nathan_kia
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
 |
January 21, 2014, 06:38:09 PM |
|
Hi guys, I successfully burned like o.5 bitcoin. I can see it http://www.blockscan.com/Do I need to transfer it to a local wallet ? I have a Mac I should find a safe windows system, is it safe to leave it alone in my blockchain wallet. ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list. |
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sumantso
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 21, 2014, 07:17:02 PM |
|
Hi guys, I successfully burned like o.5 bitcoin. I can see it http://www.blockscan.com/Do I need to transfer it to a local wallet ? I have a Mac I should find a safe windows system, is it safe to leave it alone in my blockchain wallet. ? Its safe as long as you don't hand over your private key to anybody. |
|
|
|
nathan_kia
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
January 21, 2014, 07:22:36 PM |
|
Hi guys, I successfully burned like o.5 bitcoin. I can see it http://www.blockscan.com/Do I need to transfer it to a local wallet ? I have a Mac I should find a safe windows system, is it safe to leave it alone in my blockchain wallet. ? Its safe as long as you don't hand over your private key to anybody. very cool. one more thing, I am only allowed to burn 1 BTC per wallet address ? if I wanna burn more, I should open a new account in blockchain ? |
|
|
|
|
|
maxmint
|
|
January 21, 2014, 07:24:13 PM |
|
one more thing, I am only allowed to burn 1 BTC per wallet address ? if I wanna burn more, I should open a new account in blockchain ?
The limit is 1 BTC per address. You can create another address in the same wallet and burn BTC from your new address. |
|
|
|
JahPowerBit
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 335
Merit: 255
Counterparty Developer
|
|
January 21, 2014, 08:01:39 PM |
|
How can i generate an address like this: 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr ?
Why 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is impossible?
Thks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IamNotSure
|
|
January 21, 2014, 08:03:21 PM |
|
Quite the opposite! I see that as a "Proof of Fairness" Don't forget to donate to the devs if you invest. |
|
|
|
|
Patel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1321
Merit: 1007
|
|
January 21, 2014, 08:05:30 PM |
|
How can i generate an address like this: 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr ?
Why 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is impossible?
Thks.
checksum |
|
|
|
|
|
IamNotSure
|
|
January 21, 2014, 08:05:40 PM |
|
How can i generate an address like this: 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr ?
Why 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is impossible?
Thks.
I think this is because the last digits are a checksum. If you read the whole thread this is explained somewhere with the Proof of Burn concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
SyRenity
|
|
January 21, 2014, 09:13:28 PM |
|
Perhaps I missed something, but it seems that creating new asset costs now 0.0002086 BTC, is it correct?
|
|
|
|
|
JahPowerBit
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 335
Merit: 255
Counterparty Developer
|
|
January 21, 2014, 10:27:49 PM |
|
How can i generate an address like this: 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr ?
Why 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is impossible?
Thks.
checksum thks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
porqupine
|
|
January 22, 2014, 02:54:32 AM |
|
What about linking XCP generated Assets to the original Issuer address by limiting an address to a single issued asset per address and requiring it to maintain a certain balance of XCP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 22, 2014, 03:06:43 AM |
|
What about linking XCP generated Assets to the original Issuer address by limiting an address to a single issued asset per address and requiring it to maintain a certain balance of XCP?
As Counterparty stands, only one address can issue each asset, and each address can issue only one asset. Why do you think an address which issues an asset should have to maintain a certain balance of XCP? |
|
|
|
|
|
porqupine
|
|
January 22, 2014, 03:10:15 AM |
|
What about linking XCP generated Assets to the original Issuer address by limiting an address to a single issued asset per address and requiring it to maintain a certain balance of XCP?
As Counterparty stands, only one address can issue each asset, and each address can issue only one asset. Why do you think an address which issues an asset should have to maintain a certain balance of XCP? I think it could be a reasonably effective way to prevent one person from, issuing as mentioned, numerous Assets and sitting on them. It's pretty trivial at the moment to write a script to issue all possible 3/4 letter assets, and I don't think that a tiny fee is a real deterrent. |
|
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 22, 2014, 03:16:47 AM |
|
What about linking XCP generated Assets to the original Issuer address by limiting an address to a single issued asset per address and requiring it to maintain a certain balance of XCP?
As Counterparty stands, only one address can issue each asset, and each address can issue only one asset. Why do you think an address which issues an asset should have to maintain a certain balance of XCP? I think it could be a reasonably effective way to prevent one person from, issuing as mentioned, numerous Assets just by generating addresses just to sit on them. It's pretty trivial at the moment to write a scrip to issue all possible 3/4 letter assets, and I don't think that a tiny fee is a real deterrent. I spoke imprecisely last time: there are in fact 256^8 asset names in all, but there only around 10,000 single common English words that could possibly be asset names. The problem, then, is rather different from how I initially described it. |
|
|
|
|
|
jimhsu
|
|
January 22, 2014, 03:39:44 AM |
|
Given these problems, and the fact that any fixed fee will ultimately not make sense, I still support some kind of proof of model (e.g. PoS) and local/global assets to ultimately fix this problem (as I described several pages back). It has a natural analogy with how marketing (in the real world) works -- anyone can come up with an idea/product, but to introduce it to the real world, there are costs involved. Even further, it (a PoS function) directly incentivizes holding XCP without introducing a balance requirement (a heavy handed way to do things) or restricting it per address (which = Sybil attack). Again, proof of stake doesn't have to lead to inflation of the underlying asset (one of the most common criticisms); in XCP's case, it can create new assets. As an extension, I could even imagine XCP holders that don't want to create assets to pull their "proof of stake" power into some sort of pool to help promising/deserving projects that don't have a lot of XCP to launch. |
Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparé
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
January 22, 2014, 05:19:32 AM |
|
Not sure if there's a way to do it, but would be good if ongoing fees could go into a dev pool.
|
|
|
|
|
BitThink
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 22, 2014, 05:50:40 AM |
|
How can i generate an address like this: 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr ?
Why 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is impossible?
Thks.
The last 6 characters is the checksum and has to be calculated based on the previous characters. |
|
|
|
|
BitThink
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 22, 2014, 05:54:07 AM |
|
XCP is a completely new protocol based on the messages embedded in the block chain, so there're more features can be implemented compared with coloredcoin. Nonetheless, which can be successful all depends on which arrives the market the first, which is more stable, and the marketing. |
|
|
|
|
TheMightyX
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Vires in Numeris
|
|
January 22, 2014, 06:10:15 AM |
|
Will the amount of coins minted by burning be a set amount and everyone gets a share proportional to their investment or will it be a set amount x investment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
