[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 529.

delulo

sr. member

Activity: 441

Merit: 250

Quote from: Alias on February 10, 2014, 06:33:26 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 04:58:37 AM

Quote from: xnova on February 10, 2014, 03:01:43 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

Thanks for the answer!

What about the very last question:

Quote

I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

and

Quote

Would the GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 29, 2014, 09:26:23 AM

Quote from: lonsharim on January 29, 2014, 09:18:12 AM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 29, 2014, 06:38:09 AM

Quote from: Alias on January 29, 2014, 06:29:40 AM

How flexible is the Counterparty Protocol in terms of it being run atop other alt-coins instead of just Bitcoin?

Has anyone got any opinions about which alt-coin might be the optimal base for Counterparty?

Most alt-coins are nearly identical to Bitcoin, and Counterparty will run fine on any one that is. It would need a little tweaking for something like Namecoin or Peercoin, but not much, I think.

By which you mean support for OP_RETURN feature of Bitcoin? I think I read something on that before, i.e. that it is used to store data on the XCP transaction taking place.

I was reading an article on one of the bitcoin magzine websites and they mention that apart from the obvious external dependency (i.e. btc blockchain) the other problem is that it could be sluggish or time consuming searching the block chain for specific transactions that have stored XCP data. Is this a concern for you at this stage.

As far as I know, most alt-coins support multi-sig, which does suffice.

It's not a problem, as all of the transactions only need to be found once, in order, and then they are stored in their own (much smaller) database. And we have ten minutes between blocks, so there's plenty of time to parse new transactions as they appear on the network. The main disadvantage of the 'meta-coin' approach is that there can't be any SPV clients (someone needs to store the whole blockchain, as it were), but there are plenty of ways around that.

Ok.So running xcp on top of an altcoin is possible. But is it possible to run xcp on an own blockchain and if so is that an option / planned?

And would the GUI client allow an easy installation?

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: cityglut on February 10, 2014, 04:37:31 AM

Announcement: I have created an announcement thread on the official forum, where users can look for technical updates - among these, of course, updates regarding the most recent version of counterpartyd: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,80.0.html.

Why the installer is v0.4.2, but the source is v0.4.1?

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: 520Bit on February 10, 2014, 06:35:14 AM

Can't install counterpartyd_build due to below error:
I tried more than 3 times, the same error happened.
Also posted here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,13.msg384.html#msg384

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>c:\python32\python exe setup.py
......................

Downloading/unpacking requests==2.1.0 (from -r c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt (line 10))
  Downloading requests-2.1.0.tar.gz (420kB): 335kB downloaded
Cleaning up...
Exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\basecommand.py", line 134, in main
   status = self.run(options, args)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\commands\install.py", line 236, in run
   requirement_set.prepare_files(finder, force_root_egg_info=self.bundle, bundle=self.bundle)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\req.py", line 1092, in prepare_files
   self.unpack_url(url, location, self.is_download)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\req.py", line 1238, in unpack_url
   retval = unpack_http_url(link, location, self.download_cache, self.download_dir)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\download.py", line 622, in unpack_http_url
   download_hash = _download_url(resp, link, temp_location)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\download.py", line 495, in _download_url
   chunk = resp.read(4096)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\http\client.py", line 517, in read
   s = self.fp.read(amt)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\socket.py", line 287, in readinto
   return self._sock.recv_into(b)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\ssl.py", line 399, in recv_into
   return self.read(nbytes, buffer)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\ssl.py", line 293, in read
   v = self._sslobj.read(len, buffer)
socket.timeout: The read operation timed out

Storing complete log in C:\Users\xxx\pip\pip.log
2014-02-10 19:06:46,378|ERROR: Command failed: 'c:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts\pip.exe install -r c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt'

c:\counterpartyd_build>

The last time I tried and installed successfully, but I do not know why.

gacrux

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on February 10, 2014, 12:55:16 AM

It seems that adding more fees that either go to miners or otherwise get burned is one of the more popular but misguided solutions developers are working on.
The idea is that high fees will discourage non-traders but it is unclear why this wouldn't discourage traders also as these fees would quickly build up.

Please take a look at my suggestion here:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,69.msg340.html#msg340

I'm advocating much higher fees (and, importantly, fees in proportion to the size of the order matched.) But - and this is the catch - I'm also advocating that fees be payable in whatever blend of XCP and BTC the person paying them prefers, and the XCP fees are fully refunded upon BTCpay.

