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

[mcjavar]

http://www.blockscan.com/

http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/ (use Ctrl F)

Hi! Sorry for the dumb question, but where can I see my balance once a burn was successful?

Thank you very much! So the XCP is bound to the BTC address.

[maxmint]

I just created a new order to buy 1 TEST for 0.004 XCP. Seems I crashed the "counterpartyd market" view with this, I'm getting this error now:

Code:

lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Fractional quantities of indivisible assets.

Edit: Here's the command I used to create an order for 1 TEST:

Code:

./counterpartyd.py order --from=1B9S7nhAsQeGnU6DWqaMF1G2jamLSFNJkV --get-quantity=1 --get-asset=TEST --give-quantity=0.004 --give-asset=XCP --expiration=10

The system shows my order to be for "0.00000001 TEST":
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx

It seems the "get-quantity" parameter is denominated in a Satoshi style (1 / 100,000,000), is that correct? So if I would like to buy 1 TEST I actually have to use this parameter: "get-quantity=100000000".

[PhantomPhreak]

I just created a new order to buy 1 TEST for 0.004 XCP. Seems I crashed the "counterpartyd market" view with this, I'm getting this error now:

Code:

lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Fractional quantities of indivisible assets.

Edit: Here's the command I used to create an order for 1 TEST:

Code:

./counterpartyd.py order --from=1B9S7nhAsQeGnU6DWqaMF1G2jamLSFNJkV --get-quantity=1 --get-asset=TEST --give-quantity=0.004 --give-asset=XCP --expiration=10

The system shows my order to be for "0.00000001 TEST":
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx

It seems the "get-quantity" parameter is denominated in a Satoshi style (1 / 100,000,000), is that correct? So if I would like to buy 1 TEST I actually have to use this parameter: "get-quantity=100000000".

I'm pretty sure that that's a bug in blockscan.com. Amounts of indivisible assets (like TEST) should not be divided by 10^8 for display the way that divisible assets are.

EDIT: mtbitcoin, that 'orders' page looks great (I love the colour-coded 'Remarks' column)!

[maxmint]

I just created a new order to buy 1 TEST for 0.004 XCP. Seems I crashed the "counterpartyd market" view with this, I'm getting this error now:

Code:

lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Fractional quantities of indivisible assets.

Edit: Here's the command I used to create an order for 1 TEST:

Code:

./counterpartyd.py order --from=1B9S7nhAsQeGnU6DWqaMF1G2jamLSFNJkV --get-quantity=1 --get-asset=TEST --give-quantity=0.004 --give-asset=XCP --expiration=10

The system shows my order to be for "0.00000001 TEST":
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx

It seems the "get-quantity" parameter is denominated in a Satoshi style (1 / 100,000,000), is that correct? So if I would like to buy 1 TEST I actually have to use this parameter: "get-quantity=100000000".

I'm pretty sure that that's a bug in blockscan.com. Amounts of indivisible assets (like TEST) should not be divided by 10^8 for display the way that divisible assets are.

EDIT: mtbitcoin, that 'orders' page looks great (I love the colour-coded 'Remarks' column)!

Ok, so "--get-quantity=1" was the correct way?
And still the market view shows an error, so there must be a bug in counterpartyd as well.

[BitThink]

http://www.blockscan.com/

http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/ (use Ctrl F)

Hi! Sorry for the dumb question, but where can I see my balance once a burn was successful?

Currently counterparty-explorer.com only shows the XCP obtained by burning. To check the XCP sent by others (e.g. sent by Maxmint), please use blockscan.com instead.

[prophetx]

http://www.blockscan.com/

http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/ (use Ctrl F)

Hi! Sorry for the dumb question, but where can I see my balance once a burn was successful?

Currently counterparty-explorer.com only shows the XCP obtained by burning. To check the XCP sent by others (e.g. sent by Maxmint), please use blockscan.com instead.

what does this mean on blkockscan:

Code:

[data] CNTRPRTY

[PhantomPhreak]

I just created a new order to buy 1 TEST for 0.004 XCP. Seems I crashed the "counterpartyd market" view with this, I'm getting this error now:

Code:

lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Fractional quantities of indivisible assets.

