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

[ripper234]

Two new minor announcements:

1. I made forum.mastercoin.org a redirect to this bitcointalk thread. We may have our forum in the future, but for now it's a convenient alias to get back to this thread.

2. I forked a bunch of code! I took all the repositories I could find on mastercoin.org + the new Faucet (work in progress) and just forked them over to our github organization. I don't plan to do any editing on the forked repositories - they're just there as an aggregator of important mastercoin-related work.

One note - github forks do not updated automatically - the original repositories will always contain the most up-to-date version of the code.

A) If there are important projects I missed, let me know and I'll fork them as well.
B) If anyone working on a Mastercoin related project wishes - you're all invited to develop your code on top of our github organization and thus have the updated code available at one central location.
C) Otherwise, it would be nice to find a way to automatically pull the latest changes from each repository to the forked repository. I couldn't find a way to do this in github - writing an external service that automatically syncs git repositories nice project, but it's out of scope for us at the moment.

[Tachikoma]

Two new minor announcements:

1. I made forum.mastercoin.org a redirect to this bitcointalk thread. We may have our forum in the future, but for now it's a convenient alias to get back to this thread.

2. I forked a bunch of code! I took all the repositories I could find on mastercoin.org + the new Faucet (work in progress) and just forked them over to our github organization. I don't plan to do any editing on the forked repositories - they're just there as an aggregator of important mastercoin-related work.

One note - github forks do not updated automatically - the original repositories will always contain the most up-to-date version of the code.

A) If there are important projects I missed, let me know and I'll fork them as well.
B) If anyone working on a Mastercoin related project wishes - you're all invited to develop your code on top of our github organization and thus have the updated code available at one central location.
C) Otherwise, it would be nice to find a way to automatically pull the latest changes from each repository to the forked repository. I couldn't find a way to do this in github - writing an external service that automatically syncs git repositories nice project, but it's out of scope for us at the moment.

You might want to add https://github.com/maran/mastercoin-explorer

[ripper234]

You might want to add https://github.com/maran/mastercoin-explorer

Done.

Sorry I knew there was things I was missing, thanks
There was a post the J.R posted some time ago that listed a bunch of github repositories, does anyone remember where it is?

Let me know if I missed anything else and I'll add it.

[ripper234]

FYI we are consolidating the Trello boards as well under the official Trello organization for Mastercoin:

https://trello.com/mastercoin

 - The Project development board
 - prophetx' Communications board

[nanobit]

Hi all,

I just wanted to update you guys with the summary of the first board meeting of the Mastercoin Foundation.

Cheers,
Ron

There seem to be 8 people on the board. Would it be possible to add their Bitcointalk nicks somewhere, so people know who they are?

People can decide on their own Trello id/nick.
I invited the mastercoin board of directors to this board, I imagine most of them won't be active there for the time being.

To clarify, I was requesting the nicks of (active) board members on Bitcointalk, not Trello, to be listed. I imagine you Ripper would know them by heart and could easily list them here?

[dacoinminster]

Today I took a look at raw transactions, multi signatures and class B transactions.

And after observing the exodus address I was wondering:

Is there a specific reason to use an additional output for the change when doing multi sign transactions?

Example transaction:
Tx id: d445e92dc860b9fe62c53200906c7dfefd011ff2c46d3d99ef996dee0f2ae820

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, value: 0.04966 (change)
• 1: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.00006 (reference)
• 2: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.00006 (exodus)
• 3: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.00012 (self reference, data)

Total out: 0.04966+0.00006+0.00006+0.00012 = 0.0499 BTC


If I'm not mistaken, this would yield the same result:

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.0000543 (reference)
• 1: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.0000543 (exodus)
• 2: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.0497914 (self reference + change, data)

Total out: 0.0000543+0.0000543+0.0497914 = 0.0499 BTC


It is possible to use the multi signature output as transaction input in the next transaction with:

In:

• 0: (simplified multi sign tx id from above), vout: 2

Out:
....

