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

[tk808]

Coins Source fully reviewed Counterparty XCP, read the review on the leading digital currency information source here:
www.coinssource.com/crypto-coins/counterparty



And as of last night, Counterparty is our 3rd most popular coin of all time.
www.coinssource.com/top-20-coins

[Anotheranonlol]

The 'name' at the protocol level is tied to the transaction handling - but asset representation on the client level can be achieved by organizing the 'text' field of the asset issue.

There is still the possibility of making look-alike assets i.e.:

Real Asset:
--name=ffzdjeVT
--text=~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~

Look alike:
--name=ffzdJeVT
--text=~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.co/assets ~~

Which could be dealt with in several ways i.e. Allowing a user to track/flag an asset on the client level (presumably for assets where they have verified the PGP key).
Alternatively you could make the default client-side search take an asset standard form where the --name field is defined by the first 8 bytes of the --text field hash, that would make it quite difficult to issue a-near identical looking asset.

The default client side search at this time is only searching for the asset name on the protocol level now  so inputting 'ROCKMINER' would find ROCKMINER, ROCKMINERB, ROCKMINER123 etc right?

if later that would be expanded to allow search of the --text field (however the developers agree to format and parse it),
because real rockminer owner for example can create:

Code:

--text=~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.co/assets ~~

and the asset name is derived from hash of the agreed upon 'name section'  which (if you are using sha1 hash for example) would be:

Code:

--name=6cd78dfa

now nobody can create another asset with the exact text 'GHS' right? because it would have conflicting hash (duplicate asset id)

is that what you are proposing?

[porqupine]

That's mostly correct - I would do the hash over the entire --text field rather than just the name field -  because otherwise it would be the scarcity  of a unique name problem (You could always further distinguish two assets by source address and --unique name even if the --text field name was the same.
Also I don't think any changes need to be made at the protocol level - if mosts assets were issued with by following certain rules, on the client side assets could be filtered (say two search categories) 'all assets', and 'standardized assets'.

[Anotheranonlol]

That's mostly correct - I would do the hash over the entire --text field rather than just the name field -  because otherwise it would be the same value of a unique name problem (You could always further distinguish two assets by source address and --unique name even if the --text field name was the same.
Also I don't think any changes need to be made at the protocol level - if mosts assets were issued with by following certain rules, on the client side assets could be filtered (say two search categories) 'all assets', and 'standardized assets'.

If you take these two asset --text fields (just hash the whole text, including tildes) http://www.sha1-online.com/

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~

SHA1: 9482a8e20d41241d58621633c797c40a15a82736

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~

SHA1: 6ee034e4501cb6bd73725b01f12fd9037fb14181

a user wouldn't be able to easily spot the difference there (bonus points if you can), and the default search would still be looking for an actual (basic) asset name still, so search for ROCKMINER would still bring up the ROCKMINER squatted asset for example

I'm not trying to pick holes in it just still don't get it fully, because it seems like you can't actually entirely 'fix' squatting without centralisation; which obviously goes against the whole principle of the project.  I don't even see squatting as a problem myself because 99.9% users have common sense to realise what is legitimate and not.

[porqupine]

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~
Identifier: 9482a8e2
Issuer Address: '1EY3tchHud2QGdFHGiKjNUeHRunEyWJc1H'

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.co/assets ~~
Identifier: 6ee034e4
Issuer Address: '1JobzHpEuuRLrxoCj24dtVnFY1ihS8dobi'

You don't think that would be distinct enough ?

[Anotheranonlol]

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~
Identifier: 9482a8e2
Issuer Address: '1EY3tchHud2QGdFHGiKjNUeHRunEyWJc1H'

Code:

~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.co/assets ~~
Identifier: 6ee034e4
Issuer Address: '1JobzHpEuuRLrxoCj24dtVnFY1ihS8dobi'

You don't think that would be distinct enough ?

