xibeijan
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
|
 |
May 02, 2014, 09:23:49 AM |
|
Why does XCP suck so hard?
/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 835, in <module>
get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable
I've obviously used counterpartyd_build which completely hijacks my Ubuntu box in order to build and install what should otherwise be a simple one package install. Booooo
Do you still "Recommend XCP (based on innovation)"?  I said "innovation" not "implementation" Believe in the core idea, but seems poorly implemented. Touché! XCP needs more work! Come on devs! XCP needs to get easy to install and run. Stability with a one click Windows install with fantastic GUI should be the goal. |
|
|
|
JahPowerBit
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 335
Merit: 255
Counterparty Developer
|
|
May 02, 2014, 09:42:52 AM |
|
XCP needs more work! Come on devs! XCP needs to get easy to install and run. Stability with a one click Windows install with fantastic GUI should be the goal.
This is exactly our goal! And we have a good foundation to get there. Counterwallet can be used as soon as desktop.. The priority for now is to implement the missing Counterparty features in Counterwallet, we can then focus on the "packaging" and installation. |
|
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
May 02, 2014, 02:12:17 PM |
|
Why does XCP suck so hard?
/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 835, in <module>
get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable
I've obviously used counterpartyd_build which completely hijacks my Ubuntu box in order to build and install what should otherwise be a simple one package install. Booooo
Do you still "Recommend XCP (based on innovation)"? I said "innovation" not "implementation" Believe in the core idea, but seems poorly implemented. Touché! XCP needs more work! Come on devs! XCP needs to get easy to install and run. Stability with a one click Windows install with fantastic GUI should be the goal. I'm pretty sure that this bug was fixed. What command did you run that gave you that error, and what version of counterpartyd are you running? |
|
|
|
|
Janitor
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
May 02, 2014, 02:21:33 PM |
|
Why does XCP suck so hard?
/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 835, in <module>
get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable
I've obviously used counterpartyd_build which completely hijacks my Ubuntu box in order to build and install what should otherwise be a simple one package install. Booooo
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
May 02, 2014, 02:45:19 PM |
|
Why does XCP suck so hard?
/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 835, in <module>
get_address = get_address(db, address=address)
TypeError: 'dict' object is not callable
I've obviously used counterpartyd_build which completely hijacks my Ubuntu box in order to build and install what should otherwise be a simple one package install. Booooo
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlhaha very good! |
|
|
|
|
TheMightyX
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Vires in Numeris
|
|
May 02, 2014, 04:03:06 PM |
|
XCP needs more work! Come on devs! XCP needs to get easy to install and run. Stability with a one click Windows install with fantastic GUI should be the goal.
This is exactly our goal! And we have a good foundation to get there. Counterwallet can be used as soon as desktop.. The priority for now is to implement the missing Counterparty features in Counterwallet, we can then focus on the "packaging" and installation. JahPowerBit is the man! I know it's tough being patient but lets remember PhantomPhreak, Xnova and JahPowerBit are all VOLUNTEERS. We can't expect something for nothing, but we can be thankful when we get it. |
|
|
|
|
xnova
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 390
Merit: 254
Counterparty Developer
|
|
May 02, 2014, 04:15:10 PM
Last edit: May 02, 2014, 06:18:59 PM by xnova |
|
Counterwallet.co going down for about an hour for a necessary systems update. Thanks for your patience. After beta ends, we shouldn't have largish service disruptions to the site like this (and, as JahPowerBit said, he are moving to more of a decentralized model based on Counterwallet becoming a locally installed Chrome app, or something similar). EDIT: Server is back up. The market view was added to the View Prices page (this should become more useful once we have more trade volume). EDIT2: Part of this update was the renaming of counterwalletd to counterblockd. I just restored the existing preferences and rebuilt...so your address names, etc. should properly show now. If you are not seeing funds/addresses that you had, email us at dev@counterparty.co (don't worry, you should still have the addresses and private keys, as it's a deterministic wallet, it's just a matter of getting them to show up). |
|
|
|
TheMightyX
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Vires in Numeris
|
|
May 02, 2014, 06:02:00 PM |
|
I ran some numbers today on trading volume for XCP (excluding the DEX). I excluded the first few days of Poloniex (anything before the white hat) and got the following results. I used cryptocoincharts as my data source.
- Poloniex (USD): 175,399.60067
- Bter (USD): 166,197.287
- Bter (CNY): 59,930.5637
TOTAL: 401,527.45137
So since inception we have turned over ~ 15% of all XCP.
Thats a much more positive view than the current price would lead you to. What this means is the majority of holders believe in the medium to long term value of this protocol. That or its still just too damn difficult to sell your coins. |
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Y
|
|
May 02, 2014, 07:05:09 PM |
|
Very interesting, thanks.
|
|
|
|
td services
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
black swan hunter
|
|
May 03, 2014, 03:22:35 AM |
|
2. The need to have BTC dust in order to send XCP:
Again, I understand why this is required but it does impact usability, since you first need to send dust to the address before doing anything. This is just a suggestion and it would obviously need to be funded somehow, but is there some way of automatically sending dust to an address whenever it is needed? Perhaps if funds from the “fee required” were sent to a dev-controlled address as discussed above they could then be reallocated towards proving dust to addresses whenever it’s needed. Just throwing the idea out there so feel free to comment or criticize. I think it is only 0.0001086 BTC that’s required, so you could fund 100K transactions with less than 11 BTC. Seems like a decent price to me for enhanced usability and I would be happy to donate to something like that.
