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

[nutildah]

Which Bitcoin Core client verison are you using? If you like, send me the raw transaction and I'll take a look.

I was actually trying to import the hex into Counterwallet, "sign transaction" but I'm not quite sure I know what I'm doing. I'll try it on bitcoin-qt a little later on. Thanks for the advice.

[dexX7]

I was actually trying to import the hex into Counterwallet, "sign transaction" but I'm not quite sure I know what I'm doing. I'll try it on bitcoin-qt a little later on. Thanks for the advice.

Aah I see. I'm not sure, if this is supported. For what it's worth: if you are using Electrum by any chance, then there is also an option to sign and broadcast transactions (UI console -> signrawtransaction("hex") -> sendrawtransaction("signedhex") --- if I recall correctly).

[xinweiwei]

  I have read it,nice article

[nutildah]

I was actually trying to import the hex into Counterwallet, "sign transaction" but I'm not quite sure I know what I'm doing. I'll try it on bitcoin-qt a little later on. Thanks for the advice.

Aah I see. I'm not sure, if this is supported. For what it's worth: if you are using Electrum by any chance, then there is also an option to sign and broadcast transactions (UI console -> signrawtransaction("hex") -> sendrawtransaction("signedhex") --- if I recall correctly).

Hi Again,

So I asked to signrawtransaction, pressed enter and got these 2 errors:

SyntaxError: invalid syntax

TypeError: signrawtransaction() takes exactly 4 arguments (2 given)

How do I generate the signed hex number? Thanks again this has been quite educational.

[JahPowerBit]

You talk about sweeping? Please send me more details by PM or email.

Sent you all the logs yesterday, still unfortunately doesn't work.

Just sent you a PM.

[peled1986]

@Devs any progress with Overstock?
(link - https://coinreport.net/little-altcoin-sanity-counterparty/)

[nutildah]

Shouldn't the trading fees be corrected so they are actually .0002 BTC per trade (as it says in Counterwallet) as opposed to .000356 BTC per trade?

This is going to seriously hinder Counterparty's widespread adoption if the the trading fees can't be fixed.

In my opinion its a problem that needs to be fixed before anything else.

[dexX7]

Hi Again,

So I asked to signrawtransaction, pressed enter and got these 2 errors:

SyntaxError: invalid syntax

TypeError: signrawtransaction() takes exactly 4 arguments (2 given)

How do I generate the signed hex number? Thanks again this has been quite educational.

Alright, I'm sorry for the misinformation.

Actually it looks like Electrum expected signrawrawtransaction("hex", ["privatekey"], "electrumpassword") (edit: this indicates that Electrum's signrawtransaction hsa a different behavior than Bitcoin Core and it doesn't expect a raw hex, but rather some transaction blueprint), but I was still not able to sign a transaction. I tried it with something standard, nothing special that involved multisig. :/

But: I missed the fact that you mentioned Bitcoin Qt. In the case you have a fully synced Bitcoin Core client available, it should be easy. Please follow this tutorial:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=573342.msg6336408#msg6336408

I really have to admit, this outlines the need for easier tools. For some time I wanted to make redeem.bitwatch.co more user friendly in general, but I also see the need for a simple "sign any transaction" tool with low overhead, so it's easy to audit. Unfortunally all this is not yet done.

Please let me know, if the Bitcoin-Qt route worked.

[nutildah]

Please let me know, if the Bitcoin-Qt route worked.

OK, thank you for the update and I will check it out, even though I managed to go this entire time without having to download bitcoin-qt on my computer.

The actual solution should be for Counterparty to fix their trading fees. They can't advertise the fee to be .0002 and then have it actually be .000356, even if they are not collecting the difference.

I like Counterparty, I understand this is all very new, complicated and prone to bugs, but there's a lot of work that still needs to be done before any of the devs should honestly expect regular people to be able to use their software platform.

In the meantime they should consider reducing the trading fees in order to incentivize users to continue working on an unreliable system. If they can't do this, surely they must see that people will flee to Mastercoin, NXT, Dogeparty or any of the dozens of clones with built-in AEs that offer more reliability and cheaper fees.

[PhantomPhreak]

Please let me know, if the Bitcoin-Qt route worked.

OK, thank you for the update and I will check it out, even though I managed to go this entire time without having to download bitcoin-qt on my computer.