I don't see rockxies point in the first place to be honest, I couldn't care less what name of asset is, and think it's pretty easy for him to just spell it out clearly with a link without any confusion whatsoever, if users end up buying the wrong thing perhaps they aren't ready for cryptocurrency let alone decentralised markets..  also I wouldn't be getting confused with them.  so probably best not to ask me...but as far as whether that is distinct enough for arguments sake

i think the main text the user would be searching for is the plaintext, rather than an address or identifier hash, so I think it would be easier to get confused over identical asset names yet different addresses  and id's placed by squatters than different asset names alone (as the old basic system was) although the proposal you said definately gives more info, anyone can take 5 seconds to google the address to confirm it's the official asset as basic due diligence

Maybe you can have database of 'known' whitelisted issuers client-side, based upon their address (non-forgable) and a little twitter like tick icon indicating verified? or official, or 'rockminer' just like blockchains tagging. just something to indicate it's a direct and confirmed address by rockminer. or whatever the company may be not sure if that goes against the ethos of decentralised or not but I can certainly see it appealing to issuers of specific companies

[Chang Hum]

I've just had a play with the asset feature and wanted to give some feedback.

To deal with a scenario like todays launch of Maidsafecoin on Mastercoin, it would good if there were some tools to help with distribution of assets.

I'd assume most entities that have reason to issue assets/tokens would want the funds raised in Bitcoin. last years Mastercoin fundraiser is the perfect example of this. As most people within this forum will know a vanity address beginning with the word exodus received Bitcoins and returned Mastercoins  based on the amount received and an algorithm to calculate an early investor bonus.

Some handy tools might consist of:

-A way of exporting data from a blockchain explorer (times,amounts,address) into a format that could be imported and understood by counterwallet.
-An automated issuance function, with controls to set rules such as an algorithm for early adopter bonus, assets to be sent per Bitcoin received, fee options?
-Also as a way to begin to monetize the protocol what's possible in the way of adding fees? where can they be added and what for?

Also how do you publicly prove you've locked an asset?

[Chang Hum]

Devs,

I have tried to access my old Counterwallet in order to sweep the remaining balance to my new Counterwallet, but am not able to login to my old Counterwallet despite multiple attempts. I am sure I used the correct 12 word passphrase. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Sorry I'm not a dev, but did you click the link for the old counterparty wallet on the counterparty wallet page first?

[jpdeng]

I try to import the xcp from my old counterwallet to new counterwallet by private key.
It shows:

JSON-RPC Error:
Type: Server error

Code: -32000

Message: Insufficient bitcoins at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x. (Need approximately 0.0095914 BTC.)

Actually, there is 0.0095914 BTC at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x.

Thanks!

[W2014]

Devs,

I have tried to access my old Counterwallet in order to sweep the remaining balance to my new Counterwallet, but am not able to login to my old Counterwallet despite multiple attempts. I am sure I used the correct 12 word passphrase. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Sorry I'm not a dev, but did you click the link for the old counterparty wallet on the counterparty wallet page first?

Issue is resolved. 

[flayway]

I try to import the xcp from my old counterwallet to new counterwallet by private key.
It shows:

JSON-RPC Error:
Type: Server error

Code: -32000

Message: Insufficient bitcoins at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x. (Need approximately 0.0095914 BTC.)

Actually, there is 0.0095914 BTC at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x.

Thanks!

I get same error message and btc balance was same also than what that asking to have and JahPowerBit write me this:

"Seems you have a lot of outputs in this address and min fee not enough. We have a fix for this, but we are waiting some other fixes to push online. Sorry for this delay. I keep you inform."

[Spratan]

Guys, did you see the absolutely chaotic IPO on Mastercoin ??

Mastercoin adress for IPO was removed 2 hours after launch.
MSC holders were very eager to dump at the fixed price and Maidsafe don't want MSC anymore...

EVERYBODY have foreseen it and let it know it could be catastrophic for Maidsafe, but each time investors was attacked/insulted by Mastercoiners , saying Maidsafe agreed a fixed price and 0,02 was the real MSC value, so there will be no manipulation...

Price is already -40%...

Many Investors bought MSC just for the IPO and now are stucked...Disgusting and shameful.

I don't want to make more MSC bashing, but all of this was foreseen.

[halfcab123]

Just placed my first order on the DEX

[nakaone]

Guys, did you see the absolutely chaotic IPO on Mastercoin ??

Mastercoin adress for IPO was removed 2 hours after launch.
MSC holders were very eager to dump at the fixed price and Maidsafe don't want MSC anymore...

EVERYBODY have foreseen it and let it know it could be catastrophic for Maidsafe, but each time investors was attacked/insulted by Mastercoiners , saying Maidsafe agreed a fixed price and 0,02 was the real MSC value, so there will be no manipulation...

Price is already -40%...

Many Investors bought MSC just for the IPO and now are stucked...Disgusting and shameful.

