[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread

[jimhsu]

Sending (or any form of use) will come with the OP_RETURN feature that is almost guaranteed to come in Bitcoin 0.9. Even if OP_RETURN is not implemented, the burn record remains forever, allowing an alternative implementation to be designed. At least that's what I gather.

[1715579819]

1715579819

[1715579819]

1715579819

[1715579819]

1715579819

[1715579819]

1715579819

[1715579819]

1715579819

[1715579819]

1715579819

[NWO]

Sending (or any form of use) will come with the OP_RETURN feature that is almost guaranteed to come in Bitcoin 0.9. Even if OP_RETURN is not implemented, the burn record remains forever, allowing an alternative implementation to be designed. At least that's what I gather.

Do you know when that will be release? Could you kindly check 1HGuoV6CUaqCm8CkWRGffxsp6ABYJK9YDR again. I'll have to get this client 

[btc4ever]

$ ./counterpartyd.py -v --rpc-password=$BTCPASS server
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./counterpartyd.py", line 21, in <module>
    from lib import (config, api, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
  File "/home/counterpartycoin/counterpartyd/lib/api.py", line 7, in <module>
    from werkzeug.wrappers import Request, Response
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.2/dist-packages/werkzeug/__init__.py", line 154, in <module>
    __import__('werkzeug.exceptions')
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.2/dist-packages/werkzeug/exceptions.py", line 111
    return u'<p>%s</p>' % escape(self.description)
                      ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

works fine if I checkout commit a75806b1e54bfc9e128b3fd6245175c9a8d495ac.  The next commit and later fail per above.  Looks like it was this one that breaks:

commit bd2802eeac860926c3ca4b17af50f5a653a65d84
Author: PhantomPhreak <phantomphreak@bitmessage.ch>
Date:   Mon Jan 6 17:14:04 2014 -0500

    read‐only JSON‐RPC API

Note that I initially got an error about missing module werkzeug, so I installed it via pip-3.2 install werkzeug.   Then I started getting this error.

[NWO]

Could someone please tell me how much XCP I have now https://blockchain.info/tx/601fe3e4104591ac98e1d0f7cb88a439ddd32c3b67e4a75e89337279675fddd1

 

[jimhsu]

Sending (or any form of use) will come with the OP_RETURN feature that is almost guaranteed to come in Bitcoin 0.9. Even if OP_RETURN is not implemented, the burn record remains forever, allowing an alternative implementation to be designed. At least that's what I gather.

Do you know when that will be release? Could you kindly check 1HGuoV6CUaqCm8CkWRGffxsp6ABYJK9YDR again. I'll have to get this client 

+-------+---------------+
| Asset |     Amount    |
+-------+---------------+
|  BTC  |            |
|  XCP  | 1144.93630909 |
+-------+---------------+

No idea, ask in the main bitcoin forums (do people go there anymore?)

[NWO]

Sending (or any form of use) will come with the OP_RETURN feature that is almost guaranteed to come in Bitcoin 0.9. Even if OP_RETURN is not implemented, the burn record remains forever, allowing an alternative implementation to be designed. At least that's what I gather.

Do you know when that will be release? Could you kindly check 1HGuoV6CUaqCm8CkWRGffxsp6ABYJK9YDR again. I'll have to get this client 

+-------+---------------+
| Asset |     Amount    |
+-------+---------------+
|  BTC  |            |
|  XCP  | 1144.93630909 |
+-------+---------------+

No idea, ask in the main bitcoin forums (do people go there anymore?)

Niice, thank you! Haha i'll ask around

[BitThink]

I think the protocol in https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty needs to be updated (still saying burning to miner fee there). Especially, it's helpful to explicitly finalized what's the requirement of burning. Then third-party block explorer could be done to help people to show their XCP balance.

For example, It is said "Burn messages have precisely the string ‘ProofOfBurn’ stored in the OP_RETURN output." there, but as you have already clarified that OP_RETURN is not necessary in burning, and I believe all coins burnt in blockchain.info wallet has no OP_RETURN.

[bithic]

Very interesting project. You mentioned the possibility of using the Counterparty Protocol with other cryptocurrency blockchains. If this happens, will XCP created by burning BTC be directly useable on other blockchains besides the Bitcoin blockchain, or will it always be married to Bitcoin?

Also, I love the idea of a 100% PoB system with a blockchain supported entirely by PoB. The PoB white paper that I read a while ago proposed such a system, if I remember correctly. Any thought of developing XCP into such a complete self-supporting system? It seems to me that with recent advances in PoS and now PoB, the only thing PoW has going for it is that it happens to be the method that Bitcoin (unfortunately) uses.