In other words, this would make fees very minimal (ie. just the unavoidable bitcoin network fee) for the vast majority of orders, even really large orders. But it would cost anybody failing to BTCpay heavily, in proportion to the amount of XCP that they matched and then failed to pay for.

Fundamentally, when you match an order, you're committing to buy - you're blocking anybody else from matching it after all. You should be expected to always BTCpay for your orders if you are an honest node. What's more, you should be expected to BTCpay promptly. There's no excuse for matching somebody's order, tying up their funds, and delaying payment.

The BTCpay mechanism isn't intended to be an "option" for people to have the luxuary of locking in a price and deciding later whether to exercise it. It has worked that way so far only by an unfortunate accident in the protocol design - one that can be corrected. Those who want to keep the current "XCP buyer has an option and can choose to exercise it" type behaviour must accept that the trolls also get to use it.

Let's iron it out of the protocol and make this bullet proof. It'll result in cheaper orders for everyone except the trolls, prompt settlements, and a more smoothly functioning market.

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Can't install counterpartyd_build due to below error:
I tried more than 3 times, the same error happened.
Also posted here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,13.msg384.html#msg384

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>c:\python32\python exe setup.py
......................

Downloading/unpacking requests==2.1.0 (from -r c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt (line 10))
  Downloading requests-2.1.0.tar.gz (420kB): 335kB downloaded
Cleaning up...
Exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\basecommand.py", line 134, in main
   status = self.run(options, args)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\commands\install.py", line 236, in run
   requirement_set.prepare_files(finder, force_root_egg_info=self.bundle, bundle=self.bundle)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\req.py", line 1092, in prepare_files
   self.unpack_url(url, location, self.is_download)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\req.py", line 1238, in unpack_url
   retval = unpack_http_url(link, location, self.download_cache, self.download_dir)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\download.py", line 622, in unpack_http_url
   download_hash = _download_url(resp, link, temp_location)
  File "c:\counterpartyd_build\env\lib\site-packages\pip\download.py", line 495, in _download_url
   chunk = resp.read(4096)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\http\client.py", line 517, in read
   s = self.fp.read(amt)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\socket.py", line 287, in readinto
   return self._sock.recv_into(b)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\ssl.py", line 399, in recv_into
   return self.read(nbytes, buffer)
  File "c:\python32\Lib\ssl.py", line 293, in read
   v = self._sslobj.read(len, buffer)
socket.timeout: The read operation timed out

Storing complete log in C:\Users\xxx\pip\pip.log
2014-02-10 19:06:46,378|ERROR: Command failed: 'c:\counterpartyd_build\env\Scripts\pip.exe install -r c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\reqs.txt'

c:\counterpartyd_build>

Alias

full member

Activity: 127

Merit: 100

Money be green

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 04:58:37 AM

Quote from: xnova on February 10, 2014, 03:01:43 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

Thanks for the answer!

What about the very last question:

Quote

I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

and

Quote

Would the GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 29, 2014, 09:26:23 AM

Quote from: lonsharim on January 29, 2014, 09:18:12 AM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 29, 2014, 06:38:09 AM

Quote from: Alias on January 29, 2014, 06:29:40 AM

How flexible is the Counterparty Protocol in terms of it being run atop other alt-coins instead of just Bitcoin?

Has anyone got any opinions about which alt-coin might be the optimal base for Counterparty?

Most alt-coins are nearly identical to Bitcoin, and Counterparty will run fine on any one that is. It would need a little tweaking for something like Namecoin or Peercoin, but not much, I think.

By which you mean support for OP_RETURN feature of Bitcoin? I think I read something on that before, i.e. that it is used to store data on the XCP transaction taking place.

I was reading an article on one of the bitcoin magzine websites and they mention that apart from the obvious external dependency (i.e. btc blockchain) the other problem is that it could be sluggish or time consuming searching the block chain for specific transactions that have stored XCP data. Is this a concern for you at this stage.

As far as I know, most alt-coins support multi-sig, which does suffice.

It's not a problem, as all of the transactions only need to be found once, in order, and then they are stored in their own (much smaller) database. And we have ten minutes between blocks, so there's plenty of time to parse new transactions as they appear on the network. The main disadvantage of the 'meta-coin' approach is that there can't be any SPV clients (someone needs to store the whole blockchain, as it were), but there are plenty of ways around that.

JahPowerBit

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 255

Counterparty Developer

Orders match even the amount is lower than config.DUST_SIZE. If it's impossible to make the BTCPay, i think the orders should not match.

http://blockscan.com/order_match.aspx?q=3604

JahPowerBit

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 255

Counterparty Developer

this GUI is ready for actions: send, order, cancel and btcpay.

https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP

delulo

sr. member

Activity: 441

Merit: 250

Quote from: xnova on February 10, 2014, 03:01:43 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

Thanks for the answer!