Those 1-of-n outputs are redeemable, too, so why not use them?

The MSC devs may not notice your question here on the general discussion thread (they are really busy). Maybe try posting this question on our developer thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.0

[dacoinminster]

I have cloned the github repo of the spec (https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec), and I have prepared the following comprehensive list of changes planned for version 1.2 of the spec:

• Fix incorrect sequence number description (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3122349#msg3122349)
• Clean up various things which were still undecided as of 1.1 or are now out-dated (as I find them)
• Include description of how to determine change addresses (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3190175;topicseen#msg3190175)

  • All protocol transactions should have the same output amount. If one output is different, that is the change address.
  • If all outputs are the same, then look at sequence numbers:
    • If there is a broken sequence (i.e. 3,4,8), then the odd-man-out is the change address (8 in this example)
    • If there is an ambiguous sequence (i.e. 3,4,4), then the transaction is invalid!
    • If there is a perfect sequence (i.e. 3,4,5), then the transaction is invalid!

• Integrate Zathras' Class A/B/C documentation describing multi-sig (https://masterchest.info/files/mscappendix_draft.pdf)
• Clarify distributed exchange rules when BTC is not involved (especially that buy/sell orders can be matched automatically
• Add support for "pay dividend" command (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3233723;topicseen#msg3233723)
• Add support for "spending limits" on a savings address (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3412565;topicseen#msg3412565)
• Add support for "kickstarter" type fundraisers (where money is returned if the goal isn't met) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3451098;topicseen#msg3451098)
• Add support for "Contract For Difference" betting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324830.0)
• Add support for "Distributed e-commerce" transactions (http://www.reddit.com/r/mastercoin/comments/1nqcq3/mastercoin_could_be_extended_into_a_fully/)

I hope I got everything. If you think something else should be in that list, please let me know!

[zathras]

Today I took a look at raw transactions, multi signatures and class B transactions.

And after observing the exodus address I was wondering:

Is there a specific reason to use an additional output for the change when doing multi sign transactions?

Example transaction:
Tx id: d445e92dc860b9fe62c53200906c7dfefd011ff2c46d3d99ef996dee0f2ae820

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, value: 0.04966 (change)
• 1: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.00006 (reference)
• 2: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.00006 (exodus)
• 3: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.00012 (self reference, data)

Total out: 0.04966+0.00006+0.00006+0.00012 = 0.0499 BTC


If I'm not mistaken, this would yield the same result:

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.0000543 (reference)
• 1: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.0000543 (exodus)
• 2: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.0497914 (self reference + change, data)

Total out: 0.0000543+0.0000543+0.0497914 = 0.0499 BTC


It is possible to use the multi signature output as transaction input in the next transaction with:

In:

• 0: (simplified multi sign tx id from above), vout: 2

Out:
....

Those 1-of-n outputs are redeemable, too, so why not use them?

The MSC devs may not notice your question here on the general discussion thread (they are really busy). Maybe try posting this question on our developer thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.0

I think Tachikoma may have already responded to this but in a nutshell if you include change in the multisig output, then end users will see their bitcoin balance drop by [changeamount] every Mastercoin transaction they make and can only get that balance back by redeeming the multisig (which Tachikoma & I have been discussing doing as a 'maintenance task' every x transactions).

[zathras]

I figured board members could find their way around the project  

You might want to ask him for a binary if you don't have any development tools.

Well, I did admit to being a bit out of touch
It's going to chance now though... thanks.

Ugh, why VB and not C#

I'll check it out, as well as the Ruby wallet.

Haha yes indeed   I can code both but I chose VB and not C# just because I've more experience there - it's fairly trivial to move it over to C# so I may do so in future if the wallet gets much visibility to help others contribute.

Compiling what I have in git at the moment will lead to a largely useless wallet, I'll be pushing out a new wallet with a new code branch over the coming days

[TKeenan]

Haha yes indeed   I can code both but I chose VB and not C# just because I've more experience there - it's fairly trivial to move it over to C# so I may do so in future if the wallet gets much visibility to help others contribute.

