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

[maxmint]

aspw issue is fixed in the newest push for Ubuntu 13.10. (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build is currently broken because Werkzeug doesn't support python3.2, which that version of ubuntu uses). However as we will be most likely switching to from werkzeug cherrypy shortly (due to its much better WSGI performance) this isn't a super big deal.

Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.

Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.

Burning BTC using the last working version (not including the latest commit) is safe, correct?

[1714795254]

1714795254

[relm9]

aspw issue is fixed in the newest push for Ubuntu 13.10. (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build is currently broken because Werkzeug doesn't support python3.2, which that version of ubuntu uses). However as we will be most likely switching to from werkzeug cherrypy shortly (due to its much better WSGI performance) this isn't a super big deal.

Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.

Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.

Burning BTC using the last working version (not including the latest commit) is safe, correct?

I think so. At least, I did last night and it worked fine. Wasn't able to install apsw on my Mac as it required a newer SQLite version

[Asterios]

Code:

Block: 280518
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 621, i
n <module>
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 479, in f
ollow
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 472, in f
ollow
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 57, in pa
rse_block
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\issuance.py", line 103, in
 parse
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 148, in cre
dit
AssertionError

Can anybody help me here please? Can't get past Block 280518 since 2-3 days. Deleted the client, reinstall, rebuilt the database, nothing works. Testnet works fine. I am using the win64 Installer.

I am not a pro. Noobs like me need help, guys, if you want this to succeed

[mtbitcoin]

Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.

Unfortunately it does not look that simple.. I've rebuilt using 3.2 and have run into the follow error

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 388, in <module>
    main()
  File "setup.py", line 379, in main
    create_virtualenv(paths)
  File "setup.py", line 204, in create_virtualenv
    _rmtree(paths['env_path'])
  File "setup.py", line 63, in _rmtree
    _rmtree(fullpath)
  File "setup.py", line 61, in _rmtree
    rmgeneric(fullpath, f)
  File "setup.py", line 45, in rmgeneric
    import win32api, win32con
ImportError: No module named win32api


During the git pull I am also running into errors with the "werkzeug ..."

[Patel]

If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?

I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.

[mtbitcoin]

If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?

I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.

FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.

[Patel]

If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?

I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.

FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.

ok but if a balance shows up on the address, that means everything is good right?

[mtbitcoin]

If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?

I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.

FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.

ok but if a balance shows up on the address, that means everything is good right?

Yes. It still good for checking the old burns

[xnova]

Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.

Unfortunately it does not look that simple.. I've rebuilt using 3.2 and have run into the follow error

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 388, in <module>
    main()
  File "setup.py", line 379, in main
    create_virtualenv(paths)
  File "setup.py", line 204, in create_virtualenv
    _rmtree(paths['env_path'])
  File "setup.py", line 63, in _rmtree
    _rmtree(fullpath)
  File "setup.py", line 61, in _rmtree
    rmgeneric(fullpath, f)
  File "setup.py", line 45, in rmgeneric
    import win32api, win32con
ImportError: No module named win32api


During the git pull I am also running into errors with the "werkzeug ..."

So here's the pickle: apsw needs python 3.2 on windows (since the developer of it had issues getting py3.3 amd64 binaries). However, werkzeug requires python 3.3+ to build. So, I will need to switch the API to use cherrypy (which I was going to do anyhow, but I'll just do sooner). Should be able to knock that out this evening and get everything fixed.

Apologies for this, folks. We are in the process of instituting a "develop" branch for counterpartyd and the bulid system, and will be rolling these kinds of major changes out to that and only promoting to master once our testing has passed. Thanks for being patient.

Reminder: Ubuntu 13.10 should work fine now, with the latest commit.

[prophetx]

is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?

i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...

[xnova]

is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?

i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...

I think some of that may be due to burns that maxmint is doing for others, as part of the service he provides.

maxmint: Would you be willing/able to confirm this, if that is indeed the case?

[maxmint]

is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?

i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...

I think some of that may be due to burns that maxmint is doing for others, as part of the service he provides.

maxmint: Would you be willing/able to confirm this, if that is indeed the case?

I receive Bitcoins for escrow burns on unique addresses, so I'm pretty sure that taint is not because of my service.

[sumantso]

Sorry for the noob question - what does the tainted BTC burn means?

[prophetx]

Sorry for the noob question - what does the tainted BTC burn means?

it looks at the correlation of the btc in 2 addresses coming from one address in a previous time period.

the goal of this project was to limit 1 btc per burn, the intention being that this would allow for an even distribution.

but of course some people get greedy and want more, so they split up their btc to different addresses and burn them...  using the taint tool on blockchain you can put in an addy and see the taint between that addy and another addy that is in the list of burns.

gotta love greed...

[sumantso]

Sorry for the noob question - what does the tainted BTC burn means?

it looks at the correlation of the btc in 2 addresses coming from one address in a previous time period.

the goal of this project was to limit 1 btc per burn, the intention being that this would allow for an even distribution.

but of course some people get greedy and want more, so they split up their btc to different addresses and burn them...  using the taint tool on blockchain you can put in an addy and see the taint between that addy and another addy that is in the list of burns.

gotta love greed...

Cheers

Interesting that the 1 BTC limit was imposed to make it more spread out. Burning more is a bit counter productive anyway - the more coins in circulation, the less valuable they are.

[maxmint]

Sorry for the noob question - what does the tainted BTC burn means?

Blockchain.info has a nice "Taint analysis" tool. It shows which sending addresses can be traced back to another address:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr

[xnova]

Ok guys, the build system should work again under Windows and Ubuntu 12.04. Pull the latest from github and let me know if you run into any more issues.

