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

[Chang Hum]

I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.

Of course, I've said this after the fact.

In hindsight I think you're right and it seems extremely wasteful not to mention if they'd used proof of key owner head of oxfam, we probably could have got crazy returns as a $2million donation from a crypto startup would have been mainstream news.

[1714621865]

1714621865

[1714621865]

1714621865

[1714621865]

1714621865

[SyRenity]

In hindsight I think you're right and it seems extremely wasteful not to mention if they'd used proof of key owner head of oxfam, we probably could have got crazy returns as a $2million donation from a crypto startup would have been mainstream news.

I quite sure it would have not accumulated 1.5K BTC that way.

People are sending them exactly because they sure (hopefully) that no one can steal these BTC's.

[SyRenity]

I just hope this community can pull together and fund at least enough money for PhantomPhreak or xnova to work on this full-time, considering that the other competitors will have plenty of funds to pay salaries.

A rule of thumb was suggested here to donate 3%-5% of burnt XCP, provided devs will publicly display their expenses (like MSC, PTS or NXT do). I think it's a fair preposition, and everyone should consider doing so in their own self-interest.

[relm9]

In hindsight I think you're right and it seems extremely wasteful not to mention if they'd used proof of key owner head of oxfam, we probably could have got crazy returns as a $2million donation from a crypto startup would have been mainstream news.

I quite sure it would have not accumulated 1.5K BTC that way.

People are sending them exactly because they sure (hopefully) that no one can steal these BTC's.

Not so sure.

People sent 135 BTC to VisaCoin which was clearly a scam. Counterparty has a working daemon already, plus extensive documentation. VisaCoin had none of that, just poorly written PR drivel. I think this project still would accumulated a lot of BTC regardless.

I think going proof-of-burn was a very honorable thing to do though and I really respect the dev team for their decision. Hopefully, more of the people that are burning 1+ BTC start to donate.

[nakaone]

I just hope this community can pull together and fund at least enough money for PhantomPhreak or xnova to work on this full-time, considering that the other competitors will have plenty of funds to pay salaries.

A rule of thumb was suggested here to donate 3%-5% of burnt XCP, provided devs will publicly display their expenses (like MSC, PTS or NXT do). I think it's a fair preposition, and everyone should consider doing so in their own self-interest.

that will be the most interesting part of the project, I will donate at least 10% of xcp over a period of a year - the higher the price in the beginning the more I am willing to donate in the beginning, with a low price in the beginning I'll donate more when the price rises to ensure that they can work properly on the project.

[jimhsu]

I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.

Of course, I've said this after the fact.

In the same way, many still claim proof of work (as done by Bitcoin) as a "needlessly wasteful expenditure of computing resources". Neither is true. Proof of work, as done for bitcoin and other currencies, is done to secure the blockchain. Proof of burn, as done here, is done to produce a permanent record for fair distribution of an asset that you can't get by sending the "otherwise burnt" BTCs to the devs, to the nearest charity, or whomever.

Next, people are going to come out and claim that the 10000 BTC pizza was "a pointless idea". Just like in that example, a price was set for something that otherwise had no perceived value.

Think of the 1400 BTC burned as assets to purchase XCP "mining rigs" that produced however many coins you have now. (In fact, the bitcoin.it proof of burn page gives this very description). That is the value of proof of burn.

That said, donating to the devs (or better yet, contributing to the project by testing, writing articles, designing sites, etc. ) is a great idea. We can launch publicity campaigns and such after the burn period and after stuff like a centralized exchange and an online client are up and running.

[TheMightyX]

I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.

Of course, I've said this after the fact.

In the same way, many still claim proof of work (as done by Bitcoin) as a "needlessly wasteful expenditure of computing resources". Neither is true. Proof of work, as done for bitcoin and other currencies, is done to secure the blockchain. Proof of burn, as done here, is done to produce a permanent record for fair distribution of an asset that you can't get by sending the "otherwise burnt" BTCs to the devs, to the nearest charity, or whomever.

