300 BTC Coding Contest: Distributed Exchange (MasterCoin Developer Thread)

[Tachikoma]

Please PM me if SOMEONE has extra Test Mastercoins they can spare...

Give me an address and I will send you some.

i've tried bitcoin-qt to finish a offer, finally failed
could you send me some for test, my address: 14niL1KeoNafvXYzcn9Win7avBkXQ7U2g2, thanks.

Should be underway.

[1715620915]

1715620915

[1715620915]

1715620915

[dacoinminster]

Hey guys,

Please be advised that I have added a clarifying note to our acceptance criteria. In order for the "high bar for usability" goal to be met, we really need a Windows installer on one of the clients.

That's now explicitly called out in the acceptance criteria, although I think it was already implicit in the usability goal.

Thanks!

[Tachikoma]

Hey guys,

Please be advised that I have added a clarifying note to our acceptance criteria. In order for the "high bar for usability" goal to be met, we really need a Windows installer on one of the clients.

That's now explicitly called out in the acceptance criteria, although I think it was already implicit in the usability goal.

Thanks!

I'm not too happy with this. Basically it might throw way all the work I've been doing on my client since there is no guarantee my wallet will ever support a windows installer. I don't feel this is acceptable to change afterwards.

[Bitoy]

Example scenario

Seller post 10 coins for sale
BuyerA post a purchase  request for 3 coins (but has not paid)
Available is 7

BuyerB  post a purchase for 10 coins but since available is only 7 he gets only 7.
BuyerB makes a payment.
Available is 0 (7 paid by buyerB and 3 still pending payment from buyerA)

After 1 day BuyerA didn't pay and time expired.
Available is 3.

Is this correct?

[dacoinminster]

I'm not too happy with this. Basically it might throw way all the work I've been doing on my client since there is no guarantee my wallet will ever support a windows installer. I don't feel this is acceptable to change afterwards.

Throw away work?? That's definitely not what I want. I just want the average Joe-user on Windows to be able to use MasterCoin without a lot of headaches.

I'm surprised to hear you say it might not ever have a Windows installer. How certain are you about that? Even still, it could have a Linux installer, couldn't it? That would at least cover the linux side.

The acceptance criteria already specified that there needed to be a Windows client and a Linux client. All I added was a clarification that the Windows client should really have an installer. I don't really consider any client to be completely ready for the masses without a user-friendly installer. And that's the whole point of this project milestone - bringing distributed exchange to the masses.

The acceptance criteria also said that there would be a high bar for usability. Doesn't that goal seem incompatible with "Step 1: download my source code, required libraries, dev environment tools, and compile . . . "?

[prophetx]

Zathras, I got a couple errors with masterchest wallet (not sure if this is being worked on right now but thought I would mention it before I forgot)

https://github.com/zathras-crypto/masterchest-wallet/issues/1

this seems to happen with the last block found

BLOCKSCAN: Found MSC transaction: ffe2e8ce6800454a0a81a7abca6efa8a78dde020ce478cda1f940f8254bb3425
DEBUG: SQL INSERT INTO transactions (TXID,FROMADD,TOADD,VALUE,TYPE,BLOCKTIME,BLOCKNUM,VALID,CURTYPE) VALUES ('ffe2e8ce6800454a0a81a7abca6efa8a78dde020ce478cda1f940f8254bb3425','1KZmDQGzGJWYmPP9X3b7TA9dY91KBXgaG4','1AJ4Tvs9CHEfoLfAC9U9twZmaBDzog1bDD',1000000000,'simple',0,999999,0,1)
BLOCKSCAN: Transaction processing starting...
ERROR: Processing transactions threw an exception of: The column name is not valid. [ Node name (if any) = ,Column name = UBALANCE ] - Exiting thread...
DEBUG: Thread exited.

https://github.com/zathras-crypto/masterchest-wallet/issues/2

I should have 0.1 Test MSC at this address

12xdMh16KkH34YKbzoPZmn5Ai6i3jzfVwX

http://mastercoin-explorer.com/addresses/12xdMh16KkH34YKbzoPZmn5Ai6i3jzfVwX

[Tachikoma]

Example scenario

Seller post 10 coins for sale
BuyerA post a purchase  request for 3 coins (but has not paid)
Available is 7

BuyerB  post a purchase for 10 coins but since available is only 7 he gets only 7.
BuyerB makes a payment.
Available is 0 (7 paid by buyerB and 3 still pending payment from buyerA)

After 1 day BuyerA didn't pay and time expired.
Available is 3.

Is this correct?

According to my interoperation Buyer B's Purchase Offer would be invalid since he wanted 10 coins but at that moment only 7 were available.

I'm not too happy with this. Basically it might throw way all the work I've been doing on my client since there is no guarantee my wallet will ever support a windows installer. I don't feel this is acceptable to change afterwards.

Throw away work?? That's definitely not what I want. I just want the average Joe-user on Windows to be able to use MasterCoin without a lot of headaches.

I'm surprised to hear you say it might not ever have a Windows installer. How certain are you about that? Even still, it could have a Linux installer, couldn't it? That would at least cover the linux side.

