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

[flatfly]

Code:

  File "C:\Python32\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", l
ine 21, in <module>
    from Crypto.Cipher import ARC4
ImportError: No module named Crypto.Cipher

Any help on this error ?

The simplest (and most common) way to get Crypto.Cipher up and running under Windows is using the installers at
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python

[halfcab123]

Code:

  File "C:\Python32\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", l
ine 21, in <module>
    from Crypto.Cipher import ARC4
ImportError: No module named Crypto.Cipher

Any help on this error ?

The simplest (and most common) way to get Crypto.Cipher up and running under Windows is using the installers at
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python

Thanks, I added this to my tutorial and its now working for me.

[LightedLamp]

https://i.imgur.com/MaN0cW5.png

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

[W2014]

Is this a moderated thread? If so, can someone please ban the clown Bellebite2014 already? Thank you.

[halfcab123]

I've been accused of "being" bellebite2014. Pretty aggravating.

[W2014]

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

Why do you call these "Mastercoin posts"? I see no connection to the developers or foundation. Perhaps I'm missing something.   

[crypto era]

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

Why do you call these "Mastercoin posts"? I see no connection to the developers or foundation. Perhaps I'm missing something.  

They're just generalizing. It's trying to say a portion of the Mastercoin community is trying to sabotage and plane trolling. I don't think he was trying to say that anyone in Mastercoin's foundation or there developers were doing this.

[jl777]

No, it's not, it's a silly point.

Bitcoin includes transactions because it validates the data inside them.

Bitcoin clearly does not validate Counterparty data.  I am free to include Counterparty data in my own transactions at any time.  I am free to spend Counterparty coins to myself at any time, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't care.

The level of validation performed by the bitcoin network is the same, whether full counterparty data or a simple hash is in the blockchain.

Long answer: re-read my paper on about proof-of-publication and how Bitcoin mining really works.

Short answer: you're assuming the data exists to validate at all client-side. Unfortunately that's not something you can assume. If you're just putting hashes of Counterparty data in the blockchain what is a client supposed to do if they can't find the corresponding data? If they assume it doesn't exist then you can be sybil attacked by someone who later reveals the data and changes the consensus out from under you. On the other hand, if you assume it must exist, and wait until you find that data, a trivial attack is to put fake hashes of alleged counterparty data in the blockchain.

Now you can try using something like the zookeyv concept I wrote about in #bitcoin-wizards last summer - I remember you saved a copy of that discussion - but then you run into a simple economics problem: if you can attack an individual system in one go, the cost required for security is going to be very high compared to the cost per transaction. Thus it's best if you spread that cost across multiple systems/uses, and force any attacker to attack them all at once. Anyway, this is all pedantic: Counterparty gains enormously in security by using the Bitcoin blockchain, and there's fuck all that Bitcoin can do about it if the Counterparty devs encode their transactions correctly.

In fact, here's a really good test to see if you understand this stuff: Suppose P2SH^2 was implemented and everything other than pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions was disabled. How can embedded consensus systems take advantage of P2SH^2 to survive without resorting to the brute-forcing parts of the hash to encode the data and without resorting to using any data embedded in any part of the transaction other than the scriptPubKey? If you can guess why, you'll be a lot closer to understanding what proof-of-publication actually is; I'll give 50mBTC to the first person with a correct answer.(edit: unless your name is Gregory Maxwell! already told him) I'll give you some further hints: the solution in this scenario ends up creating huge amounts of unspendable outputs in the UTXO set, it is blocked by Gregory Maxwell's "P2SH^2 v2.0" idea where hashes can self-prove their hashes without proving a pre-image explicitly, and finally is actually cheaper for the embedded consensus system modulo the IsDust() rule.

Not commenting on the P2SH stuff, but generally speaking a single atomic operation is far more reliable than one that is split up into two parts, eg. hash and actual data.

XCP will be dealing with potentially big money transactions and it needs to be as reliable as possible. This means not splitting the transaction into parts.

I do not understand how anybody can claim that storing pointers is just as good, the math does not back that claim at all. Assuming that the bitcoin blockchain is the most reliable place to store data, by definition any other place is less reliable. This means there is a chance that the data wont be available. Therefore, it is worse to just store hash in the bitcoin blockchain.