Next, people are going to come out and claim that the 10000 BTC pizza was "a pointless idea". Just like in that example, a price was set for something that otherwise had no perceived value.

Think of the 1400 BTC burned as assets to purchase XCP "mining rigs" that produced however many coins you have now. (In fact, the bitcoin.it proof of burn page gives this very description). That is the value of proof of burn.

That said, donating to the devs (or better yet, contributing to the project by testing, writing articles, designing sites, etc. ) is a great idea. We can launch publicity campaigns and such after the burn period and after stuff like a centralized exchange and an online client are up and running.

I think it is a logical fallacy to assume that proof-of-burn is the only method of securing a permanent record of fair distribution.

Let me suggest this hypothetical:
I could contact a donation agent at the WWF or Red cross and say, "I want to donate somewhere between $100,000-$1,000,000 to your organization in the form of bitcoin. All you have to do is post an address on your website where you would like to receive the bitcoins."
They could post a news article on their website with the intended address, then a system could be set up to watch and distribute XCP based on the coins sent to that address, much in the same way we are doing now.

In this hypothetical situation, we know that I nor anyone but the charity controls the bitcoin address.

In another hypothetical:

A small amount could be shaved off the XCP amount before being dispensed to the recipients. I send 1 BTC to an address. I am awarded 1000 XCP minus 2-3% which is award to the dev accounts (I get 980, they get 20).

This would be an autodonation, but we know that they couldn't run off with my BTC, they would actually need to develop XCP into something valuable to profit from my BTC.

One of the largest problems with cryptocurrencies I find is that they are developed by programmers, not economists or necessarily freedom fighters. Most developers are focused on making the code work and not developing a fairer or more efficient system. If you're not a programmer, fat chance at getting anyone to listen to your great ideas or join your cause.

When we look back at all the electricity we've wasted on bitcoins PoW concept to "secure the blockchain" as you put it, I think we will be a little disappointed at how wasteful and naive we were.

[BitThink]

Burning BTC is not like burning oil, trees, or other things have real value. There's nothing lost to the world. The only result is that the rest BTC have appreciated a little bid. Therefore, it's not a waste like we burn a lot of oil or coal or tree for nothing.

Moreover, it's arguable whether giving Devs 1500 BTC is better for the incentive. If I were the dev and got 1500 BTC, I could be quite lazy and tends to enjoy the life instead of coding around the clock.

Therefore, it has to be a foundation manage the 1500 BTC transparently for bounties. In that case, centralization may lead to corruption, and community are reluctant to contribute and only paid coders work for money. Look at the progress of Mastercoin.

[SyRenity]

A small amount could be shaved off the XCP amount before being dispensed to the recipients. I send 1 BTC to an address. I am awarded 1000 XCP minus 2-3% which is award to the dev accounts (I get 980, they get 20).

This would be an autodonation, but we know that they couldn't run off with my BTC, they would actually need to develop XCP into something valuable to profit from my BTC.

This actually would be a great idea! As the devs would be paid in XCP anyhow, they would have a vested interest to keep pushing XCP further.

Well, I do hope we manage to reach a similar balance once the wallet is out, and people can easily sent XCP donations to devs.

[SyRenity]

Moreover, it's arguable whether giving Devs 1500 BTC is better for the incentive. If I were the dev and got 1500 BTC, I could be quite lazy and tends to enjoy the life instead of coding around the clock.

Therefore, it has to be a foundation manage the 1500 BTC transparently for bounties. In that case, centralization may lead to corruption, and community are reluctant to contribute and only paid coders work for money. Look at the progress of Mastercoin.

Imho despite all NXT IPO shortcomings, we should learn how they, being very interested stakeholders, sponsor together initiatives purely in NXT. They understand that NXT is worth so much only if the development and promotion are kept being pushed.

Actually BitThink, perhaps you can share some of the insider tips of how they are doing it so successfully ?

[led_lcd]

I think it is a logical fallacy to assume that proof-of-burn is the only method of securing a permanent record of fair distribution.

