[BlockScan] Counterparty (XCP) Block Explorer

[mtbitcoin]

FYI Web of Trust is reporting this site as Blockscan as having malware on it...

Hi

Are there any explanations or specific pages for the report. I am unable to see nor detect any of the reported malware on the site

cheers

I've taken another looks at this and I am pretty certain that this is false positive due to the .js code inserted by cloudflare (reverse proxy)

cheers

[1714808184]

1714808184

[1714808184]

1714808184

[1714808184]

1714808184

[1714808184]

1714808184

[Alias]

Hi there mtbitcoin.

First of all, Blockscan is great! It was a wonderful resource during the burn-in period and surely will continue to be of great use as the project develops further. One important utility during the price discovery phase of a cryptocurrency is data about the completed trades and the total market capitalisation. If you could have a URL of the last trade price in XCP/BTC on the decentralised exchange then that would be sufficient along with the total number of XCP (2,648,755.9218) to get Counterparty listed on coinmarketcap.com. You could obviously implement your own data visualization and analysis on Blockscan too.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,
Al

[mtbitcoin]

Hi there mtbitcoin.

First of all, Blockscan is great! It was a wonderful resource during the burn-in period and surely will continue to be of great use as the project develops further. One important utility during the price discovery phase of a cryptocurrency is data about the completed trades and the total market capitalisation. If you could have a URL of the last trade price in XCP/BTC on the decentralised exchange then that would be sufficient along with the total number of XCP (2,648,755.9218) to get Counterparty listed on coinmarketcap.com. You could obviously implement your own data visualization and analysis on Blockscan too.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,
Brian

Good suggestions!

I will look into those.. I was just thinking about what to replace the main page with now that the burn period is over

[kdrop22]

Great tool...

[520Bit]

Using counterpartyd_build with command counterpartyd asset MPSTOCK, fetch the result:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd asset MPTSTOCK

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0
Divisible: True
Issuer: 1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA

While I checkd the asset MPSTOCKF in counterpartyd_build, it shows:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 613, in <module>
    total = util.devise(db, total, args.asset, 'output')
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 318, in devise
    if not issuances: raise exceptions.AssetError('No such asset: {}'.format(asset))
lib.exceptions.AssetError: No such asset: [color=red]MPTSTOCKF[/color]

But when I check above information in blockscan.com, which shows:

Code:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF

Disclaimer: Blockscan is not resposible for the accuracy of the content listed here.

Overview
Dividends
Updates
Contacts
  Asset_ID:	  2632494122289
  Issuer:	  1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:	  2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:	  2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:	  91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:	  [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000
  Divisible:	  True
  Transfer:	  False
  Remark:	  Valid

The difference between counterpartyd_build and blockscan.com:

counterpartyd_build:

Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0

blockscan.com:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000

My question is , which one is correct? I have marked the difference in red.

I also posted this at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.2440

[PhantomPhreak]

Using counterpartyd_build with command counterpartyd asset MPSTOCK, fetch the result:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd asset MPTSTOCK

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0
Divisible: True
Issuer: 1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA

While I checkd the asset MPSTOCKF in counterpartyd_build, it shows:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 613, in <module>
    total = util.devise(db, total, args.asset, 'output')
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 318, in devise
    if not issuances: raise exceptions.AssetError('No such asset: {}'.format(asset))
lib.exceptions.AssetError: No such asset: [color=red]MPTSTOCKF[/color]

But when I check above information in blockscan.com, which shows:

Code:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF

Disclaimer: Blockscan is not resposible for the accuracy of the content listed here.

Overview
Dividends
Updates
Contacts
  Asset_ID:	  2632494122289
  Issuer:	  1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:	  2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:	  2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:	  91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:	  [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000
  Divisible:	  True
  Transfer:	  False
  Remark:	  Valid

The difference between counterpartyd_build and blockscan.com:

counterpartyd_build:

Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0

blockscan.com:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000

My question is , which one is correct? I have marked the difference in red.

I also posted this at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.2440

Unless I'm missing something, counterpartyd is correct.

[PhantomPhreak]

Using counterpartyd_build with command counterpartyd asset MPSTOCK, fetch the result:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd asset MPTSTOCK

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0
Divisible: True
Issuer: 1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA

While I checkd the asset MPSTOCKF in counterpartyd_build, it shows:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 613, in <module>
    total = util.devise(db, total, args.asset, 'output')
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 318, in devise
    if not issuances: raise exceptions.AssetError('No such asset: {}'.format(asset))
lib.exceptions.AssetError: No such asset: [color=red]MPTSTOCKF[/color]

But when I check above information in blockscan.com, which shows:

Code:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF

Disclaimer: Blockscan is not resposible for the accuracy of the content listed here.

Overview
Dividends
Updates
Contacts
  Asset_ID:	  2632494122289
  Issuer:	  1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:	  2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:	  2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:	  91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:	  [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000
  Divisible:	  True
  Transfer:	  False
  Remark:	  Valid

The difference between counterpartyd_build and blockscan.com:

counterpartyd_build:

Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0

blockscan.com:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000

My question is , which one is correct? I have marked the difference in red.