Edit: Here's the command I used to create an order for 1 TEST:

Code:

./counterpartyd.py order --from=1B9S7nhAsQeGnU6DWqaMF1G2jamLSFNJkV --get-quantity=1 --get-asset=TEST --give-quantity=0.004 --give-asset=XCP --expiration=10

The system shows my order to be for "0.00000001 TEST":
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx

It seems the "get-quantity" parameter is denominated in a Satoshi style (1 / 100,000,000), is that correct? So if I would like to buy 1 TEST I actually have to use this parameter: "get-quantity=100000000".

I'm pretty sure that that's a bug in blockscan.com. Amounts of indivisible assets (like TEST) should not be divided by 10^8 for display the way that divisible assets are.

EDIT: mtbitcoin, that 'orders' page looks great (I love the colour-coded 'Remarks' column)!

Ok, so "--get-quantity=1" was the correct way?
And still the market view shows an error, so there must be a bug in counterpartyd as well.

That's the correct way, and there's definitely a bug in counterpartyd.

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

[maxmint]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

[SyRenity]

The drawback is that they will have no enough money to hire more developers and provide bounties. The advantage is that the community is more willing to contribute to this project as long as they get some XCP. It's like open-source community project vs. private company project.

That my point exactly, where from these XCP's are going to be paid off?

If the developers are not allocating some development fund (and apparently they not), the only source for these XCP would be the community, which may actually prefer hoarding the coins, rather then donating them for the cause.

Any thoughts from developers about this potential issue?

[PhantomPhreak]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

[jimhsu]

The drawback is that they will have no enough money to hire more developers and provide bounties. The advantage is that the community is more willing to contribute to this project as long as they get some XCP. It's like open-source community project vs. private company project.

That my point exactly, where from these XCP's are going to be paid off?

If the developers are not allocating some development fund (and apparently they not), the only source for these XCP would be the community, which may actually prefer hoarding the coins, rather then donating them for the cause.

Any thoughts from developers about this potential issue?

The developers already burned at least 4 BTC, if not much more (20-40 is probably around the right ballpark).

[jimhsu]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

I put up some more TEST orders of varying sizes, if you want to try matching them.

[PhantomPhreak]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

I put up some more TEST orders of varying sizes, if you want to try matching them.

I fixed the problem. It was a rounding error. But yes, please do put up more orders!

[maxmint]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

I put up some more TEST orders of varying sizes, if you want to try matching them.

I created a matching order (0.04 XCP <-> 10 TEST), let's see how this works out.
EDIT: it did work, I now have 1 TEST in my wallet. Awesome! Hm, I should have received 10 TEST, will wait a couple of blocks to see what happens.

[xnova]

The drawback is that they will have no enough money to hire more developers and provide bounties. The advantage is that the community is more willing to contribute to this project as long as they get some XCP. It's like open-source community project vs. private company project.

That my point exactly, where from these XCP's are going to be paid off?

If the developers are not allocating some development fund (and apparently they not), the only source for these XCP would be the community, which may actually prefer hoarding the coins, rather then donating them for the cause.

Any thoughts from developers about this potential issue?

We are in a position to be able to support bounties at least during that crucial initial 3-6 month period post-burn. Our goal for bounties is that the amount awarded is enough to motivate people to build things around Counterparty, which themselves will quite often generate revenue (or give them benefit in some other way). Publicity and community awareness will also be a big focus as well (and a way in which non-developers can easily get involved). This all being said, bounties won't be nearly as large as with Mastercoin, for instance -- due to their different offering model. However, we believe that the functionality and opportunity that Counterparty already provides as a base framework creates ample opportunity, and bounties will really help kickstart community and possibly corporate developments around it, as well as getting the word out to people and organizations that would find what we have here to be useful.

[jimhsu]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

I put up some more TEST orders of varying sizes, if you want to try matching them.

I created a matching order (0.04 XCP <-> 10 TEST), let's see how this works out.
EDIT: it did work, I now have 1 TEST in my wallet. Awesome! Hm, I should have received 10 TEST, will wait a couple of blocks to see what happens.

Only part of your order matched due to rounding errors (?) I'm putting up more orders to better assess this.

[PhantomPhreak]

EDIT: I fixed the bug and pushed to GitHub.

Great, market view is working again.
Now shouldn't the system match these 2 orders?

Code:

| Give Quantity | Give Asset | Get Quantity | Get Asset |    Price     | Price Assets |  Fee   | Time Left |       Tx Hash       |
|       25      |    TEST    |     0.1      |    XCP    |    0.0040    |   XCP/TEST   | 0.0001 |    9866   | a751987c...90d05a76 |
|     0.004     |    XCP     |      1       |    TEST   |   250.0000   |   TEST/XCP   | 0.0001 |     2     | 5d46f970...518978cc |

Hmm. I'll look into that...