Let me suggest this hypothetical:
I could contact a donation agent at the WWF or Red cross and say, "I want to donate somewhere between $100,000-$1,000,000 to your organization in the form of bitcoin. All you have to do is post an address on your website where you would like to receive the bitcoins."
They could post a news article on their website with the intended address, then a system could be set up to watch and distribute XCP based on the coins sent to that address, much in the same way we are doing now.

In this hypothetical situation, we know that I nor anyone but the charity controls the bitcoin address.

In another hypothetical:

A small amount could be shaved off the XCP amount before being dispensed to the recipients. I send 1 BTC to an address. I am awarded 1000 XCP minus 2-3% which is award to the dev accounts (I get 980, they get 20).

This would be an autodonation, but we know that they couldn't run off with my BTC, they would actually need to develop XCP into something valuable to profit from my BTC.

One of the largest problems with cryptocurrencies I find is that they are developed by programmers, not economists or necessarily freedom fighters. Most developers are focused on making the code work and not developing a fairer or more efficient system. If you're not a programmer, fat chance at getting anyone to listen to your great ideas or join your cause.

When we look back at all the electricity we've wasted on bitcoins PoW concept to "secure the blockchain" as you put it, I think we will be a little disappointed at how wasteful and naive we were.

I don't think proof of burn is attempting to address fair distribution. It is one means of addressing trust or lack of trust.

I do like the idea regarding donations. 'Proof of Donation' sounds pretty neat don't you think?

Autodonation is a nice idea but not much different to what people call 'pre-mining'.

[prophetx]

I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.

Of course, I've said this after the fact.

In the same way, many still claim proof of work (as done by Bitcoin) as a "needlessly wasteful expenditure of computing resources". Neither is true. Proof of work, as done for bitcoin and other currencies, is done to secure the blockchain. Proof of burn, as done here, is done to produce a permanent record for fair distribution of an asset that you can't get by sending the "otherwise burnt" BTCs to the devs, to the nearest charity, or whomever.

Next, people are going to come out and claim that the 10000 BTC pizza was "a pointless idea". Just like in that example, a price was set for something that otherwise had no perceived value.

Think of the 1400 BTC burned as assets to purchase XCP "mining rigs" that produced however many coins you have now. (In fact, the bitcoin.it proof of burn page gives this very description). That is the value of proof of burn.

That said, donating to the devs (or better yet, contributing to the project by testing, writing articles, designing sites, etc. ) is a great idea. We can launch publicity campaigns and such after the burn period and after stuff like a centralized exchange and an online client are up and running.

I think it is a logical fallacy to assume that proof-of-burn is the only method of securing a permanent record of fair distribution.

Let me suggest this hypothetical:
I could contact a donation agent at the WWF or Red cross and say, "I want to donate somewhere between $100,000-$1,000,000 to your organization in the form of bitcoin. All you have to do is post an address on your website where you would like to receive the bitcoins."
They could post a news article on their website with the intended address, then a system could be set up to watch and distribute XCP based on the coins sent to that address, much in the same way we are doing now.

In this hypothetical situation, we know that I nor anyone but the charity controls the bitcoin address.

In another hypothetical:

A small amount could be shaved off the XCP amount before being dispensed to the recipients. I send 1 BTC to an address. I am awarded 1000 XCP minus 2-3% which is award to the dev accounts (I get 980, they get 20).

This would be an autodonation, but we know that they couldn't run off with my BTC, they would actually need to develop XCP into something valuable to profit from my BTC.

One of the largest problems with cryptocurrencies I find is that they are developed by programmers, not economists or necessarily freedom fighters. Most developers are focused on making the code work and not developing a fairer or more efficient system. If you're not a programmer, fat chance at getting anyone to listen to your great ideas or join your cause.

When we look back at all the electricity we've wasted on bitcoins PoW concept to "secure the blockchain" as you put it, I think we will be a little disappointed at how wasteful and naive we were.

I had the same issue but I realized that they are correct in needing a completely trustless method for how Counterparty is different than Mastercoin, and the charity method is not trustless.