I dont claim to be anywhere as knowledgeable as long time bitcoin core devs, but when they start saying stuff like "1+1 = 1", then it leads me to believe that they are not discussing math, but something else.

James

[jl777]

Jeff/Luke Jr

I understand the points you are making about the OP_Return issue, but I think you are phrasing your arguments in an non conciliatory manner.  I think its fine if a decision is not made to increase OP_RETURN to 80 bytes, however I think some of the arguments made against this are inappropriate and analyse Bitcoin in too much of a narrow way.

A core advantage of Bitcoin is that clients accept transactions as long as it meets the requirements, nothing more, nothing less.  All transactions, whoever sent them, whatever the purpose, once in a block are treated equal.  It doesn't matter if the data in the transaction is a genuine financial transaction, a political message about a Times newspaper headline in 2009, a Christian prayer, a hash of a document being used as a notary service or anything else.  If this principal is lost, Bitcoin is weaker, less useful, less flexible and less likely to succeed.  What Bitcoin allows is innovation without permission and new alternative uses that nobody has even thought of yet.  This could go far beyond just financial transactions.

I understand many are concerned about the data storage requirements of those running full nodes and network capacity issues.  This is of course a genuine problem.  However I think its wrong to think that some data is more important than other data or has more of a right to be in the blockchain.  Some new protocols may have alternative implementation methods that take up less data in the blockchain.  If possible, lets try to implement these protocols in this way.  However ultimately, Bitcoin needs to be free and open and all users and protocol developers have the right to be able to use Bitcoin in whichever way they wish.  When kindly asking people to modify their protocols to take up less space, we should recognize this principal.

Many thanks

More clueless clowns with their worthless 2 cents, this is EXACTLY what XCP needs. Keep it coming, please.

You have such a way with people, I think you should win customer service of the year award!

[Matt Y]

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

Why do you call these "Mastercoin posts"? I see no connection to the developers or foundation. Perhaps I'm missing something.  

I have filters set up for "Mastercoin" and "Counterparty", so I always see the spambots posting positive stuff about Mastercoin, although they do post on a number of topics in a positive manner, which I mentioned.

What I called "Mastercoin posts" were posts that showed a sample of the posts about Mastercoin that those accounts made. I did not infer anything other than "this is a sample of a positive post about Mastercoin made by these spambot accounts". I wanted to show that the accounts have a dog in the game, so to speak, when it comes to second generation projects.

I highly doubt the developers of Mastercoin or members of the Mastercoin Foundation are involved with these Twitter accounts. Why would someone smart enough to develop something like Mastercoin, or to hold a position within the Mastercoin Foundation, make 20+ Twitter accounts and have them all post the same things to 80 followers? It just makes no sense. Not only is this activity stupid, there are certainly many other more effective ways to increase the visibility of a project.

It's much more likely that whoever owns these accounts is a random person who has invested in Mastercoin and not Counterparty, or has something against Counterparty, or has no investment in either project, but posts something from our biggest troll while positively promoting other projects in the same space for a reason that is still unknown.

Looking at the accounts further, it appears likely that each one was created to hype a specific coin or two, but they cross post everything to all accounts.

https://twitter.com/MommaCrypto
https://twitter.com/DaddyCrypto
https://twitter.com/RaymondCrypto

Perhaps this is a service of some kind, or, more likely, an active altcoin trader attempting to hype stuff that he has investments in.

To the owner of those accounts: Your links are not working, you need to change your link shortening service.

[sherlock421]

i am coming!
i suggest xcp team use MXCP for Unit NOW。especially the net Wallet。like Mantissa pricing,this is Scientific research
and then it seem like more Bargaining chip for Issuance of asset
and more people like buy it because it seem so cheap like dogecoin
if 1.3 usd can buy 0.1XCP and 100MXCP ,i think you will choose 100mXCP because 100 look so comfortably then 0.1

Foresight

XCP will have a bright future.  2,648,496 is such a small quantity.   i think we should use mXCP as default unit from now on.

As a possible newbie coin-buyer, judging strictly from the chart action, is this coin dead?

Yes it is, go post somewhere else, thanks.