The actual solution should be for Counterparty to fix their trading fees. They can't advertise the fee to be .0002 and then have it actually be .000356, even if they are not collecting the difference.

I like Counterparty, I understand this is all very new, complicated and prone to bugs, but there's a lot of work that still needs to be done before any of the devs should honestly expect regular people to be able to use their software platform.

In the meantime they should consider reducing the trading fees in order to incentivize users to continue working on an unreliable system. If they can't do this, surely they must see that people will flee to Mastercoin, NXT, Dogeparty or any of the dozens of clones with built-in AEs that offer more reliability and cheaper fees.

The fees are set by the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay a lower fee, and if you are willing to possibly wait a couple of blocks for your transactions to get confirmed, then you can do so with various command-line options in counterpartyd. The default fee has to be very generous, in any case, because it has to cover all possible use cases. Moreover, as soon as the majority of Bitoicn nodes switch over to Bitcoin Core 0.9.2, we'll be able to lower the default value by 10x.

[stereotype]

I like Counterparty, I understand this is all very new, complicated and prone to bugs, but there's a lot of work that still needs to be done before any of the devs should honestly expect regular people to be able to use their software platform.

Ditto

I described the platform to somebody in a PM, as  "... like a clever niche back-end corporate tool". Thats what it feels like to this non-codey type, and so, feels like it wasn't meant for my use.    

[nutildah]

The fees are set by the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay a lower fee, and if you are willing to possibly wait a couple of blocks for your transactions to get confirmed, then you can do so with various command-line options in counterpartyd. The default fee has to be very generous, in any case, because it has to cover all possible use cases. Moreover, as soon as the majority of Bitoicn nodes switch over to Bitcoin Core 0.9.2, we'll be able to lower the default value by 10x.

OK, I understand, but you need to update the fee that is listed on the trading screen from 0.0002 BTC to what it actually is, otherwise you're going to have people saying Counterparty is involved in "false advertising."

If I have to place orders in counterpartyd that negates the entire utility of Counterwallet.

[PhantomPhreak]

The fees are set by the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay a lower fee, and if you are willing to possibly wait a couple of blocks for your transactions to get confirmed, then you can do so with various command-line options in counterpartyd. The default fee has to be very generous, in any case, because it has to cover all possible use cases. Moreover, as soon as the majority of Bitoicn nodes switch over to Bitcoin Core 0.9.2, we'll be able to lower the default value by 10x.

OK, I understand, but you need to update the fee that is listed on the trading screen from 0.0002 BTC to what it actually is, otherwise you're going to have people saying Counterparty is involved in "false advertising."

If I have to place orders in counterpartyd that negates the entire utility of Counterwallet.

The fees are proportional to the size of the transactions in bytes, which depends on a lot of different variables and is hard to predict. It sounds like Counterwallet needs to improve its estimation techniques, however. Thanks for the heads up!

[JahPowerBit]

The fees are set by the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay a lower fee, and if you are willing to possibly wait a couple of blocks for your transactions to get confirmed, then you can do so with various command-line options in counterpartyd. The default fee has to be very generous, in any case, because it has to cover all possible use cases. Moreover, as soon as the majority of Bitoicn nodes switch over to Bitcoin Core 0.9.2, we'll be able to lower the default value by 10x.

OK, I understand, but you need to update the fee that is listed on the trading screen from 0.0002 BTC to what it actually is, otherwise you're going to have people saying Counterparty is involved in "false advertising."

If I have to place orders in counterpartyd that negates the entire utility of Counterwallet.

.000356 = .0002 + (2 * .000078) = FEE + (2 * MULTISIG_DUST)

the 2 dust values for multisig output can not be called "fee" and may be recovered. There is already an online tool to recover them (I did not find the url) and doubtless, in the future, a tool like this will be integrated in Counterwallet.

[baddw]

The fees are set by the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay a lower fee, and if you are willing to possibly wait a couple of blocks for your transactions to get confirmed, then you can do so with various command-line options in counterpartyd. The default fee has to be very generous, in any case, because it has to cover all possible use cases. Moreover, as soon as the majority of Bitoicn nodes switch over to Bitcoin Core 0.9.2, we'll be able to lower the default value by 10x.