For Windows, please re-follow the build from source Prerequisites instructions here: http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/BuildingFromSource.html#on-windows
(you will need to download Python3.2, and all of those dependencies listed for it)

Still no updated installer for Win64 (ran into a new cx_freeze build issue with that that I'll check out tomorrow).

[qtgwith]

Agree!!!:
More people burn now means less chance to get more than 10x return like Mastercoin in short time.
Those kind of return (10x -> 1000x) requires that people highly suspect it in the beginning and then later found it real and useful. The extreme case is Nxt. Almost no one trusted it in the IPO stage (they got 21 BTC only), and then when the client came out and it worked, the price shot up because the demand suddenly increases but most chips are controlled in the hand of a few people and it's quite easy for they to hold and see the price up to the sky.
For XCP, 1) people are already quite familiar with the idea due to MSC; 2) the 'Prove by Burn' removes the trust issue; 3) the client is working and we can see the source code, so you can see that there're already 1200 BTC burnt in less than half a month. The situation, however, is almost the same after the IPO. Most of people want to buy will burn now anyway. For the demand from those new comers, the supply (from those want quick profit of 30-40%) will be enough to keep the low price.
Therefore, no reason to expect the price could rise significantly without any big news (e.g. a beautiful and user friendly client; a famous asset such as AM moves in; or a lot of bets like those in bitbet are available).

There is already 60 times more Bitcoins invested in XCP than there was in Nxt. Considering that most people invest to make a quick profit : this is not gonna work !
The profit from the people that invested early in Nxt was about 50 times (like me). We may have 100 times more BTC invested in XCP.
People may loose money

Yes. The risk is becoming more as the burned coin increase. The new burner may have great risk now.

Every burners have lower stakes when new burners coming in. The only solution to keep the your percentage stake is to burn more. Since XCP functionality is very similar to mastercoin and it even has the codes compared to the vaporware in mastercoin, I don't see why XCP should not be valued at least half of Mastercoin market price.

Fair XCP market cap valuation should be at 1/2 mastercoin market cap which is at 60 million$ right now.

BTW: can anyone estimate how many days more until the burning is over ?

 

Even so, it also need much time (maybe 2-3years)to get the market cap since so many XCP coins have been created.  Also donn't forget the possibility of failure of the XCP project.

Just mark the risk.

[flayway]

About the future value of XCP: could you just realize that nobody has a clue, please.
Anybody saying that he know is just trolling. Up or Down, same same.

Indeed an instant x100 is very unlikely.
We may even suffer a relative lost during the first week/month after-burn.
Yet MSC is valued at 60 million.
XCP despite it's alpha-stage and few bug has already more presently working functionality than it's concurrent.

Both may succeed, both may crash, one may succeed better than the other.
But if MSC is valued at 60 millions, theoretically there is nothing preventing XCP to reach 30/60/120 millions.

Just don't expect such valuation too fast.
It could happen in 4~6 month, it could happen in 1 month, or it could never happen.
Just as BTC itself could lose most of it's value if a really amazing innovation appear in 6 month.

I personally plan to hold my XCP a few month, and will not sell them at loses.
If I must way 6 month for that, then 6 month it will be.
Middle term I hope a very nice ROI, but it's gambling.

Are we done?
If a troller come trying to lower XCP credibility without quality argument, just ignore him.
Don't feed the troll.
Everyone can think for him/herself.
If you guys can't resist talking about that, open a dedicated topic for speculation.
Most here are not interested in the "tiny war" between metacoin.
Let's keep focusing on XCP testing and improvement in all field.

Obvious reminder:
Don't invest more than you can afford to lose.

Hope everyone who have invest to making fast money have also remember make small donations for XCP project...

Developers: PhantomPhreak, xnova (Bitcointalk usernames)
BTC and XCP donations: 12J1YFvsWHDCU5HNAWNLNy1Q9nZo8Q4Xgs

If donate to quoted post, remember look address is right from first orginal post

[mtbitcoin]

Ok guys, the build system should work again under Windows and Ubuntu 12.04. Pull the latest from github and let me know if you run into any more issues.

Still no updated installer for Win64 (ran into a new cx_freeze build issue with that that I'll check out tomorrow).

No go under windows for both python 3.2 and 3.3. Has anyone actually got these to work on windows?

--------------------
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\cherrypy\_cprequest.py", line 656, in respond
   response.body = self.handler()
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\cherrypy\lib\encoding.py", line 188, in __call__
   self.body = self.oldhandler(*args, **kwargs)
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\cherrypy\lib\jsontools.py", line 61, in json_handler
   value = cherrypy.serving.request._json_inner_handler(*args, **kwargs)
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\cherrypy\_cpdispatch.py", line 34, in __call__
   return self.callable(*self.args, **self.kwargs)
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\api.py", line 235, in index
   data = cherrypy.request.body.read().decode('utf-8')
 File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\cherrypy\_cpreqbody.py", line 455, in read
   return self.fp.read(size, fp_out)
ypeError: read() takes at most 2 positional arguments (3 given)
....
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 625, in <module>
    blocks.follow(db)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 453, in follow
    block_count = bitcoin.rpc('getblockcount', [])
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 60, in rpc
    response_json = response.json()
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\requests\models.py", line 733, in json
    return json.loads(self.text, **kwargs)
  File "C:\Python32\Lib\json\__init__.py", line 319, in loads
    return _default_decoder.decode(s)
  File "C:\Python32\Lib\json\decoder.py", line 353, in decode
    obj, end = self.raw_decode(s, idx=_w(s, 0).end())
  File "C:\Python32\Lib\json\decoder.py", line 371, in raw_decode
    raise ValueError("No JSON object could be decoded")
ValueError: No JSON object could be decoded