[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 553.

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: StarenseN on February 04, 2014, 10:56:13 AM

Hi patel,

everything has been downloaded and installed + reboot... Do you think one of these is missing ?

Are you sure you have pyzmq installed correctly?

StarenseN

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 1362

Quote from: Patel on February 04, 2014, 10:55:11 AM

Quote from: StarenseN on February 04, 2014, 10:54:18 AM

Hello,

I've build my own installer (Windows) from git source up-to-date.
BitcoinQT is launched and up-to-date

Then when I want to launch the counterpartyd.exe, I have this error:

Code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in
   exec(code, m.__dict__)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 22, in

   from lib import (config, api, zeromq, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\zeromq.py", line 14, in odule>
   import zmq
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\__init__.py", line 29, in
   from zmq import core, devices
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\core\__init__.py", line 26, in >
   from zmq.core import (constants, error, message, context,
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 22, in
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 14, in __bootstrap__
ImportError: DLL load failed: Module not found

Can someone help ?

Download the prereq's at http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/BuildingFromSource.html#id1

Hi patel,

everything has been downloaded and installed + reboot... Do you think one of these is missing ?

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: StarenseN on February 04, 2014, 10:54:18 AM

Hello,

I've build my own installer (Windows) from git source up-to-date.
BitcoinQT is launched and up-to-date

Then when I want to launch the counterpartyd.exe, I have this error:

Code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in
   exec(code, m.__dict__)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 22, in

   from lib import (config, api, zeromq, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\zeromq.py", line 14, in odule>
   import zmq
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\__init__.py", line 29, in
   from zmq import core, devices
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\core\__init__.py", line 26, in >
   from zmq.core import (constants, error, message, context,
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 22, in
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 14, in __bootstrap__
ImportError: DLL load failed: Module not found

Can someone help ?

Download the prereq's at http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/BuildingFromSource.html#id1

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

Was there an error in how blockscan was calculating the amount of outstanding XCP? Yesterday the amount outstanding was 2,648,755.92 and today it is 2,638,379.28. Not a huge difference but I am just wondering what happened.

mtbitcoin did a purge, to bring the correct balances after some bug fixes

StarenseN

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 1362

Hello,

I've build my own installer (Windows) from git source up-to-date.
BitcoinQT is launched and up-to-date

Then when I want to launch the counterpartyd.exe, I have this error:

Code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in
   exec(code, m.__dict__)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 22, in

   from lib import (config, api, zeromq, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\zeromq.py", line 14, in odule>
   import zmq
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\__init__.py", line 29, in
   from zmq import core, devices
  File "C:\Python32\lib\site-packages\zmq\core\__init__.py", line 26, in >
   from zmq.core import (constants, error, message, context,
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 22, in
  File "ExtensionLoader_zmq_core_error.py", line 14, in __bootstrap__
ImportError: DLL load failed: Module not found

Can someone help ?

halfcab123

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com

I'm thinking functional alcoholic ? Roll Eyes

520Bit

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

Quote from: xnova on February 03, 2014, 07:40:33 PM

Quote from: 520Bit on February 03, 2014, 07:36:00 PM

Code:

c:\counterpartyd_build>c:\python32\python.exe setup.py
2014-02-04 08:04:22,448|DEBUG: base path: 'c:\counterpartyd_build'
2014-02-04 08:04:22,451|DEBUG: dist path: 'c:\counterpartyd_build\dist'
2014-02-04 08:04:22,451|DEBUG: env path: 'c:\counterpartyd_build\env'
2014-02-04 08:04:22,451|DEBUG: bin path: 'c:\counterpartyd_build\bin'
2014-02-04 08:04:22,453|INFO: Installing Counterparty from source...
2014-02-04 08:04:23,124|INFO: Checking out/updating counterpartyd:master from gi
t...
2014-02-04 08:04:23,125|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: cd "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\
counterpartyd" && git pull origin master
From https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd
* branch master -> FETCH_HEAD
Already up-to-date.
2014-02-04 08:04:26,660|INFO: WINDOWS: Installing Required Packages...
2014-02-04 08:04:26,660|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: c:\python32\Scripts\easy_install
.exe virtualenv==1.10.1 pip==1.4.1
Searching for virtualenv==1.10.1
Best match: virtualenv 1.10.1
Processing virtualenv-1.10.1-py3.2.egg
virtualenv 1.10.1 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing virtualenv-script.py script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv.exe script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv-3.2-script.py script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing virtualenv-3.2.exe script to c:\python32\Scripts

