freedomfighter
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:41:06 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Herp
|
|
March 20, 2014, 03:40:35 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Matt Y
|
|
March 20, 2014, 05:07:55 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026
|
|
March 20, 2014, 09:16:26 PM |
|
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
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
March 21, 2014, 09:52:13 AM |
|
Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.msg5795861#msg5795861If 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
|
|
March 21, 2014, 11:58:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
ejinte
|
|
March 21, 2014, 01:32:33 PM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
JohnnyBTCSeed
|
|
March 21, 2014, 03:19:28 PM |
|
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. 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
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1031
Rational Exuberance
|
|
March 21, 2014, 07:11:50 PM |
|
Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.msg5795861#msg5795861If 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
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
March 22, 2014, 02:11:15 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 22, 2014, 01:35:23 PM |
|
Is Mastercoin on any exchanges?
|
|
|
|
|
johnybyo
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
March 23, 2014, 02:11:01 AM Last edit: March 23, 2014, 04:10:06 AM by johnybyo |
|
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
|
|
|
|
bitwhizz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 23, 2014, 02:49:13 PM |
|
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 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
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026
|
|
March 23, 2014, 08:38:51 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 23, 2014, 10:50:14 PM |
|
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
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
March 24, 2014, 03:47:47 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1026
|
|
March 24, 2014, 04:10:26 AM |
|
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
|
|
March 24, 2014, 09:44:04 AM |
|
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
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
March 24, 2014, 11:13:48 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|