[panonym]

Is the bitcoin wallet the only thing that needs to be backed up?  Does counterparty have its own wallet or other data that requires a backup?

Yes.
BTC privkey or wallet.dat containing it is what give you access to your XCP.

Also, if I encrypt my Bitcoin-QT wallet. Will 'counterpartyd' still be able to work with it.

Yes of course. For example you are able to use this at any time to check your ballance, or someone else

Code:

counterpartyd wallet
counterpartyd address pubkey

But if you wish to burn, and certainly send, you need to unlock your BTC wallet before.
Like that to unlock for 120sec:

Code:

  (space)bitcoind walletpassphrase yourpassphrase 120
  bitcoind walletlock

Don't forget the space, otherwise history of your pwd in clear is kept.

It would be awesome if the dev are able one day to add 2FA-GA for XCP transaction.
That would make this project top 1 on security level.

Noticed: 80 BTC burned is less than 24h. Reached 230 in 5 days.
We probably gonna break the 1000 BTC / 1'000'000$.

[BitThink]

2FA needs a central server, so I don't know how it can be implemented in a decentralized system.

[Asterios]

When I enter "counterpartyd --testnet market" on the testnet it gives me the following output:

Code:

Open Orders
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in <module>
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 534, i
n <module>
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 39, in
 market
  File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\encodings\cp850.py", line 19, in encode
UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2026' in position
483: character maps to <undefined>

C:\Users\User>

It works on the mainnet though. Why isn't it working on the testnet?

[panonym]

2FA needs a central server, so I don't know how it can be implemented in a decentralized system.

humm... does it necessary does?
I thought it was just the result of a function on a private key in relation to a referential clock.
Sure the time ref is centralized. But if that only that it can be solved.
Now maybe the verification need a central server. Haven't thought about that.
Unperfect 2FA technology if that's the case.
'thought it worked with multisignature reconnaissance or something similar.
My understanding is vague, I admit.
But with a net of trust amongst master node, 'well doesn't seem completely impossible.
I cannot solve the tech aspect, that much is certain.

Thing is: current security is not enough.
Doesn't seem to be.
Security is not my strong suit.
But if there is a real risk that someone connect to my computer and stole my unencrypted wallet.dat (let's say), then the risk of him having a keylogger, a live watch on my screen, or something taking screenshort regularly:the risk is pretty much the same.
If the guy have the skill for the first, what prevent the second?
He just have to wait until he see either a privkey or your wallet password.

That's why I'm uncomfortable about not being able to move my XCP.
Sole place my coin are safe to me is in privkey outside wallet who never touched an internet connection.
I entered my wallet password in a terminal with a space upfront.
But it happened many time while 'computer is online.
Has to be to use the soft.

I'm not at peace with that.
I have no clue if my computer is secure enough.
Fresh GNU/Linux is better than old XP for sure, but I don't know much more about security.

[panonym]

You should create a dedicated forum to keep your project communication organized.
It would increase the quality of this community-in-creation.

Dev, are you open to the creation of a think tank?
Are you open to discussion?

Due to adverse reaction about any change proposal in the wealth transfert to XCP & it's early adopter reward:
I'd like to propose the creation of a new project, on top of yours.

That would be a totally unique kind of asset.
As it is very special: it would require your help, cooperation and openness to discussion.

I call it MSH.
Mixing Share Holding.

This meta-asset would give a divident of the XCP mixing service usage.

The project and it's long term implications are quite vast and complex.

I'm happy to develop more if there is questions and interest.
Let's create a think tank.


Here is some more details about my MSH project:

It's trustless.
You send your XCP to a special address with a special command.
x% of XCP is taken, and shared amongst mixingshareholder.

- Got 1000 XCP, I want them to be splitted in two pseudoentity. I pay 2x%.
- Wanna it splitted in 3? in 4? You pay 3x% fee or 4x% fee.
- All the money you want in one clean address = 1x%.
- Cut in two and two again later? 2x% of 1000XCP, then 2x% of 2~500 XCP.


Example with x = 1:

Cut in two:
2x% of 1000 XCP = 20 XCP.
In 2-2 (cut in 2 and then again in 2, 50% proportion):
20+10 = 30 XCP.
Cut directly in 3?
1000 => 3x% = 30XCP fee.

You can specify with the new-to-be counterpartyd command the origin, the amount and the number of pubkey/which one you want it splitted in.

The 0.10$ BTC transfert fee doesn't disturb me at all.
The value & fee-concept I mean.
The fact it's so tightly linked with the bitcoin unity annoy me more.
But that will be a talk for another time.
It's long term implications.

I'm convince since months already that proof of burn is THE way to go for trustless wealth transfert and distribution.

If we're lucky: there might be a possibility to burn XCP without relying on Eligius pool?

