Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 296. (Read 1276817 times)

Issue is resolved. 

I try to import the xcp from my old counterwallet to new counterwallet by private key.
It shows:

JSON-RPC Error:
Type: Server error

Code: -32000

Message: Insufficient bitcoins at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x. (Need approximately 0.0095914 BTC.)

Actually, there is 0.0095914 BTC at address 1ErxVWDdChKrSpc6Suu4Bied6vBAXpqi7x.

Thanks!

Sorry I'm not a dev, but did you click the link for the old counterparty wallet on the counterparty wallet page first?

I've just had a play with the asset feature and wanted to give some feedback.

To deal with a scenario like todays launch of Maidsafecoin on Mastercoin, it would good if there were some tools to help with distribution of assets.

I'd assume most entities that have reason to issue assets/tokens would want the funds raised in Bitcoin. last years Mastercoin fundraiser is the perfect example of this. As most people within this forum will know a vanity address beginning with the word exodus received Bitcoins and returned Mastercoins  based on the amount received and an algorithm to calculate an early investor bonus.

Some handy tools might consist of:

-A way of exporting data from a blockchain explorer (times,amounts,address) into a format that could be imported and understood by counterwallet.
-An automated issuance function, with controls to set rules such as an algorithm for early adopter bonus, assets to be sent per Bitcoin received, fee options?
-Also as a way to begin to monetize the protocol what's possible in the way of adding fees? where can they be added and what for?

Also how do you publicly prove you've locked an asset?

I don't see rockxies point in the first place to be honest, I couldn't care less what name of asset is, and think it's pretty easy for him to just spell it out clearly with a link without any confusion whatsoever, if users end up buying the wrong thing perhaps they aren't ready for cryptocurrency let alone decentralised markets..  also I wouldn't be getting confused with them.  so probably best not to ask me...but as far as whether that is distinct enough for arguments sake

i think the main text the user would be searching for is the plaintext, rather than an address or identifier hash, so I think it would be easier to get confused over identical asset names yet different addresses  and id's placed by squatters than different asset names alone (as the old basic system was) although the proposal you said definately gives more info, anyone can take 5 seconds to google the address to confirm it's the official asset as basic due diligence

Maybe you can have database of 'known' whitelisted issuers client-side, based upon their address (non-forgable) and a little twitter like tick icon indicating verified? or official, or 'rockminer' just like blockchains tagging. just something to indicate it's a direct and confirmed address by rockminer. or whatever the company may be not sure if that goes against the ethos of decentralised or not but I can certainly see it appealing to issuers of specific companies

You don't think that would be distinct enough ?

If you take these two asset --text fields (just hash the whole text, including tildes) http://www.sha1-online.com/


SHA1: 9482a8e20d41241d58621633c797c40a15a82736


SHA1: 6ee034e4501cb6bd73725b01f12fd9037fb14181

a user wouldn't be able to easily spot the difference there (bonus points if you can), and the default search would still be looking for an actual (basic) asset name still, so search for ROCKMINER would still bring up the ROCKMINER squatted asset for example

I'm not trying to pick holes in it just still don't get it fully, because it seems like you can't actually entirely 'fix' squatting without centralisation; which obviously goes against the whole principle of the project.  I don't even see squatting as a problem myself because 99.9% users have common sense to realise what is legitimate and not.

That's mostly correct - I would do the hash over the entire --text field rather than just the name field -  because otherwise it would be the scarcity  of a unique name problem (You could always further distinguish two assets by source address and --unique name even if the --text field name was the same.
Also I don't think any changes need to be made at the protocol level - if mosts assets were issued with by following certain rules, on the client side assets could be filtered (say two search categories) 'all assets', and 'standardized assets'.

The default client side search at this time is only searching for the asset name on the protocol level now  so inputting 'ROCKMINER' would find ROCKMINER, ROCKMINERB, ROCKMINER123 etc right?

if later that would be expanded to allow search of the --text field (however the developers agree to format and parse it),
because real rockminer owner for example can create:


and the asset name is derived from hash of the agreed upon 'name section'  which (if you are using sha1 hash for example) would be:


now nobody can create another asset with the exact text 'GHS' right? because it would have conflicting hash (duplicate asset id)

is that what you are proposing?

Coins Source fully reviewed Counterparty XCP, read the review on the leading digital currency information source here:
www.coinssource.com/crypto-coins/counterparty



And as of last night, Counterparty is our 3rd most popular coin of all time.
www.coinssource.com/top-20-coins

The 'name' at the protocol level is tied to the transaction handling - but asset representation on the client level can be achieved by organizing the 'text' field of the asset issue.