OK, I understand, but you need to update the fee that is listed on the trading screen from 0.0002 BTC to what it actually is, otherwise you're going to have people saying Counterparty is involved in "false advertising."

If I have to place orders in counterpartyd that negates the entire utility of Counterwallet.

.000356 = .0002 + (2 * .000078) = FEE + (2 * MULTISIG_DUST)

the 2 dust values for multisig output can not be called "fee" and may be recovered. There is already an online tool to recover them (I did not find the url) and doubtless, in the future, a tool like this will be integrated in Counterwallet.

On a somewhat-related note, it appears that Counterparty/wallet does not use change addresses by default.  While I think this is a good decision (people are easily confused by change addresses, and it seems likely that heavy Counterparty users would want to consolidate their activity at a single address for accounting purposes) it would be nice to have the option to send change to a change address.

[nutildah]

.000356 = .0002 + (2 * .000078) = FEE + (2 * MULTISIG_DUST)

the 2 dust values for multisig output can not be called "fee" and may be recovered. There is already an online tool to recover them (I did not find the url) and doubtless, in the future, a tool like this will be integrated in Counterwallet.

Is this "multisig dust" component absolutely necessary?

I appreciate the explanation but if this information isn't transparent to average users they are going to think Counterparty is trying to rip them off.

Maybe you know better because you are very experienced with this software, but if your goal is mass adoption the process has to be more straightforward and less complicated with fewer extraneous variables.

[xnova]

I like Counterparty, I understand this is all very new, complicated and prone to bugs, but there's a lot of work that still needs to be done before any of the devs should honestly expect regular people to be able to use their software platform.

Ditto

I described the platform to somebody in a PM, as  "... like a clever niche back-end corporate tool". Thats what it feels like to this non-codey type, and so, feels like it wasn't meant for my use.    

Beyond the enhanced usability and features we're already working on (e.g. auto BTC escrow, built in vennding machine interface, general UI improvements to Counterwallet), we're all ears on other suggestions to make things more approachable for people. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can't expect this software to be perfect in 7 months either. But, we continue to work every day to improve it and address reports of bugs and usability concerns.

Counterparty is also an open platform. Most of the really neat usecases that appeal to "normal" types of people will be done by a company building on top of Counterparty (the core team can't do everything, and indeed, our focus is on the platform itself and Counterwallet). We already are working with several of these groups as they create enhanced products and UIs. We hope to continue to attract more, as well.

On top of this, we recently released our support site (support.counterparty.co) and we also have a new website under development, which will be much less intimidating we believe.

We will also be adding a developer here shortly (i.e. starting next week most likely) to work on a new Counterparty block explorer.

[nutildah]

Thank you for the update xnova and I am looking forward to the new implementations.

Even though I am critical at times I genuinely think Counterparty is one of the more exciting cryptocurrency experiments currently taking place, and the relatively stable price of XCP reflects that I am not alone in my beliefs.

My biggest concern (what I learned today) is the "MULTISIG_DUST" amount that gets added to every transaction on the exchange. I don't understand why this is necessary in addition to the fee of 0.0002 BTC. The trades I was doing (XCP for tokens) always had a fixed fee of 0.0002 + "(2 * MULTISIG_DUST)," regardless of the size of the order.

Even though the dust is recoverable as explained below this should be an automated process. If the user has to jump through some extra hoops to recover this BTC, its more like a rebate than a refund, and if they can't do that then the trade fee is effectively .000356 BTC.

Regardless this differentiation needs to be visible to the users of the trading platform, otherwise it will remain a confusing issue.

I'm not a software engineer by trade though I am becoming one a little bit more each day.

Thanks,

Nutildah the Hungry

[nutildah]

There is already an online tool to recover them (I did not find the url) and doubtless, in the future, a tool like this will be integrated in Counterwallet.

And thank you too, Eric Wareheim.

I enjoy your quality television programs.

[slavo]

hi there; first post on xcp thread but i'm quite enthousiast even if late 

I'd have a questions (for devs maybe ?)

is there a way to have several people managing one xcp wallet but where none can spend without everybody authorizing the tx ? multisigs or something ?

I want to start a project using xcp with escrow; so the wallet would be managed by me + escrow where we need each other approval to make any action with the wallet. Is it possible ?

thanks a lot and gl