The Official Mastercoin Foundation, Master Protocol & Mastercoin Thread

[vokain]

If there are only 5 positions and an equal number of candidates why bother with a tedious election process at all?  It seems like a waste of time and resources.

Seemingly so, because before I thought of the same point. But mulling it over with David J. before I made the post, he suggested that we keep the candidacy open for those who have missed registering, esp since Judith did tell David she had interest, so we keep it open just in case she and anyone else might be interested (feel free to PM me!). Also, procedurally and symbolically, I think it's important for us to hold an election and try out voting, regardless. It really doesn't take much time on my part to do so, and I have learned quite a bit in these first few days about blockchain based voting, so to me, it's worth it.

How many board seats are up for grabs?  

5, as per the blog post, albeit information I should've repeated.

Ok.  There are 5 seats available and (so far) only 5 candidates.  

Counting the votes will be interesting.

Ex.  if a person sends dust to all 5 candidates address.

Does this mean all 5 get an equal number of votes from the persons Omnis?

I suppose in the case dust votes come from one address to multiple candidates, the most logical option to me is that we split the votes evenly amongst the candidates voted for.

[mishax1]

mishax, I'm looking into the priority stuff now and it looks like some of the more recent transactions are being broadcast with smaller miner fees. Are you seeing this on transaction you are broadcasting or is this just a general observation ?

Doesn't seem like a small transaction fee (0.00011 BTC , 0.00011923 BTC , 0.00012746 BTC).
Those are my "send msc" transactions.

*I just tested it again and everything seem to be back to normal.

Just made a maidsafe transaction from poloniex and I see that its Medium Priority (Within 6 Blocks) while the fee is 0.0001.  

[ldrgn]

You will have to exclude 1MaStErt4XsYHPwfrN9TpgdURLhHTdMenH from voting, since they hold ~25K of users' coins, and so are other exchanges like BTER and Poloniex.

Agreed Mish, services and exchanges are not allowed to vote with others' omnis. Good catch.


How might we enforce this? The community can audit the votes and we can rely on the honor system so much, but can we think of a way to programmatically ensure that such votes are not counted?

Edit: I suppose agoristically, one way the whole community could work against this is to remove their omnis from a centralized exchange or service to counter this. Not very practical, but voluntaristic. I also think such an action by a service would be self-defeating in terms of reputation so that's another counter. Additionally, we have good relationships with the exchanges so I don't think an operator would feel too inclined to do such a thing with their customers' funds against our will.

Bitcoin/Mastercoin transactions don't have a "from" address and problems like the above come from that.  If you try and dance around it you encourage address reuse (or worse!) which is a bad practice and has some security/anonymity problems.

You've got 5 candidates and 5 board seats, just call the election and sidestep this stuff.  The blockchain really doesn't work for voting.

[dexX7]

Bitcoin/Mastercoin transactions don't have a "from" address and problems like the above come from that.  If you try and dance around it you encourage address reuse (or worse!) which is a bad practice and has some security/anonymity problems.

I'm not thrilled by the address reuse, but in the context of Mastercoin this is only half of the truth. In fact, "identify" is indeed bound to pubkey- and script-hashes instead of transaction outputs, in contrast to the (pure) colored coins model for example.

Just made a maidsafe transaction from poloniex and I see that its Medium Priority (Within 6 Blocks) while the fee is 0.0001.  

I figured the issue: it's likely blockchain.info's "priority" indicator. The underlying reason are the low output values of 0.00000546-0.00000883 BTC. According to the last larger data sample (10k+ transactions) I collected about 3-5 months ago, the average confirmation time was far less than 18 minutes, and basically all data indicated there is no gain in using higher-than-dust-threshold values. I'd be very interested in learning about the contrary though. Did you have the impression those transactions are significantly delayed?

[mishax1]

Not significantly but "within 6 blocks" could actually take an hour, which is not always convenient especially when it's a trade on the dex.

[dexX7]

Not significantly but "within 6 blocks" could actually take an hour, which is not always convenient especially when it's a trade on the dex.

The point I was trying to make: blockchain.info's indicator is not necessarily accurate. I have no idea what software and policy they are using, but it surely is not Bitcoin Core with default settings. A good example: according to blockchain.info the OP code "OP_RETURN" is non-standard, which the majority of the network disagrees with for quite some time:



For what it's worth: those values are not static and an integrator or end user can choose the settings according to needs and personal preference via the parameters "minrelayfee" and "mintxfee"/"paytxfee". As per default Omni Core uses 0.0001 BTC/KB with output values of 0.00000546-0.00000882 BTC. If I'm not mistaken, then Omni Wallet still uses higher values, whereby the end goal is certainly to allow user defined settings as well.