VB totally rules!  More people will be able to use it and join the efforts.  Forget about C#. 

[4ju5tice]

Please excuse my ignorance. I looked into Mastercoin a while ago but I couldn't figure out how exactly to receive them. Do I keep them in a bitcoin wallet? Does the wallet have to only hold mastercoins in it?
 
Is there a good resource with this information? Sorry again for the newbie post, I'm just not a techie and I think mastercoin is pretty neat. 

[solex]

Please excuse my ignorance. I looked into Mastercoin a while ago but I couldn't figure out how exactly to receive them. Do I keep them in a bitcoin wallet? Does the wallet have to only hold mastercoins in it?
 
Is there a good resource with this information? Sorry again for the newbie post, I'm just not a techie and I think mastercoin is pretty neat. 

Lots of info here: http://www.mastercoin.org/

[TKeenan]

Please excuse my ignorance. I looked into Mastercoin a while ago but I couldn't figure out how exactly to receive them. Do I keep them in a bitcoin wallet? Does the wallet have to only hold mastercoins in it?
 
Is there a good resource with this information? Sorry again for the newbie post, I'm just not a techie and I think mastercoin is pretty neat. 

Any bitcoin address, whether it has bitcoin or not will hold Mastercoin nicely.  However, if you ever want to send those Mastercoin on some day, then you'll need to put at least a tiny amount of bitcoin on that address too to pay for mining fees. 

I think it is sensible to keep two addresses - one for Mastercoin and a separate one for bitcoin.  These addresses are pretty cheap (excruciatingly free and plentiful) - so why not keep them separate? 

One nice trick is to use vanitygen to make addresses with 1MSC... and 1BTC... to remind you what is what.  That only takes about .5 seconds to generate so it is fast and easy.  Downloading vanitygen isn't very hard - and running it is pretty easy too.

[ripper234]

We are looking for a lead for the Smart Property feature

Quoted for convenience:

Hi all,

We are looking for someone to lead the Smart Property feature of Mastercoin.
Just to clarify - we're not necessarily looking for a Tech Lead, but rather for a Feature leader.

The responsibility of this leader would be to total, start-to-finish responsibility for driving the feature. This means, among others:

1. Defining the precise business use-case
2. Generating the PR material (e.g. one-pager, blog posts, whatever is needed)
3. Communicating with potential customers of this feature, understanding their needs, and ultimately converting them to actual customers.
4. Driving the technical implementation, schedules, testing...

You don't have to be a technical purpose to achieve the above.

You will get any help you require from The Mastercoin Foundation and community, in the form of information, budget, and connections. I'd like to remind everyone that we have a budget of over 5000 bitcoins (and some mastercoins) dedicated to promoting the project. We will be able to allocate appropriate parts of that budget for this feature.

I'm super excited to see this taking off!

Ron

[td services]

I set up new addresses to receive btc on the same wallet I originally used to send BTC to the Exodus block. I now have mastercoin receive (the original address) and added addresses for a couple of people and a general "bitcoin receive" address. I received BTC at one of the other addresses I created after sending for the Mastercoin. Is it safe to spend the coin received at this new other address without interfering with the Mastercoin purchased with coin at the original address?

Thanks in advance

[ripper234]

Great news - I'm organizing a second Mastercoin Meetup in Israel!

We already had two meetups about Mastercoin - one in August, and this one I'm organizing now - will happen within 2-4 weeks.
Any other mastercoiners looking to organize a meetup at their local bitcoin meetups/groups?

[dacoinminster]

You guys might be interested in this post I made on another thread about the criticisms that the intial distribution of Mastercoins was unfair:

This was a great discussion. I'd like to respond publicly to the criticism about the way MasterCoins were originally sold (in a one-month time frame rather than over several years). The root of the criticism seems to be that this distribution was not fair, and I agree. It wasn't intended to be fair.