Using c:\python32\lib\site-packages\virtualenv-1.10.1-py3.2.egg
Processing dependencies for virtualenv==1.10.1
Finished processing dependencies for virtualenv==1.10.1
Searching for pip==1.4.1
Best match: pip 1.4.1
Processing pip-1.4.1-py3.2.egg
pip 1.4.1 is already the active version in easy-install.pth
Installing pip-script.py script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip.exe script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip-3.2-script.py script to c:\python32\Scripts
Installing pip-3.2.exe script to c:\python32\Scripts

Using c:\python32\lib\site-packages\pip-1.4.1-py3.2.egg
Processing dependencies for pip==1.4.1
Finished processing dependencies for pip==1.4.1
2014-02-04 08:04:29,095|DEBUG: RUNNING COMMAND: c:\python32\Scripts\pip.exe inst
all appdirs==1.2.0
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): appdirs==1.2.0 in c:\p
ython32\lib\site-packages
Cleaning up...
2014-02-04 08:04:30,650|WARNING: Deleting existing virtualenv...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 488, in
main()
File "setup.py", line 479, in main
create_virtualenv(paths, with_counterwalletd)
File "setup.py", line 277, in create_virtualenv
create_venv(paths['env_path'], paths['pip_path'], paths['python_path'], path
s['virtualenv_args'], 'reqs.txt')
File "setup.py", line 264, in create_venv
_rmtree(env_path)
File "setup.py", line 67, in _rmtree
_rmtree(fullpath)
File "setup.py", line 65, in _rmtree
rmgeneric(fullpath, f)
File "setup.py", line 49, in rmgeneric
import win32api, win32con
ImportError: No module named win32api

c:\counterpartyd_build>

What does the error mean - 'ImportError: No module named win32api'? How to fix it?

Please see https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,22.msg79.html#msg79

Thanks, xnova. I re-installed "Python Win32 Extensions", it works now. Waiting for syncing all the blocks.

Code:

Broadcast: 'CoinDesk BPI USD' = 874.0758 from 1CeQHd59TFKWQzsWYDXc9NDX2ooMSRpiqi
at 2014-01-16T12:00:03+08:00 with a fee multiplier of 0.0010 (ac46f5e1...b80f54
b1)
Broadcast: 'Block Hash (00000000ef3f9…a8a918998cdb8) Even/Odd' = 2.0 from 15cdA
QmmBrz1BEVtipaQ1dVHtTwmfcxzw5 at 2014-01-16T12:00:03+08:00 with a fee multiplier
of 0.0010 (373b2d4a...5e5e415b)
Block: 280743
Block: 280744

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: halfcab123 on February 04, 2014, 10:36:22 AM

Chris Odom looks so drunk haha

lol your right, I heard this the first time, without seeing the video but I think he is drunk lol

halfcab123

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com

Chris Odom looks so drunk haha

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

I should be getting the links from the press release distribution service today for the article which was published. Stay tuned, I will post them here.

====

Selling 1k XCP for 5btc

rotalumis

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 0

Quote from: Alias on February 04, 2014, 05:20:36 AM

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 04:23:37 AM

Quote from: jl777 on February 04, 2014, 04:05:02 AM

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 03:50:41 AM

Quote from: jl777 on February 04, 2014, 03:46:34 AM

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 03:39:49 AM

Quote from: halfcab123 on February 04, 2014, 02:44:35 AM

Can @phantomphreak please address the claims made by ethereum founder in bitcoin magazine?

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cryptocurrency-decentralized-application-platform/

It seems he thinks among many things that bitcoin is not suitable to be treated as an underlying base protocol.

One of the main reasons:

Simplified Payment Verification (see the bitcoin whitepaper Section 8 ) becomes not usable. Since the miner will not verify whether a XCP transaction is valid like they do in bitcoin transactions, to check the validity of a XCP transaction, we have to track up to the very beginning (the address sent to burn address). This requires each client to download and keep the whole blockchain.

In Ethereum, they seems to find a way to solve this problem.

Detail can be found in their whitepaper: http://www.ethereum.org/ethereum.html

Personally, I don't think this is something will make Mastercoin/XCP not usable. It just increases the downloading and parsing time.

Would it be possible to have a checkpoint file that is signed by the XCP devs that clients could load instead of the entire blockchain?
For ease of use, this is almost a requirement as few normal people will wait for hours and hours for the initial sync up

It's possible, but it will not be decentralized if there's a checkpoint. People has to trust the one who publish the checkpoint. However, I think it could be very useful to provide some trustworthy services keeping some snapshots, therefore most average users can choose to trust these services and shortcut their parsing and verification. Those trustworthy services cannot cheat others for a long time as long as there're some independent clients choose to verify transactions all by themselves.

Could the network provide feedback on any checkpointed file to make sure it is valid? Presumably there will always be counterpartyd's that parsed the full blockchain, so before any checkpoint file is trusted locally and used, it could make sure it is valid by checking with the overall network.