Also the coins are not wasted their value is simply spread across the system.  Regarding electricity, this is the only way to secure the blockchain, so it has a utilitarian value.  Otherwise if you follow this type of logic, we should all be living in caves.  Which might be fun until you realize there is no hot shower.

There is a lot of good stuff written on these subject matters over the years, I suggest you look for and read why PoW is used.

It remains to be seen whether it is better to have a sustainable funding mechanism for an open source initiative, like Mastercoin, or a completely unfunded operation that relies on volunteerism perhaps tied to corporate initiatives.

To think about it further, if I were an executive at Paypal or Google and I decided that I wanted to release coupons or whatever on Bitcoin would I choose something like Counterparty or Mastercoin?    

We have already seen that large corporations, true to innovation adoption research lit, do not mess with new stuff that has no value attached to it. Unless they are irrational. Thus players like Google or Paypal, if they are rational, will want to deal with token systems that have enough liquidity and users, as otherwise the investment capital is too high for them given risk and there is barely any research done on how to successful do corporate venture capital with open source initiatives like this with hidden members.

However having said that once a system reaches a certain state of liquidity and users then the corporate manager will naturally want to adopt it to maximize shareholder profits.  Having a choice between a foundation based approach which they can donate to and is somewhat organized in a structure that he/she is used to, or a loose collective of unidentifiable actors, the corporate manager is more likely to adopt the former rather than the latter.

But perhaps that is the role of Counterparty in the ecosystem for the wild things.  Just like in the old days (1800s) there was the NYSE and then there was the curb side traders (which became the AmEx).

I don't myself believe in monopolies, and I think there might be several systems in place competing for users.  However, projects like Ethereum, NXT and Bitshares, while perhaps having good intentions are going to have a hard time as they lack the liquidity and network that comes with Bitcoin.  That is a big deal.

But who knows. No one has a crystal ball.

[jimhsu]

When we look back at all the electricity we've wasted on bitcoins PoW concept to "secure the blockchain" as you put it, I think we will be a little disappointed at how wasteful and naive we were.

To that, I simply quote:

“Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”

Take what you will. (I'm not taking sides, BTW).

[doitnow]

I burned small amount of BTC using my blockchain.info and now decided to play a bit with counterpartyd and this problem comes up:

Code:

>>> C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Can you tell me what am I doing wrong?

[SyRenity]

A practical question that I have:

Say we have an investor, who we want to allocate shares using XCP asset mechanism, how we actually reflect the real value he invested into us in XCP asset?

For example he placed X BTC for Y shares issued, which set the post-money valuation of the asset to = X BTC * Z shares we have now / Y shares issued.
How do we reflect that this was real - perhaps by receiving the funds at same BTC address, which was used for asset creation?


Speaking off, is there a way to change asset details after it was generated (i.e. amount of shares, divisibility, etc...)?

[qwertyasdfgh]

I burned small amount of BTC using my blockchain.info and now decided to play a bit with counterpartyd and this problem comes up:

Code:

>>> C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Can you tell me what am I doing wrong?

you are missing the first part of your command. Use this. Copy and past it in and see if it works.
C:\python33\python.exe C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg --quantity=0.005

[jimhsu]

A practical question that I have:

Say we have an investor, who we want to allocate shares using XCP asset mechanism, how we actually reflect the real value he invested into us in XCP asset?

For example he placed X BTC for Y shares issued, which set the post-money valuation of the asset to = X BTC * Z shares we have now / Y shares issued.
How do we reflect that this was real - perhaps by receiving the funds at same BTC address, which was used for asset creation?


Speaking off, is there a way to change asset details after it was generated (i.e. amount of shares, divisibility, etc...)?

Amount yes - I think you can issue more.
Name, divisibility - don't think so.

