Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 01:52:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 166 »
  Print  
Author Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”  (Read 448414 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.
freedomfighter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 20, 2014, 02:41:06 PM
 #3221

Counter wallet is super slick, no denying that, and bug issues arn't an issue with the counter party dev team, they are fast

Unless these are hard to solve core issues. It's one thing to patch small cosmetic bugs and whole other thing to address core issues.

Herp. You are very biased and it shows.

The wish should be for BOTH projects to succeed. the space is large the need is great and both team are doing a good job in a short period of time. There should be mutual support and even help.

The projects, awareness to them and therefore penetration are not even in "diapers", it is still the first triamester. the potential market cap is in the trillions for crypto and both these projects are a speculative 40M combines. That's 0.004%.

Relax. there is no real competition here.

Especially these 2 projects are establishing the BTC abilities and penetration which give both a greater chance at success than NXT or other new networks.   
1711720377
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711720377

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711720377
Reply with quote  #2

1711720377
Report to moderator
1711720377
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711720377

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711720377
Reply with quote  #2

1711720377
Report to moderator
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711720377
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711720377

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711720377
Reply with quote  #2

1711720377
Report to moderator
1711720377
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711720377

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711720377
Reply with quote  #2

1711720377
Report to moderator
1711720377
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711720377

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711720377
Reply with quote  #2

1711720377
Report to moderator
Herp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 20, 2014, 03:40:35 PM
 #3222

Counter wallet is super slick, no denying that, and bug issues arn't an issue with the counter party dev team, they are fast

Unless these are hard to solve core issues. It's one thing to patch small cosmetic bugs and whole other thing to address core issues.

Herp. You are very biased and it shows.

The wish should be for BOTH projects to succeed. the space is large the need is great and both team are doing a good job in a short period of time. There should be mutual support and even help.

The projects, awareness to them and therefore penetration are not even in "diapers", it is still the first triamester. the potential market cap is in the trillions for crypto and both these projects are a speculative 40M combines. That's 0.004%.

Relax. there is no real competition here.

Especially these 2 projects are establishing the BTC abilities and penetration which give both a greater chance at success than NXT or other new networks.  

I was just stating clear facts. CP has no money, no funding, no presence at conventions and 2 anonymous devs. I know some of you people bought into their IPO, trying to get same deal easly MSC investors got (I was not early investor btw).

You are right about no real competition going on. CP is not a real competitor. This will become very obvious soon enough when dozens of Mastercoin smart contracts are going to pop up, which have already been paid for by the way, not just pipe dreams. Only exciting smart app CP has is LTBCoin, which I'm not even sure will stay with them or stay exclusively with them. Adam B said he'll consider moving it to other platforms.


███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████▐████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
DECENT
FOUNDATION



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[D]ecentralized application
[E]liminated third parties
[C]ontent distribution



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[E]ncrypted & secure
[N]o borders
[T]imeless reputation



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██

Matt Y
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 647
Merit: 510


Counterpartying


View Profile WWW
March 20, 2014, 05:07:55 PM
 #3223

to close the gap - does anyone has a clue why both xcp and msc are so little demanded? too early? no pumping possible? I do not know exactly for msc but xcp is also traded in bulks outside exchanges, but comparing the amount traded per day is for both extremely low

or is it simply the market structure with all coins already in existence?

As of now the required functionality to support higher demand is not there. When it's easier to get utility out of the coins, the volume that they are trading with will increase.

dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1024



View Profile WWW
March 20, 2014, 09:16:26 PM
 #3224

What about a bounty to find the first asset listed in MSC ?

Broadcasting an asset create transaction (or any other one that is not yet "official") is something that can be handcrafted within minutes. The blueprint is there.

Introducing new features into the wild is still more time consuming - and I think we should figure out why in greater detail. This begins by finalizing the specification and ends with a broad implementation on all wallets and transaction explorers to maintain consensus. It's all about not rushing things which may lead to race conditions, altered states (= balances) and minimizing further changes to the transaction type in a short timeframe right after, to name a few reasons.

skrth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 21, 2014, 09:52:13 AM
 #3225

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.msg5795861#msg5795861

Quote
If the specification is accurate it also follows that, because there is no implementation that recognizes Class B transactions with P2SH outputs to uncompressed public keys as invalid, no implementation can be trusted to display the correct mastercoin balance of an address.

Further, a significant sum of bitcoin has been unknowingly traded with parties which may not even know how much mastercoin they have. Given the possibility that this party has a mastercoin balance to cover the trade, there's no guarantee that it was actually sent to the buyer.