I don't want to make more MSC bashing, but all of this was foreseen.

I also think it is wrong to blame them but it is unprofessional - we can learn a lot from that in special and in general for auctions/IPO:

this is the way to use TWO currencies to create a new one: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1631.0

[Spratan]

Guys, did you see the absolutely chaotic IPO on Mastercoin ??

Mastercoin adress for IPO was removed 2 hours after launch.
MSC holders were very eager to dump at the fixed price and Maidsafe don't want MSC anymore...

EVERYBODY have foreseen it and let it know it could be catastrophic for Maidsafe, but each time investors was attacked/insulted by Mastercoiners , saying Maidsafe agreed a fixed price and 0,02 was the real MSC value, so there will be no manipulation...

Price is already -40%...

Many Investors bought MSC just for the IPO and now are stucked...Disgusting and shameful.

I don't want to make more MSC bashing, but all of this was foreseen.

Problem is I didn't listen to myself just thought I had time to get in and out, over slept by a few hours and now my lifes destroyed just lost $50 of my $65 savings with a disabled ex to look after. Anyone got a suicide hotline number lol?

Wasn't you who sold 400 MSC @0,17 yesterday, just before this chaos ? :-)

[Chang Hum]

Guys, did you see the absolutely chaotic IPO on Mastercoin ??

Mastercoin adress for IPO was removed 2 hours after launch.
MSC holders were very eager to dump at the fixed price and Maidsafe don't want MSC anymore...

EVERYBODY have foreseen it and let it know it could be catastrophic for Maidsafe, but each time investors was attacked/insulted by Mastercoiners , saying Maidsafe agreed a fixed price and 0,02 was the real MSC value, so there will be no manipulation...

Price is already -40%...

Many Investors bought MSC just for the IPO and now are stucked...Disgusting and shameful.

I don't want to make more MSC bashing, but all of this was forese

Problem is I didn't listen to myself just thought I had time to get in and out, over slept by a few hours and now my lifes destroyed just lost $50 of my $65 savings with a disabled ex to look after. Anyone got a suicide hotline number lol?

Wasn't you who sold 400 MSC @0,17 yesterday, just before this chaos ? :-)

No it was me who had a sell order at 0.17 yesterday before the chaos, that didn't get filled until I was too tired to stay awake, in the end I foolishly considered that if I stayed all in Mastercoin, I could get 100% of their value (rather then take a 20% hit) and monitor the speed the IPO would take place, I completely underestimated how fast it would go. Therefore I could easily liquidate at full value the highly sort after Maidsafecoins.

[halfcab123]

I think this Bitcoin price analysis is very relevant for us:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/longterm-technical-analysis-bitcoin-price/2014/04/20

Really anyone in crypto, but especially us, considering we have this low price of xcp right now.. This XCP price is so cheap you guys... It's absolute insanity. Get all these cheap XCP!

[frozen123]

About ROCKMINER ASSET NAME:

Good NEWS  PROBLEM SOLVED.

Coingifts  donated his ROCKMINER ASSET NAME  to rockxie (ROCKMINER CEO)

and Chinese xcp commnity members decided to donate him more than 100+xcp(including rockxie's 50xcp)

but Coingifts said :"that is a donation,i  don't need any return."

Thanks Coingifts!

ROCKMINER Counterparty information(still considering):http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=ROCKMINER

[crypto era]

I have multiple addresses but it only shows this one and then gives me the error. This isn't urgent what so ever, but just making it known.

C:\Users\Administrator>counterpartyd wallet

C:\Users\Administrator>echo off

11RKHtri9pzsnV58x61H49GU4y87wBfMK
+-------+-----------+
| Asset |  Balance  |
+-------+-----------+
|  XCP  | 1240.5123 |
+-------+-----------+

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 835, i
n <module>
    get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable

C:\Users\Administrator>

[xnova]

I have multiple addresses but it only shows this one and then gives me the error. This isn't urgent what so ever, but just making it known.

C:\Users\Administrator>counterpartyd wallet

C:\Users\Administrator>echo off

11RKHtri9pzsnV58x61H49GU4y87wBfMK
+-------+-----------+
| Asset |  Balance  |
+-------+-----------+
|  XCP  | 1240.5123 |
+-------+-----------+

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 835, i
n <module>
    get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable

C:\Users\Administrator>

Looks like a bug. Can you make an issue ticket for that on https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd/issues?state=open