[doitnow]

I burned small amount of BTC using my blockchain.info and now decided to play a bit with counterpartyd and this problem comes up:

Code:

>>> C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Can you tell me what am I doing wrong?

you are missing the first part of your command. Use this. Copy and past it in and see if it works.
C:\python33\python.exe C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg --quantity=0.005

Thx but ive done it already. I think it happens because I skipped this section:

Code:

C:\Python32\python.exe run.py server

I'm running this again from first block 278310 and will see what happens

[Luckybit]

I hate to say this after the fact, but proof of burn is a really, really, really stupid, inefficient and unproductive concept.
There are much better ways to handle proof of stake.
That money could have fed a whole village in africa for a year.
I would much rather the devs got that 1,400 BTC than it just being destroyed pointlessly.

Of course, I've said this after the fact.

You obviously don't understand Proof of Burn. The money isn't the same as the value. Value isn't the same as the money. When you destroy Bitcoin units the value itself is actually dispersed which increases the value for all who own Bitcoins.

This isn't like gold or dollars where physical destruction also destroys the value. This is digital. What that means is that value actually is increased the more scarce you make Bitcoin (deflation!).

If you think inflation creates value please check out infinitecoin. It will inflate forever so there will be plenty of coins for African children.

[doitnow]

I burned small amount of BTC using my blockchain.info and now decided to play a bit with counterpartyd and this problem comes up:

Code:

>>> C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg
 --quantity=0.005
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Can you tell me what am I doing wrong?

you are missing the first part of your command. Use this. Copy and past it in and see if it works.
C:\python33\python.exe C:\counterpartyd_build\run.py burn --from=1CibkcwpBRZAMZUwv6hXE1eNoZ8Mb38cQg --quantity=0.005

Thx but ive done it already. I think it happens because I skipped this section:

Code:

C:\Python32\python.exe run.py server

I'm running this again from first block 278310 and will see what happens

actually that was irrelevant..

I did rerun setup.py and looks like python33 is missing. Instead I only have python32 folder

Code:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\***>cd counterpartyd_build
The system cannot find the path specified.

C:\Users\***>cd
C:\Users\***

C:\Users\***>cd
C:\Users\***

C:\Users\***>cd..

C:\Users>cd..

C:\>cd counterpartyd_build

C:\counterpartyd_build>C:\Python32\python.exe setup.py
2014-01-24 06:03:02,026|DEBUG: base path: 'C:\counterpartyd_build'
2014-01-24 06:03:02,026|DEBUG: dist path: 'C:\counterpartyd_build\dist'
2014-01-24 06:03:02,026|DEBUG: env path: 'C:\counterpartyd_build\env'
2014-01-24 06:03:02,028|DEBUG: bin path: 'C:\counterpartyd_build\bin'
2014-01-24 06:03:02,028|INFO: Installing Counterparty from source...
2014-01-24 06:03:02,028|INFO: Checking out/updating counterpartyd from git...
2014-01-24 06:03:02,028|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: cd "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\
counterpartyd" && git pull origin master
From https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd
 * branch            master     -> FETCH_HEAD
Already up-to-date.
2014-01-24 06:03:03,421|INFO: WINDOWS: Installing Required Packages...
2014-01-24 06:03:03,421|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: C:\Python32\Scripts\easy_install
.exe virtualenv==1.10.1 pip==1.4.1 sphinx==1.2
Searching for virtualenv==1.10.1
Best match: virtualenv 1.10.1
Processing virtualenv-1.10.1-py3.2.egg
virtualenv 1.10.1 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing virtualenv-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv-3.2-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv-3.2.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts

Using c:\python32\lib\site-packages\virtualenv-1.10.1-py3.2.egg
Processing dependencies for virtualenv==1.10.1
Finished processing dependencies for virtualenv==1.10.1
Searching for pip==1.4.1
Best match: pip 1.4.1
Processing pip-1.4.1-py3.2.egg
pip 1.4.1 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing pip-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip-3.2-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip-3.2.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts

Using c:\python32\lib\site-packages\pip-1.4.1-py3.2.egg
Processing dependencies for pip==1.4.1
Finished processing dependencies for pip==1.4.1
Searching for sphinx==1.2
Best match: sphinx 1.2
Processing sphinx-1.2-py3.2.egg
sphinx 1.2 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing sphinx-apidoc-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-apidoc.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-build-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-build.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-quickstart-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-quickstart.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-autogen-script.py script to C:\python32\Scripts
Installing sphinx-autogen.exe script to C:\python32\Scripts

Using c:\python32\lib\site-packages\sphinx-1.2-py3.2.egg
Processing dependencies for sphinx==1.2
Finished processing dependencies for sphinx==1.2
2014-01-24 06:03:04,081|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: C:\Python32\Scripts\pip.exe inst
all appdirs==1.2.0
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): appdirs==1.2.0 in c:\p
ython32\lib\site-packages
Cleaning up...
2014-01-24 06:03:04,796|WARNING: Deleting existing virtualenv...
2014-01-24 06:03:05,634|INFO: Creating virtualenv at 'C:\counterpartyd_build\env
' ...
2014-01-24 06:03:05,634|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: C:\Python32\Scripts\virtualenv.e
xe --system-site-packages C:\counterpartyd_build\env
New python executable in C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts\python.exe
Installing Setuptools...........................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
.......................done.
Installing Pip..................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
.....................done.
2014-01-24 06:03:12,778|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scrip
ts\pip.exe install -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): appdirs==1.2.0 in c:\p
ython32\lib\site-packages (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt (line 3)
)
Downloading/unpacking prettytable==0.7.2 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\re
qs.txt (line 6))
  Downloading prettytable-0.7.2.tar.bz2
  Running setup.py egg_info for package prettytable

Downloading/unpacking python-dateutil==2.2 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\
reqs.txt (line 8))
  Downloading python-dateutil-2.2.tar.gz (259kB): 259kB downloaded
  Running setup.py egg_info for package python-dateutil

Downloading/unpacking requests==2.1.0 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.
txt (line 10))
  Downloading requests-2.1.0.tar.gz (420kB): 420kB downloaded
  Running setup.py egg_info for package requests

Downloading/unpacking cherrypy==3.2.4 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.
txt (line 12))
  Downloading CherryPy-3.2.4.tar.gz (424kB): 424kB downloaded
  Running setup.py egg_info for package cherrypy

Downloading/unpacking json-rpc==1.1 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.tx
t (line 14))
  Downloading json-rpc-1.1.tar.gz
  Running setup.py egg_info for package json-rpc

Downloading/unpacking pycoin==0.23 (from -r C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt
 (line 16))
  Downloading pycoin-0.23.tar.gz
  Running setup.py egg_info for package pycoin

Downloading/unpacking six (from python-dateutil==2.2->-r C:\counterpartyd_build\
dist\reqs.txt (line 8))
  Downloading six-1.5.2.tar.gz
  Running setup.py egg_info for package six

    no previously-included directories found matching 'documentation\_build'
Installing collected packages: prettytable, python-dateutil, requests, cherrypy,
 json-rpc, pycoin, six
  Running setup.py install for prettytable

  Running setup.py install for python-dateutil

  Running setup.py install for requests

  Running setup.py install for cherrypy

  Running setup.py install for json-rpc

  Running setup.py install for pycoin

    Installing genwallet-script.py script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
    Installing genwallet.exe script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
    Installing bu-script.py script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
    Installing bu.exe script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
    Installing spend-script.py script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
    Installing spend.exe script to C:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts
  Running setup.py install for six

    no previously-included directories found matching 'documentation\_build'
Successfully installed prettytable python-dateutil requests cherrypy json-rpc py
coin six
Cleaning up...
Start counterpartyd automatically on system startup? (y/n): n
2014-01-24 06:03:51,062|INFO: SETUP DONE. (It's time to kick ass, and chew bubbl
egum... and I'm all outta gum.)
2014-01-24 06:03:51,102|INFO: Config file already exists at: C:\Users\***\A
ppData\Roaming\Counterparty\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.conf

C:\counterpartyd_build>

 

Is something wrong with this?