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

[ASICSRUS]

Basically it gives us an other way to encode Mastercoin data into the blockchain.

J.R.'s original approach was hiding the data in an Bitcoin address. The big downside to this method is that these addresses can never be spend since no private key exists. When using this method you are basically polluting the blockchain with data that can never be removed. (We call these transactions Class A)

The next solution we came up with was using multi-sig transactions. By supplying an public key that can be used when you want to spend the output we can now make sure every output we create is spendable. This stops the pollution problem. (We call these transactions Class B)

What I understand from OP_RETURN is that you can basically add 80bytes of arbitrary data to each transaction. This would give us a perfect way to encode our data in the most harmless way since these outputs are 'Provably Prune-able' and can safely be ignored when parsing the blockchain. (These transactions will most likely be Class C transactions)

I hope this explains it. If anybody spots an error let me know.

if and when MSC is considered a parasite to the blockchain the whole MSC protocol can be easily "pruned" per Gavin!   

[1713513721]

1713513721

[1713513721]

1713513721

[1713513721]

1713513721

[1713513721]

1713513721

[murraypaul]

Basically it gives us an other way to encode Mastercoin data into the blockchain.

J.R.'s original approach was hiding the data in an Bitcoin address. The big downside to this method is that these addresses can never be spend since no private key exists. When using this method you are basically polluting the blockchain with data that can never be removed. (We call these transactions Class A)

The next solution we came up with was using multi-sig transactions. By supplying an public key that can be used when you want to spend the output we can now make sure every output we create is spendable. This stops the pollution problem. (We call these transactions Class B)

What I understand from OP_RETURN is that you can basically add 80bytes of arbitrary data to each transaction. This would give us a perfect way to encode our data in the most harmless way since these outputs are 'Provably Prune-able' and can safely be ignored when parsing the blockchain. (These transactions will most likely be Class C transactions)

I hope this explains it. If anybody spots an error let me know.

if and when MSC is considered a parasite to the blockchain the whole MSC protocol can be easily "pruned" per Gavin!   

And the project can pay to host its own full archive node to make sure all transactions are kept.

[ASICSRUS]

Basically it gives us an other way to encode Mastercoin data into the blockchain.

J.R.'s original approach was hiding the data in an Bitcoin address. The big downside to this method is that these addresses can never be spend since no private key exists. When using this method you are basically polluting the blockchain with data that can never be removed. (We call these transactions Class A)

The next solution we came up with was using multi-sig transactions. By supplying an public key that can be used when you want to spend the output we can now make sure every output we create is spendable. This stops the pollution problem. (We call these transactions Class B)

What I understand from OP_RETURN is that you can basically add 80bytes of arbitrary data to each transaction. This would give us a perfect way to encode our data in the most harmless way since these outputs are 'Provably Prune-able' and can safely be ignored when parsing the blockchain. (These transactions will most likely be Class C transactions)

I hope this explains it. If anybody spots an error let me know.

if and when MSC is considered a parasite to the blockchain the whole MSC protocol can be easily "pruned" per Gavin!   

And the project can pay to host its own full archive node to make sure all transactions are kept.

is that what the Bitcoin foundation membership payoff was intended to do? 

[synechist]

Basically it gives us an other way to encode Mastercoin data into the blockchain.

J.R.'s original approach was hiding the data in an Bitcoin address. The big downside to this method is that these addresses can never be spend since no private key exists. When using this method you are basically polluting the blockchain with data that can never be removed. (We call these transactions Class A)

The next solution we came up with was using multi-sig transactions. By supplying an public key that can be used when you want to spend the output we can now make sure every output we create is spendable. This stops the pollution problem. (We call these transactions Class B)

What I understand from OP_RETURN is that you can basically add 80bytes of arbitrary data to each transaction. This would give us a perfect way to encode our data in the most harmless way since these outputs are 'Provably Prune-able' and can safely be ignored when parsing the blockchain. (These transactions will most likely be Class C transactions)

I hope this explains it. If anybody spots an error let me know.

Hi Tachikoma

Thanks for that summary (and apologies if the following question has been covered elsewhere).

Will these new classes of transactions remove the necessity of using sendmany to make a payment?

The reason I'm asking is that I bought Mastercoins early on using a Coinbase wallet, and because Coinbase doesn't support sendmany and doesn't allow access to your private keys, they're stuck there.

[Tachikoma]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

[synechist]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

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.

[ASICSRUS]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

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.

Red flags all over this one, zero communication is never a good sign imho!  

[Tachikoma]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

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.

Web-wallets are a bad idea; always. Coinbase is not a real wallet, it's just a service to store/spend funds. Blockchain.info at least gives you access to your private keys which means you can take your funds anywhere. There is no way to get the Mastercoin funds out of there without either a option to send multiple outputs in a transaction, getting the private key of your address or getting the public key and an option to sign a raw transaction at Coinbase.  

[dacoinminster]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

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.

I'd just like to add that the problem here is NOT the sendmany requirement, but the requirement that you be able to send FROM a particular address, which coinbase doesn't give you. Even if coinbase added sendmany support, you would still be stuck.

People who invested from Android wallets (which don't support sendmany) have reason to be annoyed, but they can still get their MSC by exporting their private keys.