It's really tragic for mastercoin if the spec is accurate, because the loss of bitcoin in invalid mastercoin transactions cannot be recovered, and every single wallet/implementation is useless as a method of sending, receiving, trading, or otherwise interacting with the mastercoin network.

What does this mean? Is there now a possibility mastercoins bought from exchanges / users are not valid?
Herp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 21, 2014, 11:58:36 AM
 #3226

In case some of you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nMUafL3cN4


███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████▐████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
DECENT
FOUNDATION



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[D]ecentralized application
[E]liminated third parties
[C]ontent distribution



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[E]ncrypted & secure
[N]o borders
[T]imeless reputation



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██

ejinte
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 21, 2014, 01:32:33 PM
 #3227

to close the gap - does anyone has a clue why both xcp and msc are so little demanded? too early? no pumping possible? I do not know exactly for msc but xcp is also traded in bulks outside exchanges, but comparing the amount traded per day is for both extremely low

or is it simply the market structure with all coins already in existence?

Yeah I'm also corious of this when dacoinmaster wanted to sell for a total of $1.5M there were apperantly huge demand. And after that was over price just dropped because no one is buying?

 

██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 
Get Free Bitcoin Now!
  ¦¯¦¦¯¦    ¦¯¦¦¯¦    ¦¯¦¦¯¦    ¦¯¦¦¯¦   
0.6%-1% House Edge
JohnnyBTCSeed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 21, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
 #3228

You wonderful angry nerds are all asking the wrong questions.


The real issue at hand here between counterparty and mastercoin is who has the bigger Dick.  Shocked


Did all you counterparty people come over here to tell the mastercoin thread how big your dick is, or did you come over here to be a dick?

It's not the size that counts but how you use it. Lol



Mastercoin wants counterparty to succeed, and if you do make a cool feature, then we will steal borrow it.
dacoinminster (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1031


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
March 21, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
 #3229

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.msg5795861#msg5795861

Quote
If the specification is accurate it also follows that, because there is no implementation that recognizes Class B transactions with P2SH outputs to uncompressed public keys as invalid, no implementation can be trusted to display the correct mastercoin balance of an address.

Further, a significant sum of bitcoin has been unknowingly traded with parties which may not even know how much mastercoin they have. Given the possibility that this party has a mastercoin balance to cover the trade, there's no guarantee that it was actually sent to the buyer.

It's really tragic for mastercoin if the spec is accurate, because the loss of bitcoin in invalid mastercoin transactions cannot be recovered, and every single wallet/implementation is useless as a method of sending, receiving, trading, or otherwise interacting with the mastercoin network.

What does this mean? Is there now a possibility mastercoins bought from exchanges / users are not valid?

Mastercoin balances can be trusted. Our friend appears to have some complaints that some of our bitcoin outputs are (temporarily) unspendable, but I haven't seen any evidence of a way to get a Master Protocol client to display an incorrect balance.

johnybyo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 02:11:15 AM
 #3230

In case some of you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nMUafL3cN4

In case you have missed something about MSC and XCP situation on bitcoin blockchain, please read about last 15 page of Counterparty topic. I think we are mostly in same boat.
bitcoinrocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 01:35:23 PM
 #3231

Is Mastercoin on any exchanges?
Herp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 01:41:08 PM
 #3232

Is Mastercoin on any exchanges?

https://masterxchange.com/ or you buy directly using the decentralized exchange built into the wallets http://www.mastercoinwallets.org/


███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████▐████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████
DECENT
FOUNDATION



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[D]ecentralized application
[E]liminated third parties
[C]ontent distribution



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██


[E]ncrypted & secure
[N]o borders
[T]imeless reputation



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

██
██
██

johnybyo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 23, 2014, 02:11:01 AM
Last edit: March 23, 2014, 04:10:06 AM by johnybyo
 #3233

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

I dumped my last msc:s, this looks like can hit really hard to mastercoin price. When looking msc past development time. Here is coming so slowly project make mastercoin again working like orginally plan was that im not in anymore  Sad
bitwhizz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 23, 2014, 02:49:13 PM
 #3234

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

I dumped my last msc:s, this looks like can hit really hard to mastercoin price. When looking msc past development time. Here is coming so slowly project make mastercoin again working like orginally plan was that im not in anymore  Sad

I am sure i read that mastercoin had already forseen this and already have plans

It would be good to hear from a MSC dev about this matter
dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1024



View Profile WWW
March 23, 2014, 08:38:51 PM
 #3235

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

Neither with 80 nor 40 byte OP_RETURN was useful to store MSC data because of it's limited length. The Bitcoin core devs were furthermore discussing to drop multisig transactions in their current form as standard transaction type. The MSC devs are acting proactive and are working on a new encoding scheme right now. I see it very positive, because this will yield something even more sophisticated.

