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

[supersuber]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

[520Bit]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

Try this command:

counterpartyd issuance --source 1xxx --quantity 100 --asset XXXXX --divisible

[qwertyasdfgh]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

You can't have asset names that start with the letter A.

[520Bit]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

You can't have asset names that start with the letter A.

Correct. Never put an 'A' in front of any asset! This is prohibited by Counterparty protocol.

[supersuber]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

You can't have asset names that start with the letter A.

Correct. Never put an 'A' in front of any asset! This is prohibited by Counterparty protocol.

Got it. But why?

[mtbitcoin]

issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible

Code:

    if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’

 

What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3.

已经升级到最新版了

You can't have asset names that start with the letter A.

Correct. Never put an 'A' in front of any asset! This is prohibited by Counterparty protocol.

Got it. But why?

this was explained somewhere back in the thread. It has to do with how the AssetId is calculated based on the asset names and there are certain requirements for this

[mtbitcoin]

I have the counterpartyd running fine but now am lost.
When a bid is matched, for example I place a request to buy XCP with and it matches an order to sell XCP.
Is the transaction then completed automatically by counterpartyd or do I need to complete the transaction manually?

You would need to do a 'btcsend' to complete the transaction.

Thank you. And would the seller also need to send the XCP to the buyer manually?
Does the system prevent scammer from taking advantage of the exchange?

If anything the buyers of XCP are the most protected as the seller's XCP coins are locked in (balance deducted) by the protocol and only released upon a matching BTCPAY or expiration

[led_lcd]

Clearly, we need a solution that doesnt require sending all this BTC in an unrecoverable way. I had thought there is a way to extract the BTC used for multisig. Why not make the GUI automate this process of recovering it?

A key part of XCP vs MSC is that XCP has lower fees, so this is a critical issue as far as I am concerned

Is this still a problem with OP_RETURN? Multisig is a fallback until OP_RETURN is available in Bitcoin 0.9.

[mtbitcoin]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

[520Bit]

ms[/code]g5012798#msg5012798 date=1391847759]
I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There are two orders not matched. Why?

Code:

Open Orders
+---------------------+------------+---------------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Give Quantity    | Give Asset |     Price     |    Price Assets    | Required BTC Fee | Provided BTC Fee | Time Left |                             Tx Hash                              |
+---------------------+------------+---------------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      0.00000167     |    XCP     |     0.0060    |    BTC/XCP ask     |      0.0001      |      0.0001      |    4999   | 0d8e10c598ea3b07f2cdb8587ae78f900d2f77544c5ec67bde3413ee25a69e84 |
|         0.12        |    BTC     |     0.0060    |    BTC/XCP bid     |       0.0        |      0.0001      |    280    | 08b608caf1354272bd19b92fd782b26af987416f2af4a6fa7b0bc7a6c9af99f3 |

Order Matches Awaiting BTC Payment from You
+------------------+-----------+
| Matched Order ID | Time Left |
+------------------+-----------+
+------------------+-----------+

[BitThink]

rounding issue?

[PhantomPhreak]

ms[/code]g5012798#msg5012798 date=1391847759]
I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There are two orders not matched. Why?

Code:

Open Orders
+---------------------+------------+---------------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Give Quantity    | Give Asset |     Price     |    Price Assets    | Required BTC Fee | Provided BTC Fee | Time Left |                             Tx Hash                              |
+---------------------+------------+---------------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      0.00000167     |    XCP     |     0.0060    |    BTC/XCP ask     |      0.0001      |      0.0001      |    4999   | 0d8e10c598ea3b07f2cdb8587ae78f900d2f77544c5ec67bde3413ee25a69e84 |
|         0.12        |    BTC     |     0.0060    |    BTC/XCP bid     |       0.0        |      0.0001      |    280    | 08b608caf1354272bd19b92fd782b26af987416f2af4a6fa7b0bc7a6c9af99f3 |

Order Matches Awaiting BTC Payment from You
+------------------+-----------+
| Matched Order ID | Time Left |
+------------------+-----------+
+------------------+-----------+

Because 0.00000167 XCP * 0.006 BTC/XCP = 1 satoshi... It's the finite divisibility of Bitcoin.

[PhantomPhreak]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4.

[cityglut]

Just as a warning, SFMSTOCK currently list on DEX was not issued by owner of this company, and does not have evidence of share ownership nor any direct authorization to sell these shares in official capacity. I would advise not to send any XCP or BTC balance to this asset

Thank you very much for this warning.

To both issuers and purchasers of assets: A link to an official website should be provided in the description space for an asset, and on that official website should be a list of each address that has stocks on the Counterparty distributed exchange, as well as the asset name(s) associated with each address.

I will sticky a post on the official forum to the same effect.

[PhantomPhreak]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4.

Note: This fix should also handle the overlaps of the bid and the asks in the order book.

[520Bit]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4.

Note: This fix should also handle the overlaps of the bid and the asks in the order book.

Is the counterpartyd_build updated accordingly?

[mtbitcoin]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4.

Ok. That makes sense because I checked the DB directly and the figure should have matched

[trilli0n]

ATTN PhantomPhreak - I left you a PM concerning the reimbursement of invalid orders caused by the order matching cq. rounding issue.

Thanks

[520Bit]

Only the matched seller or buyer could see a matched order in counterpartyd_build, right? I could not see any matched order by typing counterpartyd market command.

[520Bit]

I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching??

For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not?

another Example

3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC

Should have matched with

3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC


But are not

There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4.

Ok. That makes sense because I checked the DB directly and the figure should have matched

Yes, v0.4 looks fine now:

Code:

Order Match: 1E-8 BTC for 0.00000167 XCP at 0.0060 BTC/XCP (0d8e10c598ea3b07f2cdb8587ae78f900d2f77544c5ec67bde3413ee25a69e84e99f02130953b989da98f2d862069d6f6b8b4aa98fc59c457433b96467b8b023)
Order Match: 0.00999999 BTC for 1.50499849 XCP at 0.0066 BTC/XCP (9ce90757c8f8d9c0c3cffb429d01c737cac39ccfc630d783e8812b468c01e76ce99f02130953b989da98f2d862069d6f6b8b4aa98fc59c457433b96467b8b023)