+1
Great

[halfcab123]

i am coming!
i suggest xcp team use MXCP for Unit NOW。especially the net Wallet。like Mantissa pricing,this is Scientific research
and then it seem like more Bargaining chip for Issuance of asset
and more people like buy it because it seem so cheap like dogecoin
if 1.3 usd can buy 0.1XCP and 100MXCP ,i think you will choose 100mXCP because 100 look so comfortably then 0.1

Foresight

XCP will have a bright future.  2,648,496 is such a small quantity.   i think we should use mXCP as default unit from now on.

As a possible newbie coin-buyer, judging strictly from the chart action, is this coin dead?

Yes it is, go post somewhere else, thanks.

+1
Great

I assume that PhantomPhreak moderates this thread? I would suggest reviewing BelleBite2014's posting history and using that to consider either issuing a stern warning or possibly blocking him from posting his deconstructive negative commentary altogether.

I think I speak on behalf of the community when I say that if someone does indeed post a misinformed post, or embellished rhetoric, that I would rather see that on the thread by itself, then to also see a community member bashing that person.

I personally have been accused of owning BelleBite2014's account as an alt account, by someone in the community which I held high respect for; however I have not seen any evidence for this accusation and need only provide a history of my actions without defensive speech to show how that accusation is unlikely credible.

[hisun]

 I do realize however, that for XCP/Counterparty to gain wide accepted use we will need a user-friendly GUI, much like basic TCP/IP protocol applications were not widely used or built upon until web browsers and email browsers amongst other User Interfaces came about which allowed the average user to take part; and when the average user gets involved thats when the usage explosion happens in any technological advancement. That's when the usage goes through the roof and inevitably incredible amount of capital are available to further develop and build even more incredible creations compounded of other incredible creations. 

[zero3112]

I am really interested in this coin but am confused on how I get coins into a wallet? Do I buy the coin by trading or do I mine it with this burn the coin method?  Either way it look like I am spending bitcoin on it?

[Matt Y]

I am really interested in this coin but am confused on how I get coins into a wallet? Do I buy the coin by trading or do I mine it with this burn the coin method?  Either way it look like I am spending bitcoin on it?

The easiest way to buy is through Bter with BTC: https://bter.com/trade/xcp_btc

You are unable to burn BTC for XCP any longer, except on testnet, where both BTC and XCP have no value.

After buying, as a non technical user, I'd suggest keeping the XCP on Bter, or for a higher level of security, I would move the to a blockchain.info wallet. After Counterwallet is live on mainnet, which is happening sometime in April I think, I would use that to store your XCP.

[kdrop22]

i am coming!
i suggest xcp team use MXCP for Unit NOW。especially the net Wallet。like Mantissa pricing,this is Scientific research
and then it seem like more Bargaining chip for Issuance of asset
and more people like buy it because it seem so cheap like dogecoin
if 1.3 usd can buy 0.1XCP and 100MXCP ,i think you will choose 100mXCP because 100 look so comfortably then 0.1

Foresight

XCP will have a bright future.  2,648,496 is such a small quantity.   i think we should use mXCP as default unit from now on.

As a possible newbie coin-buyer, judging strictly from the chart action, is this coin dead?

Yes it is, go post somewhere else, thanks.

+1
Great

I assume that PhantomPhreak moderates this thread? I would suggest reviewing BelleBite2014's posting history and using that to consider either issuing a stern warning or possibly blocking him from posting his deconstructive negative commentary altogether.

I think I speak on behalf of the community when I say that if someone does indeed post a misinformed post, or embellished rhetoric, that I would rather see that on the thread by itself, then to also see a community member bashing that person.

+1
Moderator , please step in.

[baddw]

No, it's not, it's a silly point.

Bitcoin includes transactions because it validates the data inside them.

Bitcoin clearly does not validate Counterparty data.  I am free to include Counterparty data in my own transactions at any time.  I am free to spend Counterparty coins to myself at any time, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't care.

The level of validation performed by the bitcoin network is the same, whether full counterparty data or a simple hash is in the blockchain.

Long answer: re-read my paper on about proof-of-publication and how Bitcoin mining really works.

Short answer: you're assuming the data exists to validate at all client-side. Unfortunately that's not something you can assume. If you're just putting hashes of Counterparty data in the blockchain what is a client supposed to do if they can't find the corresponding data? If they assume it doesn't exist then you can be sybil attacked by someone who later reveals the data and changes the consensus out from under you. On the other hand, if you assume it must exist, and wait until you find that data, a trivial attack is to put fake hashes of alleged counterparty data in the blockchain.