That POB-way:
"MSH-project XCP burning" would be well cleanly separated from your "XCP-project BTC burning".

Nobody can anymore say I'm trying to change the early adopter reward of XCP.
That is a completely new project proposal.
With clearly defined minimal effort requirement from the start.
You HAVE to use the software.
No overeasy way, real reward.

I wish it to be maid with a more drastically decreasing reward over time.
Details can be publicly discussed.

This took me quite some time.
Everyone, please express yourself about it.
Have a nice day.

(Just that you know: I will have less available time during the next 36h)


PS: obviously (I hope) this idea is not a project in competition with XCP-project.
On contrary, it gives it more weight and extent the possibilities of the XCP-project. Increasing it's quality and appeal.
I work for communities.
That's called enlightened self-interest.
Human nature being selfish, we need trustlessness technologies.
& quality thinker's communication.

[PhantomPhreak]

Another bug report

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./counterpartyd.py", line 465, in <module>
    deadline = round(datetime.timestamp(dateutil.parser.parse(args.deadline)))
AttributeError: type object 'datetime.datetime' has no attribute 'timestamp'

Hmm. What version of datetime do you have?

Very interesting project. You mentioned the possibility of using the Counterparty Protocol with other cryptocurrency blockchains. If this happens, will XCP created by burning BTC be directly useable on other blockchains besides the Bitcoin blockchain, or will it always be married to Bitcoin?

Also, I love the idea of a 100% PoB system with a blockchain supported entirely by PoB. The PoB white paper that I read a while ago proposed such a system, if I remember correctly. Any thought of developing XCP into such a complete self-supporting system? It seems to me that with recent advances in PoS and now PoB, the only thing PoW has going for it is that it happens to be the method that Bitcoin (unfortunately) uses.

That's all way down the line.

I think the protocol in https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty needs to be updated (still saying burning to miner fee there). Especially, it's helpful to explicitly finalized what's the requirement of burning. Then third-party block explorer could be done to help people to show their XCP balance.

For example, It is said "Burn messages have precisely the string ‘ProofOfBurn’ stored in the OP_RETURN output." there, but as you have already clarified that OP_RETURN is not necessary in burning, and I believe all coins burnt in blockchain.info wallet has no OP_RETURN.

Right---the protocol spec. is not up-to-date.

You should create a dedicated forum to keep your project communication organized.
It would increase the quality of this community-in-creation.

Dev, are you open to the creation of a think tank?
Are you open to discussion?

Due to adverse reaction about any change proposal in the wealth transfert to XCP & it's early adopter reward:
I'd like to propose the creation of a new project, on top of yours.

That would be a totally unique kind of asset.
As it is very special: it would require your help, cooperation and openness to discussion.

I call it MSH.
Mixing Share Holding.

This meta-asset would give a divident of the XCP mixing service usage.

The project and it's long term implications are quite vast and complex.

I'm happy to develop more if there is questions and interest.
Let's create a think tank.


Here is some more details about my MSH project:

It's trustless.
You send your XCP to a special address with a special command.
x% of XCP is taken, and shared amongst mixingshareholder.

- Got 1000 XCP, I want them to be splitted in two pseudoentity. I pay 2x%.
- Wanna it splitted in 3? in 4? You pay 3x% fee or 4x% fee.
- All the money you want in one clean address = 1x%.
- Cut in two and two again later? 2x% of 1000XCP, then 2x% of 2~500 XCP.


Example with x = 1:

Cut in two:
2x% of 1000 XCP = 20 XCP.
In 2-2 (cut in 2 and then again in 2, 50% proportion):
20+10 = 30 XCP.
Cut directly in 3?
1000 => 3x% = 30XCP fee.

You can specify with the new-to-be counterpartyd command the origin, the amount and the number of pubkey/which one you want it splitted in.

The 0.10$ BTC transfert fee doesn't disturb me at all.
The value & fee-concept I mean.
The fact it's so tightly linked with the bitcoin unity annoy me more.
But that will be a talk for another time.
It's long term implications.

I'm convince since months already that proof of burn is THE way to go for trustless wealth transfert and distribution.

If we're lucky: there might be a possibility to burn XCP without relying on Eligius pool?

That POB-way:
"MSH-project XCP burning" would be well cleanly separated from your "XCP-project BTC burning".

Nobody can anymore say I'm trying to change the early adopter reward of XCP.
That is a completely new project proposal.
With clearly defined minimal effort requirement from the start.
You HAVE to use the software.
No overeasy way, real reward.

I wish it to be maid with a more drastically decreasing reward over time.
Details can be publicly discussed.

This took me quite some time.
Everyone, please express yourself about it.
Have a nice day.