I also posted this at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.2440

Unless I'm missing something, counterpartyd is correct.

Actually, this is the correct:

Code:

$ counterpartyd.py asset MPTSTOCKF
Asset Name: MPTSTOCKF
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 100.0
Divisible: True

The first issuance missed the 5 XCP fee.

[520Bit]

Using counterpartyd_build with command counterpartyd asset MPSTOCK, fetch the result:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd asset MPTSTOCK

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0
Divisible: True
Issuer: 1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA

While I checkd the asset MPSTOCKF in counterpartyd_build, it shows:

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 613, in <module>
    total = util.devise(db, total, args.asset, 'output')
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 318, in devise
    if not issuances: raise exceptions.AssetError('No such asset: {}'.format(asset))
lib.exceptions.AssetError: No such asset: [color=red]MPTSTOCKF[/color]

But when I check above information in blockscan.com, which shows:

Code:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF

Disclaimer: Blockscan is not resposible for the accuracy of the content listed here.

Overview
Dividends
Updates
Contacts
  Asset_ID:	  2632494122289
  Issuer:	  1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:	  2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:	  2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:	  91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:	  [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000
  Divisible:	  True
  Transfer:	  False
  Remark:	  Valid

The difference between counterpartyd_build and blockscan.com:

counterpartyd_build:

Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0

blockscan.com:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000

My question is , which one is correct? I have marked the difference in red.

I also posted this at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.2440

Unless I'm missing something, counterpartyd is correct.

Actually, this is the correct:

Code:

$ counterpartyd.py asset MPTSTOCKF
Asset Name: MPTSTOCKF
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 100.0
Divisible: True

The first issuance missed the 5 XCP fee.

Why an error happened when I check the asset MPTSTOCKF?

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd asset MPTSTOCKF

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 613, in <module>
    total = util.devise(db, total, args.asset, 'output')
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 318, in devise
    if not issuances: raise exceptions.AssetError('No such asset: {}'.format(asset))
lib.exceptions.AssetError: No such asset: MPTSTOCKF

[jimhsu]

I see that you've implemented the order book -- props for an absolutely essential feature.

Can you sort the Sell orders in ascending order though (cheapest sell on top)? Optionally also put last trade/volume info on top.

A chart would also be nice, but I don't think we have enough volume yet.

[romerun]

It looks quite confusing, order book should group orders with the same price in 1 line, then user may be able to click to see all orders at that price, the remain column is not necessary, just show the sum of available at each price on the top level, simply put making it looks like normal order book

[gacrux]

I've found another (major) difference between blockscan.com and counterpartyd:

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx

Initially blockscan.com was showing a successful trade and a balance of 29 XCP in the above account.

Now it shows that the initial order TIMED OUT, and a balance of 0 XCP :-(

However:

~$ counterpartyd address 1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx
 Balances
 +-------+--------+
 | Asset | Amount |
 +-------+--------+
 |  BTC  |  ??    |
 |  XCP  |  29.0  |
 +-------+--------+
 
My local counterpartyd still believes I have 29 XCP.

(cross-posted at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,2.0.html )

[mtbitcoin]

I've found another (major) difference between blockscan.com and counterpartyd:

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx

Initially blockscan.com was showing a successful trade and a balance of 29 XCP in the above account.

Now it shows that the initial order TIMED OUT, and a balance of 0 XCP :-(

However:

~$ counterpartyd address 1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx
 Balances
 +-------+--------+
 | Asset | Amount |
 +-------+--------+
 |  BTC  |  ??    |
 |  XCP  |  29.0  |
 +-------+--------+
 
My local counterpartyd still believes I have 29 XCP.

(cross-posted at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,2.0.html )

I am running the develop branch I am getting the following which matches with blockscan is showing

Balances
+-------+----------+
| Asset |  Amount  |
+-------+----------+
|  BTC  | 0.004257 |
+-------+----------+

[mtbitcoin]

Overview
Dividends
Updates
Contacts
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000
  Divisible:     True
  Transfer:     False
  Remark:     Valid

The difference between counterpartyd_build and blockscan.com:

counterpartyd_build:

Asset Name: MPTSTOCK
Asset ID: 101249773934
Total Issued: 200.0

blockscan.com:

Asset Info  MPTSTOCKF
  Asset_ID:     2632494122289
  Issuer:     1FCkCQCnEtHQ3j7NqdkAnkqQUvqfti4XoA
  Time Stamp:     2/1/2014 10:45:57 PM
  Transaction:     2843 recorded at Block #283652
  Tx Hash:     91aed459a4cb1bbd500e1ffea62e84a0c8988971d251d307f7485d6cd57d79a8
  Total Amount Issued:     [Issue No.1 at Block#283652] 10000000000

My question is , which one is correct? I have marked the difference in red.

I also posted this at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.2440

The AssetID is a bit confusing. Previous builds did not include the CHECKSUM character and the AssetID was calculated based on this..

