well, without knowing further it is an unethical business strategy by overstock.
No its not. Its called a "business decision." Still stings though.
There wasn't any unethical business strategy. Evan and Robby left voluntarily.
Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 121. (Read 1276936 times)
February 04, 2015, 11:03:21 PM
well, without knowing further it is an unethical business strategy by overstock.
No its not. Its called a "business decision." Still stings though.
There wasn't any unethical business strategy. Evan and Robby left voluntarily.
February 04, 2015, 09:22:47 PM
Some people trying to sell FLDC and LTBC made out like bandits today
February 04, 2015, 09:03:19 PM
well, without knowing further it is an unethical business strategy by overstock.
No its not. Its called a "business decision." Still stings though.
February 04, 2015, 07:25:04 PM
well, without knowing further it is an unethical business strategy by overstock.
anyway looking forward for the new projects (I assume build on top of counterparty
) by xnova and cityglut 
February 04, 2015, 04:40:38 PM
Doesn't the fact that OP_RETURN is prunable could have nasty effects on the mid/long term ?
i think this was covered a while back, it seem to be no issue
Nope, no nasty effects. It really is ideal that that Counterparty data be prunable (as our multisig-encoded data are now).
February 04, 2015, 02:02:55 PM
New community update is live with details about our forum migration, OP_RETURN, upcoming version release, cool new tools & more. Check it out at http://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-community-update-feb-4/
February 04, 2015, 08:02:48 AM
Doesn't the fact that OP_RETURN is prunable could have nasty effects on the mid/long term ?
i think this was covered a while back, it seem to be no issue
February 04, 2015, 06:37:04 AM
Doesn't the fact that OP_RETURN is prunable could have nasty effects on the mid/long term ?
i think this was covered a while back, it seem to be no issue
February 04, 2015, 03:38:59 AM
Doesn't the fact that OP_RETURN is prunable could have nasty effects on the mid/long term ?
February 04, 2015, 12:57:51 AM
That's a great news for both Bitcoin and counterparty.
February 03, 2015, 05:31:50 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2un6qg/80_bytes_op_return_merged_into_master/
is it still planned to use it?
is it still planned to use it?
see https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd/issues/690
Would this enable larger multisig sets like a 3-of-5?
February 03, 2015, 12:29:10 PM
February 03, 2015, 11:19:35 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2un6qg/80_bytes_op_return_merged_into_master/
is it still planned to use it?
is it still planned to use it?
February 03, 2015, 08:59:31 AM
Yes we had exactly the same issue. We had so many different issue that I am unsure now how we solved this one, I think that we just switched onto btcdrake bitcoind. We might also have used a bootstrap database afterwards.
We were blocked at block 280xxx
But we did not run the tests from bitcoin core tests, of that I am 100% sure.
It indeed seems like a recent issue that has been affecting a lot of people and its probably unrelated to counterparty, its unliky for us that it struct us several times when we were working with XCP. It might have been because we made a migration from ubuntu 12 to 14 and thus upgraded all our library, ending in the possible open SSL incompatibility
We were blocked at block 280xxx
But we did not run the tests from bitcoin core tests, of that I am 100% sure.
It indeed seems like a recent issue that has been affecting a lot of people and its probably unrelated to counterparty, its unliky for us that it struct us several times when we were working with XCP. It might have been because we made a migration from ubuntu 12 to 14 and thus upgraded all our library, ending in the possible open SSL incompatibility
I think this had to do with the 0.9.2 jmcorgan build. On a few instances I had similar issues with it hanging on block 28xxxx. It had something to do with the sequence of running, downloading the blocks, addrindex and reindex. And at times if I had to stop it half way and came back to run it again it would fail. The latest bitcore addrindex 0.10.x builds though appears to have solved those issues.
The issue appears to be Not counterparty related, but the addrindex bitcore builds failing to parse all of the blocks. What I have found though is as long as you have at least one good instance of block data already indexed, just copy that over. Works like a charm. And on a another note, with the additional load of address indexing I would recommend doing this with a SSD drive (at least for the initial run)
February 03, 2015, 07:00:47 AM
DarkEmi, you're awesome for being honest and apologizing like this. And as you said, in a decentralized Bitcoin platform we are fighting the system, not each other. 
February 03, 2015, 02:39:40 AM
Yes we had exactly the same issue. We had so many different issue that I am unsure now how we solved this one, I think that we just switched onto btcdrake bitcoind. We might also have used a bootstrap database afterwards.
We were blocked at block 280xxx
But we did not run the tests from bitcoin core tests, of that I am 100% sure.
It indeed seems like a recent issue that has been affecting a lot of people and its probably unrelated to counterparty, its unliky for us that it struct us several times when we were working with XCP. It might have been because we made a migration from ubuntu 12 to 14 and thus upgraded all our library, ending in the possible open SSL incompatibility
We were blocked at block 280xxx
But we did not run the tests from bitcoin core tests, of that I am 100% sure.
It indeed seems like a recent issue that has been affecting a lot of people and its probably unrelated to counterparty, its unliky for us that it struct us several times when we were working with XCP. It might have been because we made a migration from ubuntu 12 to 14 and thus upgraded all our library, ending in the possible open SSL incompatibility
February 02, 2015, 05:48:25 PM
... blog post.
Hi there,
you mentioned you run jmcorgan's address indexed branch (actually sipa's, but kept updated by jmc) on Ubuntu 14.04., and faced a problem of block processing. There was recently an OpenSSL incompatibility (details + more), which may have affected you. Just out of curiosity: did you run the Bitcoin Core tests with src/test/test_bitcoin by any chance? A few days ago a user reported an issue in this context over at mastercore and even though the issue was resolved successfully, the whole situation is still a bit opaque to me, and it would be interesting to hear, if you were affected by the same issue.
February 02, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
I was getting frustrated and my emotions got the best of me.
I am sorry about all the people I might have offended. I never meant to hurt anyone.
Adam, Sean, Ouziel, Robby have always been helpful, polite and responsive, while I often ranted in an immature way. This is best exemplified by my blog post.
We are all building the future of decentralized currencies, and we are all on the same team.
I deleted my rant
I am sorry about all the people I might have offended. I never meant to hurt anyone.
Adam, Sean, Ouziel, Robby have always been helpful, polite and responsive, while I often ranted in an immature way. This is best exemplified by my blog post.
We are all building the future of decentralized currencies, and we are all on the same team.
I deleted my rant
February 02, 2015, 08:21:22 AM
Jump to: