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

[Nakacoin]

我本不想灌水的，但是你们逼着我灌水，我就没办法了。每天都登录，它娘的时长就不增长，郁闷死我了

I can't read this. Can you text some in English?

[1715423899]

1715423899

[1715423899]

1715423899

[1715423899]

1715423899

[1715423899]

1715423899

[BitThink]

我本不想灌水的，但是你们逼着我灌水，我就没办法了。每天都登录，它娘的时长就不增长，郁闷死我了

I can't read this. Can you text some in English?

Just ignore it. It's a meaningless post to increase the post count.

[mtbitcoin]

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?

Hi

I have just updated the Blockscan.com code to reflect most of the newer changes in the new database. So it should be for the most part updated to date as of now. You should be able to verify your balance correctly at blockscan.com

I am still working through some of the other minor issues due to the new data stream

FYI: We burned more than 90 BTC yesterday (based on UTC time)

Cheers

[mtbitcoin]

xnova or Phantom :

Can you summarize as to what is the format of encoding for the [data] field in the transaction table so I can decode and show this correctly on the block explorer?

Thanks

[reader31]

Hey Guys,

I rebuilt counterpartyd with the latest code updates, but when I tried to run  

counterpartyd --log-file=- -v

I get the following error,

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/coin/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 358, in <module>
    raise exceptions.ConfigurationError('RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)')
lib.exceptions.ConfigurationError: RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)

I have the bitcoin-qt running already and the config file for both the counterpartyd and bitcoind have the rpc password already set properly. This setup was working a feew days back. Not sure if something changed recently.

heres my bitcoin.conf file,

rpcuser=rpc
rpcpassword=rpcpw1234
server=1
daemon=1
txindex=1

This is my counterparty.conf file,

[Default]
rpc-connect=localhost
rpc-port=8332
rpc-user=rpc
rpc-password=rpcpw1234

I was trying to get counterpartyd running on the mainnet to do some testing and ran into this error. Any insights would be helpful. Thx.

[mtbitcoin]

Hey Guys,

I rebuilt counterpartyd with the latest code updates, but when I tried to run  

counterpartyd --log-file=- -v

I get the following error,

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/coin/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 358, in <module>
    raise exceptions.ConfigurationError('RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)')
lib.exceptions.ConfigurationError: RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)

I have the bitcoin-qt running already and the config file for both the counterpartyd and bitcoind have the rpc password already set properly. This setup was working a feew days back. Not sure if something changed recently.

heres my bitcoin.conf file,

rpcuser=rpc
rpcpassword=rpcpw1234
server=1
daemon=1
txindex=1

This is my counterparty.conf file,

[Default]
rpc-connect=localhost
rpc-port=8332
rpc-user=rpc
rpc-password=rpcpw1234

I was trying to get counterpartyd running on the mainnet to do some testing and ran into this error. Any insights would be helpful. Thx.

They have changed the syntax parameters in the latest build. A change log would be nice :-)

Try prefixing your your counterparty.conf file with the following "--bitcoind"

for example
rpc-port=8332 ---> bitcoind-rpc-port=8332

Cheers

[mtbitcoin]

Is there a plan to create a more user-friendly client with GUI?

I am thinking a lightweight web client supporting blockchain.info wallets will be really useful to attract average users.

Waiting for your client release 

[Wsbltc]

Maybe a stupid question, why choose to be a self-moderated topic?

MSC does the same way, but Nxt does not.

[BitThink]

Is there a plan to create a more user-friendly client with GUI?

I am thinking a lightweight web client supporting blockchain.info wallets will be really useful to attract average users.

Waiting for your client release  

The most difficult part is the trust issue. Has to find a way to sign the transaction without asking for password/private key. Maybe create an offline app to sign the transaction. It will be great if blockchain.info could provide an OAuth-like API to sign a certain transaction.

[BitThink]

Maybe a stupid question, why choose to be a self-moderated topic?

MSC does the same way, but Nxt does not.

From the post #1

N.B. This thread is self-moderated not to avoid critical comments, but just to keep it free of absolute nonsense.

[SyRenity]

Question, are there plans to launch a XCP foundation (similar to MSC and NXT)?
Something to coordinate the effort of advancing the coin?

[bitme]

Does the same balance that expected checked at blockscan.com and counterparty-explorer.com mean with high probability(>99%) that burn went right?

[Wsbltc]

Oh, I miss it, careless I am, careful you are

Maybe a stupid question, why choose to be a self-moderated topic?

MSC does the same way, but Nxt does not.

From the post #1

N.B. This thread is self-moderated not to avoid critical comments, but just to keep it free of absolute nonsense.

[BitThink]

Does the same balance that expected checked at blockscan.com and counterparty-explorer.com mean with high probability(>99%) that burn went right?

Blockscan.com uses the official counterpartyd, so if your balance is shown there, you are good.

Counterparty-explorer is an alternate implementation follows the same specification, so the two balance should be the same. If not, most likely it's a bug of counterparty-explorer and please notify me. Thanks.

[panonym]

Agreed, the database rebuild should only take 20-30 minutes at most (that's around what it took for me). Try looking at your processes and make sure nothing is hogging the CPU or I/O.

I'd love it to take only 30min.
I'm at block 279148... So it does take hours and hours and hours on my end.

Any help trying to figure why (from anyone) is appreciated.
From speedtest.net I got: Ping 7ms, 25.71Mbps on DL, 2.41 Mbps on UP

I only know the command top to check CPU/mem usage. Here is the result:

Code:

top - 12:23:52 up 2 days, 45 min,  4 users,  load average: 2,11, 1,97, 1,89
Tasks: 214 total,   1 running, 212 sleeping,   0 stopped,   1 zombie
%Cpu(s): 10,0 us,  2,5 sy,  0,3 ni, 41,6 id, 45,6 wa,  0,0 hi,  0,0 si,  0,0 st
KiB Mem:   2005716 total,  1762632 used,   243084 free,     3100 buffers
KiB Swap:  2050044 total,  1274540 used,   775504 free,   443924 cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND           
 2199 panonym   20   0 1828m 618m  23m S  11,3 31,6 180:13.59 firefox           
  987 root      20   0  568m  43m  17m S   2,7  2,2  47:02.65 Xorg              
19342 panonym   20   0  155m  17m 2288 S   2,7  0,9  18:28.92 python            
 2194 panonym   20   0 1693m 152m 9368 S   2,0  7,8  35:46.45 btc               
 2003 panonym   20   0 1255m  25m 7904 S   1,7  1,3  42:11.56 compiz            
 7274 panonym   20   0 1004m  55m 9524 S   1,7  2,9  21:22.09 plugin-containe   
 8413 panonym   20   0 1335m  18m 4520 S   1,3  0,9  12:06.88 transmission-gt   
 2107 panonym   20   0  641m  12m 5144 S   0,7  0,6   0:19.76 gnome-terminal    
   17 root      20   0     0    0    0 S   0,3  0,0   0:55.67 rcu_sched         
 7442 panonym   20   0 1543m 145m 2092 S   0,3  7,4   4:39.35 ltc               
10778 panonym   20   0 29080 1508 1016 R   0,3  0,1   0:01.64 top 

Of course it fluctuate (%CPU firefox 2.3 only after checking 2min later)

I'm short on RAM, 2 GB. Could it be the matter? (2GB wasn't that low a few years ago)

Code:

free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          1958       1883         75          0          5        528
-/+ buffers/cache:       1349        609
Swap:         2001       1241        760

public upload of ~/counterpartyd_build & ~/.config/counterpartyd would still be appreciated.

[PhantomPhreak]

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?

If Mastercoin is the most apt comparison, you may want to review the questions stslimited has been raising about Mastercoin over the last few days in this (Mastercoin) thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.2780.  It seems to me, at least at first glance, that his concerns may have some relevance to Counterparty as well.  

Questions like: what is the functional difference between 10 XCP or 1 XCP or .1 XCP?  How many XCP would someone actually need to use any aspects of this additional protocol layer?  What would require someone to spend XCP or go get more XCP from the open market?

Actually this is a very good question. For all us investors, especially those who want to see the price of XCP increase 10x or even 100x, to understand the demand of XCP is very important.