But when the CheckSum character was added to the later releases the  MPTSTOCK-became->MPTSTOCKF. And this (MPTSTOCKF) is what its officially referred to in this counterparty client when doing a "asset" command. However, the ASSETID is still calculated based on "MPTSTOCK" and not "MPTSTOCKF

I understand that the code is still alpha and changes like these are to be expected for the betterment of the protocol. However, I don't really have a way to know what gets broken on blockscan whenever these changes take place...

I believe I have already corrected this issue and asset page on blockscan should match what you see in the counterparty client. If I have missed out anything please let me know

I am going to take a step back from the making changes at blockscan and most likely wait till the changes stabilize a bit before trying to fix stuff after this

cheers

[mtbitcoin]

It looks quite confusing, order book should group orders with the same price in 1 line, then user may be able to click to see all orders at that price, the remain column is not necessary, just show the sum of available at each price on the top level, simply put making it looks like normal order book

I've removed the original order volume and just have the actual remaining amount listed. I had it there earlier for "troubleshooting" just in case to catch any errors.

However, I am not too sure on what do you mean by grouping the price in the same line?? most exchanges (i.e like btc-e) have these listed on separate lines. This also gives you a feel of your place in the queue because the orders are on a separate lines. I think at this point a lot of people are also using the page to confirm if their order has actually gone through and breaking down the transactions allow this (vs grouping) them up

cheers

[mtbitcoin]

Can you sort the Sell orders in ascending order though (cheapest sell on top)?

Good catch. I've resorted it. does this look right now? http://blockscan.com/order_book.aspx

Cheers

[gacrux]

I've found another (major) difference between blockscan.com and counterpartyd:

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx

Initially blockscan.com was showing a successful trade and a balance of 29 XCP in the above account.

Now it shows that the initial order TIMED OUT, and a balance of 0 XCP :-(

However:

~$ counterpartyd address 1JUXwDjh21yLkUhKNdggenexZK8XpeXTRx
 Balances
 +-------+--------+
 | Asset | Amount |
 +-------+--------+
 |  BTC  |  ??    |
 |  XCP  |  29.0  |
 +-------+--------+
 
My local counterpartyd still believes I have 29 XCP.

(cross-posted at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,2.0.html )

I am running the develop branch I am getting the following which matches with blockscan is showing

Balances
+-------+----------+
| Asset |  Amount  |
+-------+----------+
|  BTC  | 0.004257 |
+-------+----------+

Yikes. That's not good!

Fundamentally, we don't want different versions of the client displaying different versions of the truth. This is essentially a consensus bug in the XCP protocol.

I'm running master, but I cloned yesterday. Just did a git pull and I see a handful of new commits... I wonder if one of those will change the way my counterpartyd behaves. Will have to wait for a chain rescan to find out.

This still doesn't explain why blockscan.com initially displayed the order as good (matched) and then, within the next few blocks, showed it as paid (and the 29 XCP in my account.) And now displays something else.

This is a bit of a bummer, because I initially tried purchasing 5 XCP as a test:
http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1CJTDpHBvcQw4e7FCKzkT9j62PuXegWdYN

And when I saw the order completed and the 5 XCP in 1CJTDpHBvcQw4e7FCKzkT9j62PuXegWdYN, on blockscan.com, it gave me the confidence to buy another 8 XCP (for a total of 13 in 1CJTDpHBvcQw4e7FCKzkT9j62PuXegWdYN) and then the other 29. I see that the balance of 13 XCP in 1CJTDpHBvcQw4e7FCKzkT9j62PuXegWdYN has also suffered the same fate :-(

I attempted to transfer the 13 XCP to:
http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=1JDPNyMWKoQzq4sBhCwMdEiWeT2KWcHD21
and counterpartyd (cloned from master one day ago) showed the transfer to be successful - 13 XCP in 1JDPNyMWKoQzq4sBhCwMdEiWeT2KWcHD21, zero in 1CJTDpHBvcQw4e7FCKzkT9j62PuXegWdYN. But, again, blockscan.com shows 1JDPNyMWKoQzq4sBhCwMdEiWeT2KWcHD21 with a zero balance

Am I up the creek without a paddle here?

[mtbitcoin]

Hi

I think it's best you bring this up in the main forums. What I can and will do is to try to ensure that the information displayed both in blockscan and counterparty is the same

Also take note that there are a lot of changed taking place during the early stages

[mtbitcoin]

Add a basic shareholders list (tab) based on address balances for a specific asset type under the individual asset type info

http://blockscan.com/asset.aspx

[Alias]

Sorry to bring this up again, but if you could add the "Last DEX Matched Price" which you are already displaying on the home page to your JSON API list -  http://blockscan.com/api.aspx - then we could get Counpterparty listed on coinmarketcap.com which would greatly increase it's exposure to the wider cryptocurrency community.

Please consider this.

Al

[Wit22]

Sorry to bring this up again, but if you could add the "Last DEX Matched Price" which you are already displaying on the home page to your JSON API list -  http://blockscan.com/api.aspx - then we could get Counpterparty listed on coinmarketcap.com which would greatly increase it's exposure to the wider cryptocurrency community.

Please consider this.

Al

+1