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

Instead of that approach, I took my idea to the people in the bitcoin community. Instead of making the rounds to venture capitalists, I launched my project with a kickstarter-style fundraiser. As it happens, a bunch of venture capitalists invested a lot of money, but they were joined by lots of average people who were following bitcoin closely. It turns out that my project ALSO made a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists even more wealthy, but normal people got to participate too.

The distribution wasn't fair and wasn't trying to be fair. Capitalism is unfair. Bitcoin is unfair too. There are other ways Mastercoin could have been sold, but I doubt any of them would have given us the funding (and thus the momentum) that we have today.

The complaints about the distribution model also seem to assume that the party is over now that the early investors are up ~30x. I personally do not think that is the case. I believe the party has barely begun.

[td services]

I thought it was very fair. I first saw this method used with Laissez Faire City, with constantly decreasing shares issued per founder position. Unfortunately, LF City didn't succeed, but it was a good way to reward early adopters who take the most risk.

[ripper234]

I have cloned the github repo of the spec (https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec), and I have prepared the following comprehensive list of changes planned for version 1.2 of the spec:

• Fix incorrect sequence number description (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3122349#msg3122349)
• Clean up various things which were still undecided as of 1.1 or are now out-dated (as I find them)
• Include description of how to determine change addresses (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3190175;topicseen#msg3190175)

  • All protocol transactions should have the same output amount. If one output is different, that is the change address.
  • If all outputs are the same, then look at sequence numbers:
    • If there is a broken sequence (i.e. 3,4,8), then the odd-man-out is the change address (8 in this example)
    • If there is an ambiguous sequence (i.e. 3,4,4), then the transaction is invalid!
    • If there is a perfect sequence (i.e. 3,4,5), then the transaction is invalid!

• Integrate Zathras' Class A/B/C documentation describing multi-sig (https://masterchest.info/files/mscappendix_draft.pdf)
• Clarify distributed exchange rules when BTC is not involved (especially that buy/sell orders can be matched automatically
• Add support for "pay dividend" command (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3233723;topicseen#msg3233723)
• Add support for "spending limits" on a savings address (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3412565;topicseen#msg3412565)
• Add support for "kickstarter" type fundraisers (where money is returned if the goal isn't met) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3451098;topicseen#msg3451098)
• Add support for "Contract For Difference" betting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324830.0)
• Add support for "Distributed e-commerce" transactions (http://www.reddit.com/r/mastercoin/comments/1nqcq3/mastercoin_could_be_extended_into_a_fully/)

I hope I got everything. If you think something else should be in that list, please let me know!

Excellent!

I would like to hereby appoint you as the Mastercoin Protocol Lead. Do you accept?

I have no issues at all with your changes. I do however suggest a different work process.

This document describes the process of making changes to the Mastercoin spec. This process is it's very early stages, and is expected to change rapidly in the future (e.g. to include Voting). The current Protocol Owner is J.R Willett.

Right now, there are two possible change mechanisms to the spec document:

Developers can fork the repository, work on their own copy, push their proposed changes, and send a pull request accompanied with a post to bitcointalk. The Protocol Owner and the community reviews the changes, and when enough consensus has been generated, The Protocol Owner merges the changes back to the parent repository on mastercoin-MSC.

Minor and/or non-breaking changes can be made directly on top of the mastercoin-MSC parent repository, by people who have push right to this repository. If you want to be included in this group, ask Willett.

For sake of convenience, people who already have push access to the parent repository can work on branches instead of forks. This achieves the same purpose as option 1 above, in a manner that might be more convenient to some developers.

The disadvantage over the way Willett proposed the v1.2 changes is that with his current approach, we cannot examine the full updated spec before he pushes it to master. I would like the master branch on the official repository to always be an up-to-date version of the official spec.

[ripper234]

I'd like to clarify that while I found no specific issues right now, I would like to review the complete paper after Willett changes before seeing it on the master branch of the official repo.

Willett - can you push your changes either to a version branch, or to your own repository, so we can preview it?