I put up some more TEST orders of varying sizes, if you want to try matching them.

I created a matching order (0.04 XCP <-> 10 TEST), let's see how this works out.
EDIT: it did work, I now have 1 TEST in my wallet. Awesome! Hm, I should have received 10 TEST, will wait a couple of blocks to see what happens.

Only part of your order matched due to rounding errors (?) I'm putting up more orders to better assess this.

With the new version, that has those rounding errors fixed, I do see 10 TEST transacted:

Code:

Order: sell 0.04 XCP for 10 TEST at 250.0000 TEST/XCP in 100 blocks (d5c06218...8a1306c5)
Order Match: 1 TEST for 0.0035 XCP at 350000.0000 XCP/TEST (dc6823b3b40f70d1...af224bf38a1306c5)
Order Match: 9 TEST for 0.036 XCP at 400000.0000 XCP/TEST (a751987c40ff7dd9...af224bf38a1306c5)
Order Match: 0 TEST for 0.0 XCP at 400000.0000 XCP/TEST (f94c5812d2c2b62d...af224bf38a1306c5)

(Obviously that last match is funny. I'll fix it.)

On the old version, it's only 1 TEST.

Code:

Burn: 1MsGuABdHyMCt2jwaFucfTJDmkWahawnSh burned 1.0 BTC for 1302.63636364 XCP (9e83d1f1...5b65eb7f)
Burn: 1Ci19UvsTEpnpEcxQBtxK9p43aYjNFjVfE burned 1.0 BTC for 1302.63636364 XCP (1b4f1062...f0314eb6)
Order: sell 0.04 XCP for 10 TEST at 250.0000 TEST/XCP in 100 blocks (d5c06218...8a1306c5)
Order Match: 1 TEST for 0.0035 XCP at 350000.0000 XCP/TEST (dc6823b3b40f70d1...af224bf38a1306c5)

[prabhu.str1]

When will I be able to trade XCP? Are you planning to start an exchange?

[mtbitcoin]

I'm pretty sure that that's a bug in blockscan.com. Amounts of indivisible assets (like TEST) should not be divided by 10^8 for display the way that divisible assets are.

Sorry about that. The assets (like TEST) should not be divided as they are not denominated in "satoshi's style". I have updated the view->order page on blockscan

How is the expiration value calculated and what is this based on? I assume this is countdown from a specific start time? If yes, is the specific start time based on the block time or some other value?

Cheers

[maxmint]

With the new version, that has those rounding errors fixed, I do see 10 TEST transacted:

Code:

Order: sell 0.04 XCP for 10 TEST at 250.0000 TEST/XCP in 100 blocks (d5c06218...8a1306c5)
Order Match: 1 TEST for 0.0035 XCP at 350000.0000 XCP/TEST (dc6823b3b40f70d1...af224bf38a1306c5)
Order Match: 9 TEST for 0.036 XCP at 400000.0000 XCP/TEST (a751987c40ff7dd9...af224bf38a1306c5)
Order Match: 0 TEST for 0.0 XCP at 400000.0000 XCP/TEST (f94c5812d2c2b62d...af224bf38a1306c5)

(Obviously that last match is funny. I'll fix it.)

On the old version, it's only 1 TEST.

Code:

Burn: 1MsGuABdHyMCt2jwaFucfTJDmkWahawnSh burned 1.0 BTC for 1302.63636364 XCP (9e83d1f1...5b65eb7f)
Burn: 1Ci19UvsTEpnpEcxQBtxK9p43aYjNFjVfE burned 1.0 BTC for 1302.63636364 XCP (1b4f1062...f0314eb6)
Order: sell 0.04 XCP for 10 TEST at 250.0000 TEST/XCP in 100 blocks (d5c06218...8a1306c5)
Order Match: 1 TEST for 0.0035 XCP at 350000.0000 XCP/TEST (dc6823b3b40f70d1...af224bf38a1306c5)

I just rebuild the database and I can see the orders being matched now. My address received 11 TEST (1+10) so this seems to be working well now.

How is the expiration value calculated and what is this based on? I assume this is countdown from a specific start time? If yes, is the specific start time based on the block time or some other value?

I think the expiration value is just the amount of blocks the order is valid for. When creating a new order you can set the expiration value yourself.