Assuming it is published on counterparty.co, matches sig, odds are very good it is valid, plus it is only for initial install. So, after quick install, check with network to make sure nobody goofed when uploading the checkpoint file. If it all checks out, then BAM! we saved 17 hours of blockchain sync time without any risk

James

The problem is that even if we use a checkpoint, the size of a checkpoint file for counterparty will be much larger than a checkpoint of BTC. A checkpoint of BTC is just the hash of current block, but a checkpoint of counterparty has to snapshot the balance of each address and the status of each order, bid, broadcast etc.

There is a very elegant solution (theoretically) to this problem. Decentralise the checkpointing. A DAC (Decentralised Autonomous Community/Corporation/Company, for those who aren't familiar with the concept) could ensure that a checkpoint that has been arrived at by consensus is published/broadcast.

For those of you whose eyes glaze over when they see the acronym "DAC", picture this please:

I install my "Counterparty-qt". During installation it asks me "Do you want to run a full node?". I say yes because I personally don't care about "downloading and parsing time". This installs a DAC add-on with my Counterparty-qt.

I run Counterparty-qt. In the background a checkpoint of the system is periodically being updated (presumably by block).

My CP-DAC (CounterParty-DAC) is talking to every other CP-DAC on the network. They reach a consensus of the checkpoint of the system. The DACs then publish both the checkpoint (as a torrent perhaps?) and the checksum for it (for further verification).

Those individuals choosing to run Counterparty-qt without supporting the decentralised check-pointing add-on can just download that checkpoint torrent as their starting point. This would allow them to get up and running almost immediately.

The beautiful thing here is that after the checkpoints for every block so far (and checksums corresponding to them) are published, more people could run the DAC from those points onwards at less expense (bandwidth and processing power) and contribute to the decentralised checkpointing.

Feel free to ask me any questions about this.

So, does the Counterparty Project want to have the first useful DAC as well as the first useful decentralised exchange?

TLDR: A light-weight Counterparty Protocol client is possible by utilising a DAC.

This appears to be the approach Chris Odom of Monetas explains they are using in their Open Transactions implementation of decentralized trust systems, when he talks of having "a pool of servers you don't need to trust individually".

Chris Odom - North American Bitcoin Conference [28 mins] -- it's a very interesting watch.

halfcab123

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com

@phantomphreak needs to get up on an interview panel!

Like on this video

BitShares(Protoshares)
Mastercoin
Ethereum

People from these foundations talk for over an hour. Very uhh.. confusing ? haha, but interesting.
http://youtu.be/w-9miCOsg4g

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: halfcab123 on February 04, 2014, 02:44:35 AM

Can @phantomphreak please address the claims made by ethereum founder in bitcoin magazine?

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9671/ethereum-next-generation-cryptocurrency-decentralized-application-platform/

It seems he thinks among many things that bitcoin is not suitable to be treated as an underlying base protocol.

Bitcoin is of course not an ideal transport layer, but it is certainly workable. The 'no SPV clients' issue, for instance, may be easily avoided by asking for consensus from a federation of servers together trusted to report accurate balances, and lots of people use full-blockchain clients anyway, even though the time to initialise Bitcoind is many times longer than the time to initialise counterpartyd after that. I'm quite sure that the benefits of building on Bitcoin, not the least of which are much increased development speed and security, do indeed outweigh the costs.

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on February 04, 2014, 09:04:21 AM

How are you rebuilding the DB, mtbitcoin? In the vast majority of cases, you just need to run 'counterparty.py reparse', and that takes only about 90 seconds on my i5. (Are you still running on develop? master is much slower, with its 'purge' function.)

EDIT: missing words

Latest Develop commit. I overwrite the files and rerun. But like I PMed you earlier, I was running into some issues with develop branch on Windows and have been switching back and forth from the version 4 vs 6 db trying to make sense of things. The lastest DB rebuild from scratch appears to have resolved the issue though.

Another reason, i am currently using the develop branch because the db on this one excludes non counterparty transactions from the transactions table

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

well maybe i am wrong but

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED FINANCIAL MARKET IN CRYPTOCURRENCIES

2014 will be the beginning of cryptofinance and no matter where this ship is going you were the first who realized it

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: mtbitcoin on February 04, 2014, 08:53:16 AM

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 07:18:58 AM

Very interesting. Could be very useful for average users.
Just one question now, how about there's a reorganization after a checkpoint is setup? There has to be a scheme to invalidate the checkpoint in a short time. Maybe associate the checkpoint with the block hash.