I've tried to make this requirement (to not use web wallets which don't give you access to private keys) clear any chance I get. I'm truly sorry that you invested without reading a bit more about MasterCoin's specific requirements.

[Mooshire]

Where can I sell my two mastercoins?

[Tachikoma]

Where can I sell my two mastercoins?

For now here. In a few weeks you can use the Mastercoin protocol itself to do it.

[synechist]

You will have to get access to your private key in order for any of the other methods to work for you.

...There is no way to get the Mastercoin funds out of there without either a option to send multiple outputs in a transaction, getting the private key of your address or getting the public key and an option to sign a raw transaction at Coinbase.

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.

I'd just like to add that the problem here is NOT the sendmany requirement, but the requirement that you be able to send FROM a particular address, which coinbase doesn't give you. Even if coinbase added sendmany support, you would still be stuck.

People who invested from Android wallets (which don't support sendmany) have reason to be annoyed, but they can still get their MSC by exporting their private keys.

I've tried to make this requirement (to not use web wallets which don't give you access to private keys) clear any chance I get. I'm truly sorry that you invested without reading a bit more about MasterCoin's specific requirements.

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.

[Tachikoma]

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.

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting your words but; 'Being misled', you almost make it sound like you are blaming somebody else then yourself.

[dacoinminster]

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.

However this happened, I agree that it is very sad. I hope it wasn't a lot of money.

[synechist]

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.

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting your words but; 'Being misled', you almost make it sound like you are blaming somebody else then yourself.

I'll be more explicit. What I meant to imply is that while I admit blame, I also think there's a degree of responsibility on the part of those behind Mastercoin's funding initiative to make sure its initial supporters are clear on how not to shoot themselves in the foot. And I do not think there was enough clarity on this point.

Mastercoin was launched by people taking on a severe level of risk to commit funds to the project. It ought to be clear how to properly make that commitment.

I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position.

[Tachikoma]

I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position.

You could have just asked if Coinbase would work, somebody would have been more then willing to look into that. Also I haven't heard any other reports of this issue. I am a bit annoyed that you are shifting the blame and won't take responsibility for your own errors.

This is the last I will say about this since it's really not my place to 'defend' the way Mastercoin did it's fundraiser.

If Coinbase will let you sign a transaction hit me up with a pm and I can probably create a raw transaction that they can sign for you that move the MSC to an other address you own.

[ASICSRUS]

I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position.

You could have just asked if Coinbase would work, somebody would have been more then willing to look into that. Also I haven't heard any other reports of this issue. I am a bit annoyed that you are shifting the blame and won't take responsibility for your own errors.

This is the last I will say about this since it's really not my place to 'defend' the way Mastercoin did it's fundraiser.

If Coinbase will let you sign a transaction hit me up with a pm and I can probably create a raw transaction that they can sign for you that move the MSC to an other address you own.

regardless of where its sent should not matter, does the MSC stay within that bitcoin or not? i'm confused what do I tell the stock market people?

[klee]

A good read (as always from Coindesk):
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-dev-update-5-transaction-fees-embedded-data/

[synechist]

I don't want to express this in isolation from the fact that I love the work that Dacoinminster, you, and others are doing. It's fascinating and, I think, important. But this only makes me want to be part of it more. Now because of what's happened, I can't. And I think something ought to be done for people in my position.

You could have just asked if Coinbase would work, somebody would have been more then willing to look into that. Also I haven't heard any other reports of this issue. I am a bit annoyed that you are shifting the blame and won't take responsibility for your own errors.

This is the last I will say about this since it's really not my place to 'defend' the way Mastercoin did it's fundraiser.

If Coinbase will let you sign a transaction hit me up with a pm and I can probably create a raw transaction that they can sign for you that move the MSC to an other address you own.

Thanks Tachikoma. That'll be hugely appreciated. I'll keep you posted.

I do admit blame. Apologies if I did not give enough weight to this in the way I expressed things.

(Incidentally, I couldn't ask about Coinbase because I was still a brand new member and wasn't allowed to post yet. To add irony to the situation, Blockchain wallets were down, and Armory was downloading the blockchain and wouldn't have finished before midnight on Aug 31st. Coinbase was my third of what I thought were the three viable options.)

[StarenseN]

I also think there's a degree of responsibility on the part of those behind Mastercoin's funding initiative

Are you out of your mind?!!! WTF?  Did you blame your mother for your ugly red hair too?  

Dude, over 1000 people got it.  The instructions weren't complex.  Only a moron could expect JR to prepare a full 8 page description of how dumb you are.  It's like Jack-in-the-box after the McDonalds coffee incident.  They now write on coffee cups: "Hot coffee is hot".  Is that what you need?  A warning like that?  

JR said clearly don't use web wallets.  Now you come here a bitch that you got 'misled'.  JR - why didn't you write a moron clause which excludes them from participation?  Holy crap.  This guy will blame the moon when can't get his finger out of his butt.  

Stop bitchin'  You F-ed up your deal and its finished.  Move on and do it right next time.

I think something ought to be done for people in my position.

How about cyanide?  That should do it.

TomHirsch, could you please stop beeing so rude.

TomHirsch, under new account (guess why) HammerFirst, is a lamer who almost screwed the project from the start (check TomHirst past posts). Ignore it if you can.