There is still the possibility of making look-alike assets i.e.:

Real Asset:
--name=ffzdjeVT
--text=~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.com/assets ~~

Look alike:
--name=ffzdJeVT
--text=~~ GHS ~~1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ~~ www.example.co/assets ~~

Which could be dealt with in several ways i.e. Allowing a user to track/flag an asset on the client level (presumably for assets where they have verified the PGP key).
Alternatively you could make the default client-side search take an asset standard form where the --name field is defined by the first 8 bytes of the --text field hash, that would make it quite difficult to issue a-near identical looking asset.

I've decided to go ahead and take the donations we've raised so far (0.97 BTC) and add my own money to it to get this thing started. Time is of the essence. We need to be primed and ready with informational videos for when the market turns bull.

---

If you still feel like donating, all donations will go to equipment and marketing efforts. Please also consider donating to Matt Y, as he is the lead on marketing. Marketing is very key right now! We aren't just marketing for 'our' benefit, we're marketing for the benefit of the entire financial market.

Counterparty Forum Thread:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,261.0.html

---

Donors:

Flayaway  50 XCP (Exec. Producer)
XNOVA 0.2 BTC (Exec. Producer)
LED_LCD   0.1 BTC (Producer)
Sparta_Cuss  0.1 BTC (Producer)
Freedomfighter   0.1 BTC (Producer)
Frozen123  0.1 BTC (Producer)
Amy_Bit  0.01 BTC (Producer)
Something 0.025 BTC (Producer)

well what's to stop you from using 'password password password password password password password password password password password password' ?

If you let users choose their own passwords, many will default to choosing easily brutable sequences 'repeated phrases, common phrases from movies/stories etc. that's the human brain for you

There's more discussion on why the seed is usually chosen for you here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-you-cannot-enter-an-arbitrary-seed-in-electrum-153990

There probably is a way if you really have a desire to though. might have to run your own installation

NOW ON



Counterparty (XCP) price index and social feeds

yes there are limitations, you use the seed it generates for you. I imagine because of spec compatibility and because people are notoriously bad sources of entropy

Hmm, ok. but on that example, the Asset name is ffzdJevt, Whilst the Asset on the GUI is GHS
in the wiki it says



the description is obviously '1 GHS mining issued by Rockminer ' which comes from the description field in JSON but where is the 'GHS' name field being populated from?  it's not description in the JSON and it's can't be pulled from the 'asset' tag since that's a mismatch to the direct asset name itself, breaking the rules above right?

But regardless, if anybody can input their own data there to be reflected client side (which is duplicable and thefore 'forgeable' or squatabble? ), what's to stop current owner of ROCKMINER linking to a json on pastebin with description as ASSET: ROCKMINER description: Official Rockminer listing?

Maybe I'm not understanding the proposal but I don't really get how the solution is there?, then again I don't think the squatting issue can be solved anyway without a central authority that has direct control over asset creation and therefore don't actually see it as an issue myself, it's an open market just the way it should be.. i mean he registers rockminer, someone else goes ahead and registers rocknniner or rockmminer or rockminer2 or whatever and so what? this is what usernames, domains have been like forever

At the client level, you could re-map names based on a number of criteria, which is to say the asset name in Counterwallet for example is independent of the unique identifier given to the asset of the protocol level; it could be determined by a PGP provided, instead, for example. Here's an example given by porqupine as to how it might look:

It's a great update, but I still can't see how that means asset squatting is now irrelevant?

Personallly I don't care whether he lists the assets as DOCKMINER, MOCKMINER  or COCKMINER, I don't think anybody else would really care either; As long as he can demonstrate this is the official asset, with a signed message, description or similar and brief announcement it's pretty simple stuff, no one is accidentally buying activemining instead of asicminer.

However he himself seems to have his objections, maybe believes people will become confused, maybe just likes to own the official name out of principal, whatever.. that's the only important thing because the asset issuer is the one who's making the decision and the name is still taken. And with this update, what's changed in regards to that? He still doesn't have ownership of that name

UPDATE:

Asset name squatting is obviated. Please, people, don't bid for this asset name.

Please see the posts in the Counterparty forum here:
Counterparty Forums » General » Development & Technical Discussion » TL:DR of Asset Name discussion

According to xnova, "Note that counterwallet allows for enhanced asset info (today, it works). See https://wiki.counterparty.co/w/Enhanced_Asset_Info_in_Counterwallet for more info."

According to cityglut, "Asset name-mapping can be determined at the client level in any number of ways, without changing the protocol."

So, coingifts, you can keep the ROCKMINER name all to yourself.

People fall for marketing. Cryptocurrencies are pure psychology. That's why it takes so long for legitimate and innovative projects like Counterparty to get noticed, they simply blend into a panoply of shitcoins...