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

[panonym]

How long can take before burn is complete? I just send 1btc more and I can see that in blockchain.info page that my transfer have go to 1counterpartyXXXX.... and have already 7 confirmations but i dont see that in blockscan.com page... Hope not go wrong

11 confirmations now and cant see in blockscan. I lose that or some possibility its coming late?

Blockscan has stop to sync for the moment.
I don't think you lose what you burn, just have to be patient until the current situation is solved.
For now no more burn can be checked. Should be soon resolved.

PhantomPhreak, I got the same error as mtbitcoin on block 280132. I guess everyone is.

Code:

Block: 280128
Block: 280129
Block: 280130
Block: 280131
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/user/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 621, in <module>
    blocks.follow(db)
  File "/home/user/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 471, in follow
    raise e
  File "/home/user/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 438, in follow
    source, destination, btc_amount, fee, data = get_tx_info(tx)
  File "/home/user/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 301, in get_tx_info
    data = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(asm[1], 'utf-8'))
binascii.Error: Odd-length string

My guess is by now you modified the source code on git & we all just need to update it.
Could you confirm that a basic update is all that is necessary please.
Also, do you have some doc about multi-signature outputs? and maybe a comparison with OP_RETURNs.

edit: hum... decided to try without waiting confirmation.
Seem to work but it started a new database from block 278270.
So I'm good for a 4~8h update. 'hope it's only once (again).

[1715097927]

1715097927

[1715097927]

1715097927

[1715097927]

1715097927

[panonym]

And why you would store wealth in MSC/XCP, if you have BTC for that?

Why would you store wealth in Yuan/Gold, if you have USD for that?
Why would you store wealth in BTC when you have so many other choice?
Diversification maybe?
Why XCP? Decentralized exchange appeal, new wealth repartition, new rarity, sole alt with exactly the same security as BTC, new possibilities.

(glad I'm not in MSC, such happy ambiance in their main post...)

[kdrop22]

Burning bitcoins seems like such a stupid counterintuitive idea.  I like it!

If you were to burn coins from an armory wallet, would there be any problems different from burning from a blockchain.info wallet as described in the instructions?

I woudn't try it , unless armory provides a way to manually control the transaction details.

[xnova]

Burning bitcoins seems like such a stupid counterintuitive idea.  I like it!

If you were to burn coins from an armory wallet, would there be any problems different from burning from a blockchain.info wallet as described in the instructions?

I woudn't try it , unless armory provides a way to manually control the transaction details.

Armory has an 'Expert' mode that provides full coin control capabilities. If you know what you're doing, armory technically has the capabilities to work fine.

[reader31]

And why you would store wealth in MSC/XCP, if you have BTC for that?

Why would you store wealth in Yuan/Gold, if you have USD for that?
Why would you store wealth in BTC when you have so many other choice?
Diversification maybe?
Why XCP? Decentralized exchange appeal, new wealth repartition, new rarity, sole alt with exactly the same security as BTC, new possibilities.

(glad I'm not in MSC, such happy ambiance in their main post...)

Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity. Think the community is already recognizing that, evident from the success of the ipo so far.

[xnova]

Windows installer binaries have been updated to the newest counterpartyd commit (54c5f71002ee2b5a614aa7df2ada3a44577a31c1), which supports multisig. (Keep in mind this functionality is still in BETA, at best. )

[jimhsu]

And why you would store wealth in MSC/XCP, if you have BTC for that?

Why would you store wealth in Yuan/Gold, if you have USD for that?
Why would you store wealth in BTC when you have so many other choice?
Diversification maybe?
Why XCP? Decentralized exchange appeal, new wealth repartition, new rarity, sole alt with exactly the same security as BTC, new possibilities.

(glad I'm not in MSC, such happy ambiance in their main post...)

Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity. Think the community is already recognizing that, evident from the success of the ipo so far.

Ironically a trustless (proof of burn) scheme is key to the "trust model".

And as for the diversity of currencies; I won't comment except to say that trading (everything from horse meat to salt to shares of Microsoft to Bitcoins) is built on the idea of exchanging something of value for something else of value.

[panonym]

Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity.

Sure, so obvious that I skipped it.
Creating a good probability that most will never sell for less than 1 BTC per 1000 XCP.
(And if you guys wanna make money like I do, avoid selling cheaper than 1 BTC per 100 XCP unless you really need moving funds.)

[Anotheranonlol]

xcp end of burn coincides with ethereum launch & to a lesser extent, emu. Some attention will be diverted away.

[panonym]

Oh that's Vitalik who is behind Ethereum? interesting.
I subscribed to the mailing list, but know nothing about this project.
Do you have a few good link? public or PM
(Oh and preferably simple, it just came back to me why I know nothing about it after quickly checking back http://ethereum.org/ethereum.html)

About EMU, nothing to worry about... the dev is completely freaking out - he appear close to burn out, 'fairly safe to say it's not gonna move big before March

[reader31]

Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity.

Sure, so obvious that I skipped it.
Creating a good probability that most will never sell for less than 1 BTC per 1000 XCP.
(And if you guys wanna make money like I do, avoid selling cheaper than 1 BTC per 100 XCP unless you really need moving funds.)

One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.

[SyRenity]

Why would you store wealth in Yuan/Gold, if you have USD for that?
Why would you store wealth in BTC when you have so many other choice?
Diversification maybe?
Why XCP? Decentralized exchange appeal, new wealth repartition, new rarity, sole alt with exactly the same security as BTC, new possibilities.

(glad I'm not in MSC, such happy ambiance in their main post...)

Interesting points, indeed diversification is the main reason for alts to exist.

Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?

[panonym]

One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.

That's the mindset (to have even before any GUI)

Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?

Trolling attempt? Let's try to avoid it.
I'll keep it to: Many ideas are similar.
XCP has a working decentralized exchange, where MSC only have words of it (since months).
Fee on XCP are ~3x cheaper.
Lunch style differ greatly.
Community ambiance differ.

[BitThink]

So if I want to burn more than 1 BTC, it is ok to use the same wallet, just as long as I am making a new adderess for each BTC, correct?

It's very risky to use a wallet with multiple addresses. It's difficult to ensure the inputs are all from the same address.

[BitThink]

XCP is more like MSC than Nxt. Nxt is an altcoin having its own blockchain, but XCP is based on bitcoin blockchain just as MSC.

The benefit to have its own blockchain is the low level protocol can be designed from the scratch to make all high-level protocols easier to be implemented and parsing more efficient. On the other hand, the benefit of basing on bitcoin blockchain is there's already secure hashing rate and a lot of users are already using bitcoin. Moreover, implementation is easier since there's no need to worry about all those mining things.

BTW, one large advantage of Nxt is it's transparent forging (mining). According to what the dev said, it can help to make 51% attack almost impossible. I'm sure everyone agree that 51% attack is almost the pain of bitcoin and all its copycats.

Thanks. What about comparison to MSC?

Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
EDIT:
MSC uses 1) dummy address (class A), 2) mutli-sig (class B), or in the future OP_RETURN (class C), while XCP uses 1) OP_RETURN or 2) multi-sig (soon).

4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.

The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.

[BitThink]

How long can take before burn is complete? I just send 1btc more and I can see that in blockchain.info page that my transfer have go to 1counterpartyXXXX.... and have already 7 confirmations but i dont see that in blockscan.com page... Hope not go wrong

You can check at counterparty-explorer and user ctrl-F to search for your address. I list also those error transaction and the reason why it's error there.

EDIT: there're no new wrong burnings there, so I think your burning should be fine. Don't worry.

[flayway]

Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity.

Sure, so obvious that I skipped it.
Creating a good probability that most will never sell for less than 1 BTC per 1000 XCP.
(And if you guys wanna make money like I do, avoid selling cheaper than 1 BTC per 100 XCP unless you really need moving funds.)

One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.

If this last one transfer will lose my lose ratio is 17% of my btc:s so i really dont sell my XCP too cheap   My transfer is first what no have yet complete burn and if i read right this after that there is near 21-22btc transfers what no have complete burn. Hope not from same person or from someone who cant lose it. Dont burn more before everything ok!!!

[PhantomPhreak]

One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.

That's the mindset (to have even before any GUI)

Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?

Trolling attempt? Let's try to avoid it.
I'll keep it to: Many ideas are similar.
XCP has a working decentralized exchange, where MSC only have words of it (since months).
Fee on XCP are ~3x cheaper.
Lunch style differ greatly.
Community ambiance differ.

Counterparty transaction fees actually had to be raised to enable storing data in multi-sig outputs. The limit is imposed by Bitcoind.

Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.

The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.

Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.

I would also disagree with both (1) and (2).

[BitThink]

One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.

That's the mindset (to have even before any GUI)

Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?

Trolling attempt? Let's try to avoid it.
I'll keep it to: Many ideas are similar.
XCP has a working decentralized exchange, where MSC only have words of it (since months).
Fee on XCP are ~3x cheaper.
Lunch style differ greatly.
Community ambiance differ.

Counterparty transaction fees actually had to be raised to enable storing data in multi-sig outputs. The limit is imposed by Bitcoind.

Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.

The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.

Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.

I would also disagree with both (1) and (2).

That's a great news, so it means counterparty can be used before OP_RETURN is released? Does it mean you have known that 0.9 will not be out soon? Otherwise, it seems quite a lot of work to change OP_RETURN to multi-sig now.

For 1), sorry if I made a mistake to say there's no polished document yet. All I have seen is the protocol specification in github and it's not updated yet and not completed. Maybe you mean the wiki and documentation site? That's not so formal in my opinion.

For 2), I mean the features in current counterparty codes are less than the feature listed in MSC whitepaper. I know it's unfair since it's not so difficult to implement all the features of MSC in counterparty. Though my impression of counterparty is that it tends to be as simple as possible at least in the beginning, so those complicated features of MSC are not in the plan.

[panonym]

Dont burn more before everything ok!!!

Theorically everything is still ok.
It's just that only the dev - or perhaps no one - can verify the latest burning.
Because of the new database creation time requirement, 'necessary due to the last modification in the code.

It's been hours now, and I'm still at block 278510, only.
...
I did the math: it mean up 240 block in 4 hours!
PhantomPhreak, is it that slow for you too?
It mean I will reach present block in 28h, 'so completely sync in ~31h =/