Let's check the feature of XCP one by one.
1) issue and order
If I am not wrong, any issue can be priced either in XCP or BTC. If an asset is priced in XCP, then the orders can be matched and finished immediately. For BTC priced orders, BTCPay message is need to finished the matched order. Therefore, it's possible people may prefer XCP priced issue to BTC priced issue due to instant transaction. If the XCP price is relatively stable, people may buy certain amount of XCP with BTC in beforehand, and then use XCP to buy assets instantly.

2) dividend
It seems the dividends have to be paid in XCP, unless the dividends are paid outside of the exchange. Therefore, the asset issuers most likely will buy XCP for distributing the dividends.

(Actually, I am not sure about this. If there're good 3rd party software support, it is equally easy for the issuers to pay the dividends in BTC, because they have all the investors BTC addresses. The exchange has to provide more convenience to attract more issuers to pay dividends in XCP instead.)

3) broadcast and bets.
It seems betting fee are all in XCP, so people need XCP to make a bet.

Therefore, to some extent XCP is like the token in a casino and BTC is like the money, but the supply of token in XCP exchange is limited. If there're more issuers,  more (bet) users, and more BTC go into the exchange, the value of token will increase, and the price of XCP is finally determined by how many users and how many funds will go into the exchange.

1) 'Issuances' don't have prices---all they do is create assets. (issuance --quantity=100 --asset='BPCJF' just credits your address with 100 BPCJF.) People seem to think that 'issue' means 'sell' or something like that. Should we change the name to 'create'?

2) Dividends paid in XCP, through Counterparty, are cheaper, as they only require one small transaction. They're also much easier and more readily verifiable.

3) Not only are all betting fees in XCP, but all wagers are too.

[PhantomPhreak]

xnova or Phantom :

Can you summarize as to what is the format of encoding for the [data] field in the transaction table so I can decode and show this correctly on the block explorer?

Thanks

That field is the result of the ordered concatenation of all of the OP_RETURN and multi-sig fields of the transaction. For 'testcoin' transactions, the first two bytes are b'XX'; for regular transactions, the first eight bytes are b'CNTRPRTY'. After that, there is a four-byte big-endian unsigned integer 'message type ID', e.g. 10 for orders. Then the rest of the data is the message-type-specific data. For instance, with the 'order' message type, the format is '>QQQQHQ', using the struct Python module, and the fields are, respectively give_id, give_amount, get_id, get_amount, expiration, fee_required. Asset IDs are the upper-case alphabetic asset names understood as Base 26 integers, for compression.

[reader31]

Hey Guys,

I rebuilt counterpartyd with the latest code updates, but when I tried to run  

counterpartyd --log-file=- -v

I get the following error,

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/coin/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 358, in <module>
    raise exceptions.ConfigurationError('RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)')
lib.exceptions.ConfigurationError: RPC password not set. (Use configuration file or --bitcoind-rpc-password=PASSWORD)

I have the bitcoin-qt running already and the config file for both the counterpartyd and bitcoind have the rpc password already set properly. This setup was working a feew days back. Not sure if something changed recently.

heres my bitcoin.conf file,

rpcuser=rpc
rpcpassword=rpcpw1234
server=1
daemon=1
txindex=1

This is my counterparty.conf file,

[Default]
rpc-connect=localhost
rpc-port=8332
rpc-user=rpc
rpc-password=rpcpw1234

I was trying to get counterpartyd running on the mainnet to do some testing and ran into this error. Any insights would be helpful. Thx.

They have changed the syntax parameters in the latest build. A change log would be nice :-)

Try prefixing your your counterparty.conf file with the following "--bitcoind"

for example
rpc-port=8332 ---> bitcoind-rpc-port=8332

Cheers

Cool...will try that thx

[panonym]

I still haven't read anything satisfactory about wagers centralisation/trust-issue with the implemented betting system.
As I understand it, I will never use it.
A single feeder guy arbitrarily choose the result... deciding who win or lose. No guarantee feeder result = actual result.
Big trust issue there.

[PhantomPhreak]

I still haven't read anything satisfactory about wagers centralisation/trust-issue with the implemented betting system.
As I understand it, I will never use it.
A single feeder guy arbitrarily choose the result... deciding who win or lose. No guarantee feeder result = actual result.
Big trust issue there.

Feed operators have a strong incentive to be honest, because those betting can easily see which feeds are and which are not. Honest operators will obviously make more in the long run.