Edit: some more background information: the screen capture shows a transaction I made from the faucet and new users receive two rewards: one with Mastercoin and one with Test Mastercoin. The later has an OP-RETURN output attached to monitor network adoption and eventually delays. I do similar experiments from time to time and after my second pitch those low values were adopted as new standard setting last year in September.

[mishax1]

Today, all my transactions from Poloniex were "Medium Priority",

while the transactions from my omniwallet were "high priority".     

[hmmmstrange]

Why has factom dropped onmi for issuing their tokens?

edit: found the answer
"Kirby spoke about the challenge Factom faced when seeking to orchestrate the sale, voicing his optimism that the project would avoid the pitfalls of those held in the past on platforms such as Mastercoin."

[ejinte]

Why has factom dropped onmi for issuing their tokens?

edit: found the answer
"Kirby spoke about the challenge Factom faced when seeking to orchestrate the sale, voicing his optimism that the project would avoid the pitfalls of those held in the past on platforms such as Mastercoin."

And Judith who've been pumping this so hard  


By the way don't you think it's funny that in the beginning dacoinmaster used to be online everyday to answe questions and now he didn't even go online for over a month. I guess he's comfortable with his million and a half.

[hmmmstrange]

What i think is funny is JR pumping the price to $4 to get a $250k tax write off.

[ejinte]

What i think is funny is JR pumping the price to $4 to get a $250k tax write off.

He's bloody smart

[udecker]

Why has factom dropped onmi for issuing their tokens?

edit: found the answer
"Kirby spoke about the challenge Factom faced when seeking to orchestrate the sale, voicing his optimism that the project would avoid the pitfalls of those held in the past on platforms such as Mastercoin."

I was a part of the conversations about how to conduct the crowdsale, and the orginal intention was to issue Factoid proxy tokens on both Omni and Counterparty. 

However, there was substantial concern about having two non-fungible tokens causing user confusion (imagine if someone purchased an Omni Factoid on an exchange and tried to withdraw it to their Counter Wallet, or vice-versa…. eek! Think of the users!). 

The solution was to go the Ethereum-style route (and actually use the Ethereum crowdsale code) to generate new wallets of factoids that would work on the Factom network directly.  No proxy token.  Everyone was in favor of this option.

The Omni and Factom teams are working together on the "address anchoring" method that Factom will use to record hashes on the Bitcoin blockchain, which will become part of the Omni Layer spec.

Craig

[littleblue]

in fact:  msc=dead.game over ,go home .

[mishax1]

The Omni and Factom teams are working together on the "address anchoring" method that Factom will use to record hashes on the Bitcoin blockchain, which will become part of the Omni Layer spec.

Craig

“Originally we were going to release a proxy token, but we’re going to be issuing our own token on the Koinify platform that runs on Factom. It’s no longer an Omni project or a Counterparty project, it really does live on its own,” Kirby said.

[zyfreetip]

So much problem here.Where is Djaston(the CEO)? Where is the PR?

[ejinte]

So much problem here.Where is Djaston(the CEO)? Where is the PR?

Not here, not on reddit, not on mastercointalk, not on facebook. No where to be found actually.

Dear omnis.

[littleblue]

So much problem here.Where is Djaston(the CEO)? Where is the PR?

Not here, not on reddit, not on mastercointalk, not on facebook. No where to be found actually.

Dear omnis.

YES!

[Cablez]

However, there was substantial concern about having two non-fungible tokens causing user confusion (imagine if someone purchased an Omni Factoid on an exchange and tried to withdraw it to their Counter Wallet, or vice-versa…. eek! Think of the users!). 

The solution was to go the Ethereum-style route (and actually use the Ethereum crowdsale code) to generate new wallets of factoids that would work on the Factom network directly.  No proxy token.  Everyone was in favor of this option.

These statements right here do not bode well for omni/counterparty etc.

Why would any project need a secondary token for funding anymore?  I hope you guys are good at pivoting.   

[zyfreetip]

They just scamed you ,got some free token and dump.Why are you so easy be cheated?

[mishax1]

JR dumped his MSC at such an early stage when they cost X20 more, the least he can do it to support the price from being turned to zero, but what can you expect from a guy that spends so much money on "development" and a "background" work..