I'm pretty certain. Windows requires a lot of custom stuff that I'm almost certain won't be worth it to package it. "Installer" is a weird word on Linux. I'm not even sure what that would entail. One might say that installing the application via gem install mastercoin-wallet could be considered an installer.

The acceptance criteria already specified that there needed to be a Windows client and a Linux client. All I added was a clarification that the Windows client should really have an installer. I don't really consider any client to be completely ready for the masses without a user-friendly installer. And that's the whole point of this project milestone - bringing distributed exchange to the masses.

The acceptance criteria also said that there would be a high bar for usability. Doesn't that goal seem incompatible with "Step 1: download my source code, required libraries, dev environment tools, and compile . . . "?

You changed the rules of the contest after the fact. Whatever the rules were or how they were interpreted this just isn't cool. The fact that I picked ruby as my language of choose now fucks me because I can't make an easy 1 click installer which is possible with compile-able languages.

[dacoinminster]

You changed the rules of the contest after the fact. Whatever the rules were or how they were interpreted this just isn't cool. The fact that I picked ruby as my language of choose now fucks me because I can't make an easy 1 click installer which is possible with compile-able languages.

OK. For now, I've removed that note from the acceptance criteria. It's clear you feel strongly about this, and it's very important to me to keep the developers as happy as I can.

I'd be interested to hear what the other devs think about this. I personally wouldn't feel that we had met our acceptance criteria without a Windows installer, but I don't want you guys to feel like I am moving the goalposts either.

[Tachikoma]

I really don't understand the problem.

Zathras is making an Windows based client. I'm sure it will have a nice installer with it and for him this is as easy as pressing the compile button.

My client will be very easy to use on any unix-based system, much like Grazcoin's implementation. As long as there is a wallet for any flavour I don't really see a problem.

I feel strongly about this because I have no way to accomplish a windows installer because of a decision I made months earlier. If I knew this was a requirement before hand I would have decided to build the application in Python since it's much easier to build on Windows. I am working my ass of and you are basically telling me; sorry it's useless.

[dacoinminster]

I really don't understand the problem.

Zathras is making an Windows based client. I'm sure it will have a nice installer with it and for him this is as easy as pressing the compile button.

My client will be very easy to use on any unix-based system, much like Grazcoin's implementation. As long as there is a wallet for any flavour I don't really see a problem.

I feel strongly about this because I have no way to accomplish a windows installer because of a decision I made months earlier. If I knew this was a requirement before hand I would have decided to build the application in Python since it's much easier to build on Windows. I am working my ass of and you are basically telling me; sorry it's useless.

Whew! I'm relieved to hear you say this. I think I must have chosen my words poorly at first.

I didn't mean to say that all desktop clients need a Windows installer, but rather that we need a Windows installer for at least one of the desktop clients before we can call this contest finished. It sounds like you agree?

[Tachikoma]

Totally!

[dacoinminster]

bitoy - great job on mymastercoins.com!

I've added links to the OP of the main project thread, and to our subreddit. I'll see about getting it listed on Mastercoin.org too. Looks like masterchain.info needs a link from there too.

Thanks!

If anybody notices that their project isn't linked from one of our channels, please let me know. I don't want to slight anyone!

[dexX7]

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


The multi sign output can then be referrenced as vin for a new transaction:

In:

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

Out:
....

Those 1-of-n outputs seem to be redeemable, too, so is there a reason not use them?

[Tachikoma]

Reedeming multisig transactions is currently hard. We only want to do this if there are enough wallets available that can create these consolidate transactions easily and automatically. A lot of clients won't even recognise the funds from a multisig and not report it. This could be a problem UX wise.

We have already been discussing this earlier in the thread if you want the full scoop

[Tachikoma]

I've just updated Mastercoin-explorer to parse blocks faster. As soon as a new block is propagated it will be parsed and added. This should make your transactions appear much faster. Masterchest however is still faster since it can be unconfirmed transactions. If your lookup is time critical I would always check Masterchest (as well).

[TraderTimm]

.

[zathras]

Hey guys,

Yep there will definitely be an installer with my wallet

I'm toying with just how far to go in the installer (eg is it acceptable to modify the users bitcoin install ourselves to enable the txindex and kick off a reindex as required for 'fat' Mastercoin wallets and such).

Tachikoma, wish it was one click :p but I dont use clickonce though - I'm a control freak also just if you want to I am more than happy to help spin up an MSI (windows installer) for you if it will help once you want to do a 'major' release & as long as we can safely package ruby with it (license wise)

Also anyone looking at my wallet on git this is waaay out of date, sorry (eg still uses the old unencrypted multisig).  New release with lots of new toys and the new code branch incoming over the next few days.

Thanks!

[Tachikoma]

Can't wait for it Zathras, your wallet looks so pretty and I got a Windows VM all set up to try it out

[zathras]

Thanks mate, have to say I am quite proud of how the new exchange panels look, might post a teaser screenie later after work

[dacoinminster]

Sheesh. With the recent bitcoin price run-up, this contest is now worth ~$80k! Compare that to the meager $25k we gave away for the last one . . .

Of course, the price sometimes falls hard too, but still . . . pretty cool for the moment.