/msc_per_address.csv

19 differences
 

Code:

Explorer has: 11000200066, Tools has: 10700200066 for 12LSJoCAqvVQyvW5qaKGp6ZKMaaZpUcCv3
Explorer has: 574619940476, Tools has: 699619940476 for 12bDX26J84x545pzfSZouULeqjfBtAe9Lv
Explorer has: 21234827433, Tools has: 21134827433 for 13P8CSqRoboefrNsXKZieWYtZhJ4KcQHhH
Explorer has: 4058607308, Tools has: 3608607308 for 13qJCzNQUx7dFcixjq9Rab7wPgUCtYS48v
Explorer has: 2087679398, Tools has: 1087679398 for 13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw
Explorer has: 24701309524, Tools has: 24601309524 for 158qYAqDu4GKeVHDiTYA2xAu5Ew4sEU2Ug
Explorer has: 39434328263, Tools has: 52934328263 for 15og4WXZPwkMnnsb3dj6HqgTUfcRLx4J9b
Explorer has: 53568692130, Tools has: 53168692130 for 16QkgycuGwFvwQ8oZ5cYHgVjDNSavcwovS
Explorer has: 7056807478, Tools has: 6056807478 for 17QqwZtZ221Dod33bY33SAZMXrSmi89rsP
Explorer has: 10273350529, Tools has: 10173350529 for 1AgZvwAoNDFGkQYEF193RAm3qxipWAEFAH
Explorer has: 15342266518, Tools has: 15142266518 for 1ApWmGDViVjTPqRKBhPydpBZ5DRjpuEEic
Explorer has: 10227878638, Tools has: 10127878638 for 1Bitcoin4yZjSSPoXUceJaiyQLABx7B2LL
Explorer has: 501650257937, Tools has: 501780257937 for 1Eo6FGPytuYvuA3ZS6ToXqP8sScWWtKhWN
Explorer has: 2220500793, Tools has: 5720500793 for 1GaNupdUBzfVF2B3JUAY1rZwHoXJgjyzXj
Explorer has: 9933326720, Tools has: 10103326720 for 1K5Tofy7UTfcrpWBnXcJhHZzvLTksDdasQ
Explorer has: 301315819775, Tools has: 300315819775 for 1K5ZEkQ8Pzwqedg2WHsKQd3xiAGnj7MeCD
Explorer has: 32276650397, Tools has: 31776650397 for 1Kk6eLpM3cpgC4NEzXLzjKvdndd8bPox6f
Explorer has: 10812380845, Tools has: 10712380845 for 1LjT88X7Zu8BdbqJw8vfRa83NJuzYL9kqm
Explorer has: 10526380622, Tools has: 10476380622 for 1donutMH4L7kdRqh4xvSvesfd3KFu3UNm

Diving into the why right now

Edit: Are you counting incoming/outgoing payments towards the balance; or is this just exodus payments? If the latter that accounts for the difference

[jadair10]

In the interest of full transparency, here is the updated expenditure list I sent to the board just now. Hopefully I can process refunds tomorrow.

We've decided to set the cutoff date for investments a couple blocks later in order to accommodate some people who sent before the deadline, but did not get included in a block until after the deadline. Consequently, the expenditure list has changed slightly. Here's the final list of transactions which I hope to execute soon, probably tomorrow:

    13.279 BTC in refunds to investors who missed the deadline (addresses and details here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnnInaIJVqrtdGMteFNOWjBpWTNqd3BYbWUzdGVLMmc#gid=0)
    3 BTC bounty to bytemaster (1Nou27Zt2k3yTFHw6yePg3A1df2ohCTFFb per his PM to me) as a bounty for their work exposing a flaw in my spec. (details here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mastercoin/EQgEHvKJBh4/4VeE3a02I3QJ)
    3 BTC to d'aniel as part of the same bounty. D'aniel requested that his prize go to forum member gmaxwell: 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB, request is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=284178.msg3041300#msg3041300)
    2 BTC to mich for the awesome logo (13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw, verified by him)
    0.1 BTC to Ron to reimburse his purchase of MasterCoin.org (1HfXDX3ALapNebQC8stTdd5zK7kiCgvX9n)

Total expenditures: 21.379 BTC
Aside from the changes to the refund list, this is the same list of expenditures as before, so I don't expect comments - I'm just keeping you guys in the loop.

Thanks!

-J.R.

If you are expecting a refund, please check the spreadsheet linked above and make sure it looks correct. Thanks!

I think you are making the right decision to include those transactions which posted prior to the cut off but were not included in the block chain until after the deadline as those people acted in good faith, even though the spec says "as determined by bitcoin block chain records". It is hard to enforce an ambiguous cut off time.

[jadair10]

I am the official forum user for http://www.BuyMastercoin.com.

We launched BuyMastercoin on Aug 31st in order to provide a safe and reliable place for people to exchange Mastercoins since after this date you could no longer buy Mastercoins through the exodus address.

Our current format is over the counter yet we plan to launch a real-time Mastercoin exchange soon. We will allow people to buy and sell Mastercoins using dollars, euros, litecoins, altcoins, ripples, bitcoins and more.

We want to help build the Mastercoin ecosystem, especially now that the client is not yet developed and has some time to go. We also look to provide valuable information to the Mastercoin community such as MSC/BTC price charts, and tools for Mastercoin derived markets.

Visit us at http://www.BuyMastercoin.com and subscribe for news updates and to sign up for our beta.

For up to date pricing information or to receive an exact price quote please email us through our contact form.

Thank you.

-BuyMastercoin.com Team

No thank you. I think your unsolicited self promotion is of benefit to this project, regardless of what the other forum members may say.  I too am an entrepreneur. I think we all are. In fact, this whole project is based on "hiding MasterCoin Protocol Data in the Block Chain" which other people disagree with doing.

Cheers.

[dacoinminster]

No thank you. I think your unsolicited self promotion is of benefit to this project, regardless of what the other forum members may say.  I too am an entrepreneur. I think we all are. In fact, this whole project is based on "hiding MasterCoin Protocol Data in the Block Chain" which other people disagree with doing.

Cheers.

I was confused by this post, and read it like 10 times before I finally figured out that that I was reading the first sentence with the wrong emphasis.

"No thank you!" vs "No, thank you"