Sounds like we need a dustbin to pull dust from as needed. |
|
|
|
|
JahPowerBit
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 335
Merit: 255
Counterparty Developer
|
|
May 03, 2014, 07:47:11 PM |
|
2. The need to have BTC dust in order to send XCP:
Again, I understand why this is required but it does impact usability, since you first need to send dust to the address before doing anything. This is just a suggestion and it would obviously need to be funded somehow, but is there some way of automatically sending dust to an address whenever it is needed? Perhaps if funds from the “fee required” were sent to a dev-controlled address as discussed above they could then be reallocated towards proving dust to addresses whenever it’s needed. Just throwing the idea out there so feel free to comment or criticize. I think it is only 0.0001086 BTC that’s required, so you could fund 100K transactions with less than 11 BTC. Seems like a decent price to me for enhanced usability and I would be happy to donate to something like that.
IMHO, It's the job of the wallet. It's sufficient to have a single address with a bit of BTC in the wallet. This can be a nice feature to add to the Counterwallet. |
|
|
|
|
nxt123.cn
Member
Offline
Activity: 86
Merit: 10
|
|
May 04, 2014, 04:26:42 AM |
|
so,where's this wiki page  |
|
|
|
|
Anotheranonlol
|
|
May 04, 2014, 06:02:36 AM |
|
2. The need to have BTC dust in order to send XCP:
Again, I understand why this is required but it does impact usability, since you first need to send dust to the address before doing anything. This is just a suggestion and it would obviously need to be funded somehow, but is there some way of automatically sending dust to an address whenever it is needed? Perhaps if funds from the “fee required” were sent to a dev-controlled address as discussed above they could then be reallocated towards proving dust to addresses whenever it’s needed. Just throwing the idea out there so feel free to comment or criticize. I think it is only 0.0001086 BTC that’s required, so you could fund 100K transactions with less than 11 BTC. Seems like a decent price to me for enhanced usability and I would be happy to donate to something like that.
IMHO, It's the job of the wallet. It's sufficient to have a single address with a bit of BTC in the wallet. This can be a nice feature to add to the Counterwallet. I thought this was already implemented, pretty damn smoothly too from what i experienced. When I went to sweet privkeys from burn, I could simply paste a privkey of a wallet containing enough BTC dust, without having to send that BTC first to the wallet that contained XCP so,where's this wiki page |
|
|
|
|
Anotheranonlol
|
|
May 04, 2014, 10:30:25 AM |
|
 Prime opportunity for CounterParty |
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
May 04, 2014, 10:50:18 AM |
|
I think all XCP's should be re-burnt and replaced with a shared ownership of some of kind of fee structure within the system (then dividends can be paid to shareholders). XCP's are a pretty pointless design element of the system (unless someone can explain otherwise) and there doesn't seem to be any element in the system to provide financial incentives in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
porqupine
|
|
May 04, 2014, 01:51:51 PM |
|
I think all XCP's should be re-burnt and replaced with a shared ownership of some of kind of fee structure within the system (then dividends can be paid to shareholders). XCP's are a pretty pointless design element of the system (unless someone can explain otherwise) and there doesn't seem to be any element in the system to provide financial incentives in any way.
Edit: Thanks Bellebite. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
May 04, 2014, 01:53:22 PM |
|
I think all XCP's should be re-burnt and replaced with a shared ownership of some of kind of fee structure within the system (then dividends can be paid to shareholders). XCP's are a pretty pointless design element of the system (unless someone can explain otherwise) and there doesn't seem to be any element in the system to provide financial incentives in any way.
Thanks Halfcab.  |
|
|
|
|
|
porqupine
|
|
May 04, 2014, 01:56:27 PM |
|
Ohhh. Sorry I didn't realize you were using a sock-puppet, let me edit that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chang Hum
|
|
May 04, 2014, 01:57:39 PM |
|
Ohhh. Sorry I didn't realize you were using a sock-puppet, let me edit that.
hahaha sorry remember now! |
|
|
|
|
xnova
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 390
Merit: 254
Counterparty Developer
|
|
May 04, 2014, 02:26:40 PM |
|
Hey guys, counterwallet testnet went down due to a minor bug we've fixed (counterpartyd has a protection system that notices if things don't match up and errors out). It's been fixed and it's coming back up, but testnet is getting like 3-5 blocks a minute now, so it will take awhile to catch up... (seems like someone is throwing a bunch of hashpower at it!)
Also, old.counterwallet.co is going to be taken down on the 8th or 9th. If you still use that for whatever reason, please move your stuff off to counterwallet.co. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