I don't think the block reorganization should be an issue with a partially updated downloadedable counterparty db. Because counterpartyd will just pick up from the last point left off and the reorganization will follow through from where it left off. Can someone further comment of this?? Alternatively the db snapshot can be taken earlier after a certain period of blocks have passed. While not exactly an ideal solution, but when combined with a checksum perhaps this should be workable stop gap solution

I have been been rebuilding the db multiple times the last few days and I must say it is time consuming

Cheers

counterpartyd regularly checks for blockchain reogranisations in the last ten blocks (I just changed this), so that's right.

How are you rebuilding the DB, mtbitcoin? In the vast majority of cases, you just need to run 'counterparty.py reparse', and that takes only about 90 seconds on my i5. (Are you still running on develop? master is much slower, with its 'purge' function.)

EDIT: missing words

mtbitcoin

legendary

Activity: 876

Merit: 1000

Etherscan.io

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 07:18:58 AM

Very interesting. Could be very useful for average users.
Just one question now, how about there's a reorganization after a checkpoint is setup? There has to be a scheme to invalidate the checkpoint in a short time. Maybe associate the checkpoint with the block hash.

I don't think the block reorganization should be an issue with a partially updated downloadedable counterparty db. Because counterpartyd will just pick up from the last point left off and the reorganization will follow through from where it left off. Can someone further comment of this?? Alternatively the db snapshot can be taken earlier after a certain period of blocks have passed. While not exactly an ideal solution, but when combined with a checksum perhaps this should be workable stop gap solution

I have been been rebuilding the db multiple times the last few days and I must say it is time consuming

Cheers

Alias

full member

Activity: 127

Merit: 100

Money be green

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 07:18:58 AM

Very interesting. Could be very useful for average users.
Just one question now, how about there's a reorganization after a checkpoint is setup? There has to be a scheme to invalidate the checkpoint in a short time. Maybe associate the checkpoint with the block hash.

Do you mean that you can only "unlock" the checkpoint with the actual latest block hash? Interesting.

Could I suggest a very crude "solution" - the checkpoint doesn't necessarily need to be the very latest snapshot of the Counterparty system. If the checkpoint was always at least even 1 hour old (6-ish blocks ago) the likelihood of a reorganization affecting blocks that far back would be incredibly low.

Also, since the Counterparty Checkpoint DAC runs across multiple machines and a block-chain reorganization is a local client occurrence, the DAC could actually determine when your bitcoind requires a reorganization and postpone the rolling out of the checkpoint.

prophetx

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1010

he who has the gold makes the rules

Quote from: sumantso on February 04, 2014, 07:33:10 AM

Congrats everyone for the successful burn period. I expected it would hit 3k BTC, but less is better (for us). Can't wait for the GUI wallet to be out.

I enjoyed taking all the trouble to get counterpartyd set up and do all the stuff. I am a non-technical guy and usually its just click qt for me.

Quote from: jeroenn13 on January 02, 2014, 03:17:35 PM

Sorry but we have MasterCoin already. Huh

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mastercoin-new-protocol-layer-starting-from-the-exodus-address-265488

Somebody was already getting the jitters - reason for his sell off?

you should have made a bet with me, i would have bet you that it would be lower than 3k but over 1k, bummer

uccoins

newbie

Activity: 32

Merit: 0

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on February 04, 2014, 07:54:50 AM

Quote from: trilli0n on February 04, 2014, 07:39:34 AM

Hi,

Can anyone help me to resolve this? It seems I set up everything fine, see blocks coming in, but placing an order fails with a "Private key is not known" message. The address does exist in my wallet and I do have bitcoin in it.

Here's the error:

c:\counterpartyd_build>counterpartyd order --from= --get-quantity=10 --get-asset=XCP --give-quantit
y=0.0010 --give-asset=BTC --expiration=2 --fee_provided=0.0001

c:\counterpartyd_build>echo off
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 541, in
args.expiration, fee_required, fee_provided)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\order.py", line 31, in create
return bitcoin.transaction(source, None, None, fee_provided, data, test)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 295, in transaction
transaction = serialise(inputs, destination_output, data_output, change_output, multisig=multisig, source=source)
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 174, in serialise
private_key_wif = rpc('dumpprivkey', [source])
File "c:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\bitcoin.py", line 69, in rpc
raise exceptions.BitcoindError('{}'.format(response_json['error']))
lib.exceptions.BitcoindError: {'message': 'Private key for address is not known', 'code': -4}

Anyone got any ideas?

You need to temporarily unlock your Bitcoind wallet.

I got stuck on this for a while, to unlock the Bitcoind wallet the command I used was:

bitcoind walletpassphrase *yourpassphrasehere* 600

where 600 is the number of seconds I chose to unlock it for

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 553. (Read 1276933 times)