What about the very last question:

Quote

I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

and

Quote

Would the GUI client go along with an easy installation?

cityglut

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

Announcement: I have created an announcement thread on the official forum, where users can look for technical updates - among these, of course, updates regarding the most recent version of counterpartyd: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,80.0.html.

cityglut

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

Quote from: jl777 on February 09, 2014, 11:45:54 PM

Quote from: led_lcd on February 09, 2014, 11:00:38 PM

Don't forget to ask the larger exchanges to look at Counterparty.

I've sent emails to BTC-e, bter.com and Cryptsy.

Bter.com would be an excellent for exposure to the Chinese market.

Cryptsy already has shares listed on https://cryptostocks.com/securities/57 so they might be interested in the Counterparty for managing their shares.

One step at a time. Poloniex -> get us on coinmarketcap + GUI release -> bter/vircurex/cryptsy

I doubt any of the big exchanges will list XCP until there is a GUI and maybe even require initial install to be less than 17 hours

Tristan at poloniex says, "Someone should point out that the auto-build script does not work on a fresh install of Ubuntu. An sqlite-dev package needs to be installed first." I told him it was probably version specific to Ubuntu 13.04. Good news is that poloniex is starting the integration work, so 17 hours from now Tristan can start testing.

@cityglut, would it be possible to get some XCP sent to Tristan at poloniex so he can test deposit/withdrawal of XCP on his exchange?

James

Sorry, James, just saw this! Sure, I can send him a few XCP. What's the destination address?

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: 520Bit on February 10, 2014, 03:26:08 AM

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 03:07:58 AM

Quote from: 520Bit on February 10, 2014, 02:44:47 AM

So below two orders are smart because of setting a 0.01 BTC fee_required.

http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3596
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3374

They are not eaten by the alpha tester!!!
I would suggest all traders set a higher fee_required to avoid this kind of issue. However, if counterparty could improve, it would be better.

Yea

One of those are mine. Lol

So people can still make the deal by giving the exact fee_required.

Grin

Yea, last chance for them to buy at below 0.01. Grin

hahahah

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 03:07:58 AM

Quote from: 520Bit on February 10, 2014, 02:44:47 AM

So below two orders are smart because of setting a 0.01 BTC fee_required.

http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3596
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3374

They are not eaten by the alpha tester!!!
I would suggest all traders set a higher fee_required to avoid this kind of issue. However, if counterparty could improve, it would be better.

Yea

One of those are mine. Lol

So people can still make the deal by giving the exact fee_required.

Grin

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: xnova on February 10, 2014, 03:01:43 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

Hi xnova

+1

If this works out even closely to what you have listed out then this is great. I like the fact that the wallet is deterministic.

Cheers

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: 520Bit on February 10, 2014, 02:44:47 AM

So below two orders are smart because of setting a 0.01 BTC fee_required.

http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3596
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3374

They are not eaten by the alpha tester!!!
I would suggest all traders set a higher fee_required to avoid this kind of issue. However, if counterparty could improve, it would be better.

Yea

One of those are mine. Lol

qtgwith

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Quote from: xnova on February 10, 2014, 03:01:43 AM

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

Congratulation!
Great work!Great team!

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

Quote from: delulo on February 10, 2014, 12:40:03 AM

When can the GUI client roughly be expected (dont want a guarantee just a rough estimate)? Would that GUI client go along with an easy installation?

Two other questions I have:
How many developers are working on counterparty right now and are they full time?
I assume counterparty is working on the bitcoin blockchain which means that transactions/contracts are facilitated by bitcoin miners. Correct? Would it be possible to migrate to an own/different blockchainl with counterparty? Any plans here?

The community has multiple desktop clients in the works.

Regarding a web-wallet, I have posted a written tech preview of "Counterwallet", which is the upcoming deterministic web wallet the Counterparty team is hard at work on. Check it out on the counterparty forums at: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php?topic=79

As I stated in that thread, screenshots should be coming by the end of the week. Things are moving along very well.

As far as your other question goes, currently Phantom and I are working on Counterparty (pretty much) full-time. We have future plans for additional full-time devs.

