Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2019, 07:23:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 166 »
  Print  
Author Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”  (Read 447604 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
ASICSRUS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


Expert Computer Geek


View Profile
October 25, 2013, 04:25:34 PM
 #1481

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!  Roll Eyes

✰ If You Risk Nothing, You Risk Everything | PrimeDice.com | The New Way To Roll | *Thread*

<3<3:::LOVE^YOUR^NEIGHBOR!!!:::|+i|_33+(((PLEASE)))====>Donate if you like me!~> 157YEcD4WQ9UbhZ7NSC2FpuaYfxHe3JgF2
1555701822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555701822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555701822
Reply with quote  #2

1555701822
Report to moderator
100% New Software
PC, Mac, Android, & HTML5 Clients
Krill Rakeback
Low Rake
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
Bad Beat Jackpot
SwC Poker Relaunch
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1555701822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555701822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555701822
Reply with quote  #2

1555701822
Report to moderator
1555701822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555701822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555701822
Reply with quote  #2

1555701822
Report to moderator
1555701822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555701822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555701822
Reply with quote  #2

1555701822
Report to moderator
Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 04:41:07 PM
 #1482

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.  

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 05:20:43 PM
 #1483

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 25, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
 #1484

Where can I sell my two mastercoins?

Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 06:29:57 PM
 #1485

Where can I sell my two mastercoins?

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

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 06:33:47 PM
 #1486

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.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 06:37:01 PM
 #1487

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.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 06:40:38 PM
 #1488

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
 #1489

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.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
Tachikoma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 07:17:48 PM
 #1490

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.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks | Bytesized Seedboxes BTC/LTC supported
ASICSRUS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


Expert Computer Geek


View Profile
October 25, 2013, 07:28:28 PM
 #1491

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?

✰ If You Risk Nothing, You Risk Everything | PrimeDice.com | The New Way To Roll | *Thread*

<3<3:::LOVE^YOUR^NEIGHBOR!!!:::|+i|_33+(((PLEASE)))====>Donate if you like me!~> 157YEcD4WQ9UbhZ7NSC2FpuaYfxHe3JgF2
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2013, 07:38:53 PM
 #1492

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

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 07:41:18 PM
Last edit: October 25, 2013, 07:56:14 PM by synechist
 #1493

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.)

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
StarenseN
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1065



View Profile
October 25, 2013, 08:02:52 PM
Last edit: October 25, 2013, 08:33:00 PM by StarenseN
 #1494

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.
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 08:04:06 PM
 #1495

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

(abusive flame deleted)

HammerFist's flame made me laugh, but I still deleted it. If I ever need someone to write a flame for me, I'm coming to you, man.

Let's try to keep it civil, folks.

synechist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000


To commodify ethicality is to ethicise the market


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 08:08:12 PM
 #1496

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

(abusive flame deleted)

HammerFist's flame made me laugh, but I still deleted it. If I ever need someone to write a flame for me, I'm coming to you, man.


Heh. I must admit I laughed too, despite it being aimed at me.

Good comedy, HammerFist, though perhaps not the sort of thing that facilitates constructive discussion.

Co-Founder, the Blocknet
ASICSRUS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


Expert Computer Geek


View Profile
October 25, 2013, 08:20:43 PM
 #1497


"...they don’t want to cripple the network with a critical bug.." nice read!  Grin thanks

✰ If You Risk Nothing, You Risk Everything | PrimeDice.com | The New Way To Roll | *Thread*

<3<3:::LOVE^YOUR^NEIGHBOR!!!:::|+i|_33+(((PLEASE)))====>Donate if you like me!~> 157YEcD4WQ9UbhZ7NSC2FpuaYfxHe3JgF2
ripper234
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


Ron Gross


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 09:16:25 PM
 #1498

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.

Please do not pm me, use ron@bitcoin.org.il instead
Mastercoin Executive Director
Co-founder of the Israeli Bitcoin Association
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 25, 2013, 09:21:41 PM
 #1499

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.
Stalking again? What's your problem you can't find a boyfriend?
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1022


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
 #1500

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.

Ron and I discussed this a bit earlier today. I think it's really a great idea and would mesh nicely with the savings wallet. Possibly they should be implemented together.

So many changes queueing up for the spec! Sorry guys.

I heard a rumor that somebody might be converting it to markdown for me, so we can put it in github Smiley

Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 166 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!