Now you can try using something like the zookeyv concept I wrote about in #bitcoin-wizards last summer - I remember you saved a copy of that discussion - but then you run into a simple economics problem: if you can attack an individual system in one go, the cost required for security is going to be very high compared to the cost per transaction. Thus it's best if you spread that cost across multiple systems/uses, and force any attacker to attack them all at once. Anyway, this is all pedantic: Counterparty gains enormously in security by using the Bitcoin blockchain, and there's fuck all that Bitcoin can do about it if the Counterparty devs encode their transactions correctly.

In fact, here's a really good test to see if you understand this stuff: Suppose P2SH^2 was implemented and everything other than pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions was disabled. How can embedded consensus systems take advantage of P2SH^2 to survive without resorting to the brute-forcing parts of the hash to encode the data and without resorting to using any data embedded in any part of the transaction other than the scriptPubKey? If you can guess why, you'll be a lot closer to understanding what proof-of-publication actually is; I'll give 50mBTC to the first person with a correct answer.(edit: unless your name is Gregory Maxwell! already told him) I'll give you some further hints: the solution in this scenario ends up creating huge amounts of unspendable outputs in the UTXO set, it is blocked by Gregory Maxwell's "P2SH^2 v2.0" idea where hashes can self-prove their hashes without proving a pre-image explicitly, and finally is actually cheaper for the embedded consensus system modulo the IsDust() rule.

I don't know if this meets all of the requirements stated, but based on a quick skimming of P2SH^2 and your Proof-of-Publication paper, here's a rough idea of an "attack" to store arbitrary data.  This would require a tiny amount of brute-forcing, and it is not dust/fee-efficient, but I think it would work.  I was unable to find the "2.0" discussion.

Say we want to send information ABCD.  The sending address is X_1.  All we have to do is find a fake P2SH value whose hash starts with (A).  This creates a transaction, X_1 -> AXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (unspendable, but is a valid hash of a seeming hash, so it's likely un-detectable).  Change is sent to X_2, a valid address.  X_2 sends X_2 -> BXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, change is sent to X_3.  X_3 -> CXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, change to X_4.  X_4 -> DXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, change to X_5.

Clients can decode the proper byte-ordering because change address X_2 only contains coins after the X_1 transaction, X_3 only after X_2 transaction, and so on.

It's also possible that a dedicated Counterparty user or group of users could spend some hashes coming up with actual addresses that can create the A, B, C, D hashes.  They could pre-generate an "alphabet" of addresses which would allow them to recover the BTC, excepting tx fees.  If the user had enough BTC coins/coin-days, he could even structure each of these transactions so as to avoid tx fees completely.  Of course, the risk of doing this would be that such addresses could be blacklisted after several uses.

It is of course possible to encode more than 1 byte per tx.  It just requires more hash-time, but I'm guessing that even on commodity hardware, coming up with an "alphabet" of all possible 2-byte pairs wouldn't be much work.  Of course, this would halve the number of BTC transactions needed to encode each XCP transaction.

[Peter Todd]

I don't know if this meets all of the requirements stated, but based on a quick skimming of P2SH^2 and your Proof-of-Publication paper, here's a rough idea of an "attack" to store arbitrary data.  This would require a tiny amount of brute-forcing, and it is not dust/fee-efficient, but I think it would work.  I was unable to find the "2.0" discussion.

You missed the part where I said "no-brute-forcing" - I'm talking about something quite different that takes advantage of what P2SH^2 does. However, the rest of your post would work and is actually pretty clever, so sent you a tip all the same.

[Fernandez]

More clueless clowns with their worthless 2 cents, this is EXACTLY what XCP needs. Keep it coming, please.

Halfcab, I will ask one more time, consider taking your Alts off the forums.

I second the request. This Bellebite2014 persona has done enough damage to the community with its extremely antagonistic posts. Please stop.

I'm just waiting to hear what this has to do with me, and why I am being referenced here.

May not be halfcab, but clearly somebody's shill. Maybe someone from Mastercoin.

[OTK47]

How's the video coming along halfcab?