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 02:39:55 AM

Quote from: porqupine on February 10, 2014, 02:13:42 AM

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 01:12:07 AM

Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on February 10, 2014, 12:27:48 AM

Uh Oh, looks like one of the alpha-testers broke the market system for exchanging XCP/BTC:
http://www.blockscan.com/order_book.aspx

SETTING THE MINIMUM PRICE TO 0.09999910 BTC/XCP !!!!

... it looks more like a planned execution to block any exchanges from taking place

.. The DEX was actually working quite well for the low volume trades.

I think this really does go back to the point that there should be some "abuse" checks in place, without these then if left to market forces the DEX would be non functional....

I was thinking that as alternative to the DEX matching the highest price, why not put in an option to match trades based on a specific tx_hash

for example a command like counterpartd.py order --offer_hash=6ecb7518eaabf0a655ea6f67af9145cb625f08e43cdb8884ba4959a9c404e99e could be executed. This could work for orders selling BTC for XCP

The orders would then parse by blocks.py and match the specific --offer_hash. If for some reason the order has already been filled or does not meet the criteria then full AUTO cancel and refund takes places.

Well it will only absorb all orders at that price, so if one puts a lower offer by .0000001 it shouldn't be a problem. The problem I see for the BTC sell orders is that they aren't committed to follow through with the exchange.

The problem is you are now unable to SELL any XCP for BTC because its quite obvious based on the best matched price of 0.099 BTC/XCP, that the buy order is not going to follow through with a BTCPAY..

Vice versa, you can also easily start wiping out the SELL orders for a very low cost as the fee required is very low

Cheers

So below two orders are smart because of setting a 0.01 BTC fee_required.

http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3596
http://blockscan.com/order.aspx?q=3374

They are not eaten by the alpha tester!!!
I would suggest all traders set a higher fee_required to avoid this kind of issue. However, if counterparty could improve, it would be better.

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: porqupine on February 10, 2014, 02:13:42 AM

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 01:12:07 AM

Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on February 10, 2014, 12:27:48 AM

Uh Oh, looks like one of the alpha-testers broke the market system for exchanging XCP/BTC:
http://www.blockscan.com/order_book.aspx

SETTING THE MINIMUM PRICE TO 0.09999910 BTC/XCP !!!!

... it looks more like a planned execution to block any exchanges from taking place

.. The DEX was actually working quite well for the low volume trades.

I think this really does go back to the point that there should be some "abuse" checks in place, without these then if left to market forces the DEX would be non functional....

I was thinking that as alternative to the DEX matching the highest price, why not put in an option to match trades based on a specific tx_hash

for example a command like counterpartd.py order --offer_hash=6ecb7518eaabf0a655ea6f67af9145cb625f08e43cdb8884ba4959a9c404e99e could be executed. This could work for orders selling BTC for XCP

The orders would then parse by blocks.py and match the specific --offer_hash. If for some reason the order has already been filled or does not meet the criteria then full AUTO cancel and refund takes places.

Well it will only absorb all orders at that price, so if one puts a lower offer by .0000001 it shouldn't be a problem. The problem I see for the BTC sell orders is that they aren't committed to follow through with the exchange.

The problem is you are now unable to SELL any XCP for BTC because its quite obvious based on the best matched price of 0.099 BTC/XCP, that the buy order is not going to follow through with a BTCPAY..

Vice versa, you can also easily start wiping out the SELL orders for a very low cost as the fee required is very low

Cheers

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 10, 2014, 01:12:07 AM

Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on February 10, 2014, 12:27:48 AM

Uh Oh, looks like one of the alpha-testers broke the market system for exchanging XCP/BTC:
http://www.blockscan.com/order_book.aspx

SETTING THE MINIMUM PRICE TO 0.09999910 BTC/XCP !!!!

... it looks more like a planned execution to block any exchanges from taking place

.. The DEX was actually working quite well for the low volume trades.

I think this really does go back to the point that there should be some "abuse" checks in place, without these then if left to market forces the DEX would be non functional....

I was thinking that as alternative to the DEX matching the highest price, why not put in an option to match trades based on a specific tx_hash

for example a command like counterpartd.py order --offer_hash=6ecb7518eaabf0a655ea6f67af9145cb625f08e43cdb8884ba4959a9c404e99e could be executed. This could work for orders selling BTC for XCP

The orders would then parse by blocks.py and match the specific --offer_hash. If for some reason the order has already been filled or does not meet the criteria then full AUTO cancel and refund takes places.

Well it will only absorb all orders at that price, so if one puts a lower offer by .0000001 it shouldn't be a problem. The problem I see for the BTC sell orders is that they aren't committed to follow through with the exchange.

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 529. (Read 1276928 times)