Spekulatius
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 23, 2014, 10:50:14 PM
 #3236

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

Neither with 80 nor 40 byte OP_RETURN was useful to store MSC data because of it's limited length. The Bitcoin core devs were furthermore discussing to drop multisig transactions in their current form as standard transaction type. The MSC devs are acting proactive and are working on a new encoding scheme right now. I see it very positive, because this will yield something even more sophisticated.

Until we hear from them we have to assume seizure of service as soon as the Bitcoin devs do act upon MSC's vital Bitcoin functionalities and probably a couple of months until plan B for Mastercoin has been worked out and tested.
johnybyo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 24, 2014, 03:47:47 AM
 #3237

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

Neither with 80 nor 40 byte OP_RETURN was useful to store MSC data because of it's limited length. The Bitcoin core devs were furthermore discussing to drop multisig transactions in their current form as standard transaction type. The MSC devs are acting proactive and are working on a new encoding scheme right now. I see it very positive, because this will yield something even more sophisticated.

Until we hear from them we have to assume seizure of service as soon as the Bitcoin devs do act upon MSC's vital Bitcoin functionalities and probably a couple of months until plan B for Mastercoin has been worked out and tested.

This sounds bad if developer have already cashed out him coins and everyone know about really slowly development speed and then even no any comments about this case... We know this is really big problem the coin when looks like bitcoin core team attack against MSC and XCP.
dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1024



View Profile WWW
March 24, 2014, 04:10:26 AM
 #3238

This sounds bad if developer have already cashed out him coins and everyone know about really slowly development speed and then even no any comments about this case... We know this is really big problem the coin when looks like bitcoin core team attack against MSC and XCP.

I kinda disagree. Mastercoin data is currently encoded within multisig outputs and the size reduction of OP_RETURN wasn't an issue in the first place.

The proposal to get rid of multisig transactions in the current form altogether is a huge step and nothing that is done within a day.

But even if they dare to push this through it actually doesn't take much to adapt: Mastercoin transaction data is separated from the encoding and transportation layer.

marcelus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 297
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 24, 2014, 09:44:04 AM
 #3239

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

Neither with 80 nor 40 byte OP_RETURN was useful to store MSC data because of it's limited length. The Bitcoin core devs were furthermore discussing to drop multisig transactions in their current form as standard transaction type. The MSC devs are acting proactive and are working on a new encoding scheme right now. I see it very positive, because this will yield something even more sophisticated.

Until we hear from them we have to assume seizure of service as soon as the Bitcoin devs do act upon MSC's vital Bitcoin functionalities and probably a couple of months until plan B for Mastercoin has been worked out and tested.

This sounds bad if developer have already cashed out him coins and everyone know about really slowly development speed and then even no any comments about this case... We know this is really big problem the coin when looks like bitcoin core team attack against MSC and XCP.

No they didn't attack MSC and XCP. They just don't want OP-Return being used for anything other than hashes. Mastercoin doesn't currently use OP_Return so I'm not sure how anyone can assume seizure of the service.
l4p7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 24, 2014, 11:13:48 AM
 #3240

Any comments from developers about Mastercoin and OP_RETURN changes? Can you fix mastercoin code working perfectly without that and how long it takes?

Neither with 80 nor 40 byte OP_RETURN was useful to store MSC data because of it's limited length. The Bitcoin core devs were furthermore discussing to drop multisig transactions in their current form as standard transaction type. The MSC devs are acting proactive and are working on a new encoding scheme right now. I see it very positive, because this will yield something even more sophisticated.

Until we hear from them we have to assume seizure of service as soon as the Bitcoin devs do act upon MSC's vital Bitcoin functionalities and probably a couple of months until plan B for Mastercoin has been worked out and tested.

This sounds bad if developer have already cashed out him coins and everyone know about really slowly development speed and then even no any comments about this case... We know this is really big problem the coin when looks like bitcoin core team attack against MSC and XCP.

No they didn't attack MSC and XCP. They just don't want OP-Return being used for anything other than hashes. Mastercoin doesn't currently use OP_Return so I'm not sure how anyone can assume seizure of the service.

What are they using then. CheckMultiSig? Bitcoin dev. like that option even less.
Pages: « 1 ... 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 166 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!