(Just that you know: I will have less available time during the next 36h)


PS: obviously (I hope) this idea is not a project in competition with XCP-project.
On contrary, it gives it more weight and extent the possibilities of the XCP-project. Increasing it's quality and appeal.
I work for communities.
That's called enlightened self-interest.
Human nature being selfish, we need trustlessness technologies.
& quality thinker's communication.

I don't think that we need our own forum just yet. At this stage it would fragment the community.

If nothing else, we can't send any messages besides a burn on mainnet yet. There are certainly lots of cool things that we could do, e.g. a distributed mixing service. (If we did that, though, it would probably be free.)

[kdrop22]

Is the bitcoin wallet the only thing that needs to be backed up?  Does counterparty have its own wallet or other data that requires a backup?

Yes.
BTC privkey or wallet.dat containing it is what give you access to your XCP.

Also, if I encrypt my Bitcoin-QT wallet. Will 'counterpartyd' still be able to work with it.

Yes of course. For example you are able to use this at any time to check your ballance, or someone else

Code:

counterpartyd wallet
counterpartyd address pubkey

But if you wish to burn, and certainly send, you need to unlock your BTC wallet before.
Like that to unlock for 120sec:

Code:

  (space)bitcoind walletpassphrase yourpassphrase 120
  bitcoind walletlock

Don't forget the space, otherwise history of your pwd in clear is kept.

It would be awesome if the dev are able one day to add 2FA-GA for XCP transaction.
That would make this project top 1 on security level.

Noticed: 80 BTC burned is less than 24h. Reached 230 in 5 days.
We probably gonna break the 1000 BTC / 1'000'000$.

Thanks Panonym useful information.

[BorisTheSpider]

OK did a quick test burn (on the mainnet) from the windows client (the installer). I have a problem:

- I can see my burns in the blockchain (and in the counterpartyd running as server), but then in another cmd window I run counterpartyd.exe address 1CnAK3eozCeKG5WjyS27h7qCZqKrcK7Q31 I can see my balance, but also an error:


Balances
+-------+------------+
| Asset |   Amount   |
+-------+------------+
|  BTC  |         |
|  XCP  | 1.42490909 |
+-------+------------+


Burns
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 27, in <module>
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 506, in <module>
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 103, in address
  File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\encodings\cp850.py", line 19, in encode
UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2026' in position 251: character maps to <undefined>


Any ideas? The referenced files don't exist on my machine (at least some of them anyway) so I'd imagine those references are for the files that were compiled into counterpartyd.exe

The OS is Win7 x64, EN-GB locale.

[LeoC]

I have a problem, I'm running a Windows 8 PC and I want to get Counterpartyd working on it.
These are the steps that I followed:

1. Install the Bitcoin wallet and let it finish downloading the blockchain.

2. Set the bitcoin config to this
rpcuser=rpc
rpcpassword=XXXXX
server=1
daemon=1
txindex=1
testnet=0

3. Download and run the Counterpartyd installer, change the port to 8332, and match the rpcpassword.

4. Restart Bitcoin-qt and start counterpartyd.exe

This is where the issue crops up. Whereas on my Windows 7 box I'd start seeing the blockchain info as well as the burns, I just get a blank screen on this new box.

Also if I leave this blank box open and use another command prompt to run "counterpartyd --rpc-password=XXXXX market", it just freezes with yet another blank screen.

What am I doing wrong? Or is counterpartyd not compatible with Windows 8?

[xnova]

Anyone who was having "codemap"/unicode display issues, please pull the newest counterpartyd from git and let us know if you're still experiencing issues.

We had several unicode characters in the code that were causing the Windows terminal (which cannot properly display unicode from what my research told me) to choke. This has been fixed:

https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd/commit/e7497296b6c1409b3108bca3818dc1b89a452007


LeoC: Also, you are running an older version of counterparty if you are using the installer. I have just pushed up a new version of the installer based off of the latest commit to https://github.com/xnova/counterpartyd_binaries

Try reinstalling using that installer (or just use the source for now as we are regulary making changes to counterpartyd)

[cryptrol]

I am having this issue while installing on ubuntu 12.04 LTS :

Code:

2014-01-07 23:28:31,020|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: sudo pip3 install appdirs==1.2.0
Wheel installs require setuptools >= 0.8 for dist-info support.
pip's wheel support requires setuptools >= 0.8 for dist-info support.
Storing debug log for failure in /home/oneprovider/.pip/pip.log
2014-01-07 23:28:31,835|ERROR: Command failed: 'sudo pip3 install appdirs==1.2.0'

EDIT: Nevermind, turns out I had a python version compiled from source, removed the existant pip3 binary and installed the needed 1.4.1 , it's working now.

[LeoC]

Thanks that worked