Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 608. (Read 1276933 times)
January 17, 2014, 04:39:27 PM
Sorry for the noob question - what does the tainted BTC burn means?
January 17, 2014, 04:37:10 PM
is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
I think some of that may be due to burns that maxmint is doing for others, as part of the service he provides.
maxmint: Would you be willing/able to confirm this, if that is indeed the case?
I receive Bitcoins for escrow burns on unique addresses, so I'm pretty sure that taint is not because of my service.
January 17, 2014, 04:29:15 PM
is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
I think some of that may be due to burns that maxmint is doing for others, as part of the service he provides.
maxmint: Would you be willing/able to confirm this, if that is indeed the case?
January 17, 2014, 03:58:40 PM
is there a new windows build or are we okay using the exe from a few days ago?
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
i knew this would go over 1000 btc but as someone else pointed out there is some significant taint on some of those btc... bummer ...
January 17, 2014, 03:49:12 PM
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Unfortunately it does not look that simple.. I've rebuilt using 3.2 and have run into the follow error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 388, in
main()
File "setup.py", line 379, in main
create_virtualenv(paths)
File "setup.py", line 204, in create_virtualenv
_rmtree(paths['env_path'])
File "setup.py", line 63, in _rmtree
_rmtree(fullpath)
File "setup.py", line 61, in _rmtree
rmgeneric(fullpath, f)
File "setup.py", line 45, in rmgeneric
import win32api, win32con
ImportError: No module named win32api
During the git pull I am also running into errors with the "werkzeug ..."
So here's the pickle: apsw needs python 3.2 on windows (since the developer of it had issues getting py3.3 amd64 binaries). However, werkzeug requires python 3.3+ to build. So, I will need to switch the API to use cherrypy (which I was going to do anyhow, but I'll just do sooner). Should be able to knock that out this evening and get everything fixed.
Apologies for this, folks. We are in the process of instituting a "develop" branch for counterpartyd and the bulid system, and will be rolling these kinds of major changes out to that and only promoting to master once our testing has passed. Thanks for being patient.
Reminder: Ubuntu 13.10 should work fine now, with the latest commit.
January 17, 2014, 02:50:31 PM
If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.
ok but if a balance shows up on the address, that means everything is good right?
Yes. It still good for checking the old burns
January 17, 2014, 02:47:00 PM
If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.
ok but if a balance shows up on the address, that means everything is good right?
January 17, 2014, 02:45:02 PM
If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
FYI: Blockscan is currently not up todate with the latest blocks, at least until I can get the issue with the windows builds corrected.
January 17, 2014, 02:40:24 PM
If blockscan.com shows the address has XCP balance, that means the burn was successful right?
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
I burned using blockchain.info's web wallet. With this talk about a bug in burning just want to make sure.
January 17, 2014, 02:31:34 PM
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Unfortunately it does not look that simple.. I've rebuilt using 3.2 and have run into the follow error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 388, in
main()
File "setup.py", line 379, in main
create_virtualenv(paths)
File "setup.py", line 204, in create_virtualenv
_rmtree(paths['env_path'])
File "setup.py", line 63, in _rmtree
_rmtree(fullpath)
File "setup.py", line 61, in _rmtree
rmgeneric(fullpath, f)
File "setup.py", line 45, in rmgeneric
import win32api, win32con
ImportError: No module named win32api
During the git pull I am also running into errors with the "werkzeug ..."
January 17, 2014, 02:20:09 PM
Code:
Block: 280518
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 621, i
n
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 479, in f
ollow
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 472, in f
ollow
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 57, in pa
rse_block
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\issuance.py", line 103, in
parse
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 148, in cre
dit
AssertionError
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 2
7, in
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 621, i
n
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 479, in f
ollow
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 472, in f
ollow
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\blocks.py", line 57, in pa
rse_block
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\issuance.py", line 103, in
parse
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 148, in cre
dit
AssertionError
Can anybody help me here please? Can't get past Block 280518 since 2-3 days. Deleted the client, reinstall, rebuilt the database, nothing works. Testnet works fine. I am using the win64 Installer.
I am not a pro. Noobs like me need help, guys, if you want this to succeed
January 17, 2014, 02:13:05 PM
aspw issue is fixed in the newest push for Ubuntu 13.10. (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build is currently broken because Werkzeug doesn't support python3.2, which that version of ubuntu uses). However as we will be most likely switching to from werkzeug cherrypy shortly (due to its much better WSGI performance) this isn't a super big deal.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
Burning BTC using the last working version (not including the latest commit) is safe, correct?
I think so. At least, I did last night and it worked fine. Wasn't able to install apsw on my Mac as it required a newer SQLite version
January 17, 2014, 02:00:34 PM
aspw issue is fixed in the newest push for Ubuntu 13.10. (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build is currently broken because Werkzeug doesn't support python3.2, which that version of ubuntu uses). However as we will be most likely switching to from werkzeug cherrypy shortly (due to its much better WSGI performance) this isn't a super big deal.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the aspw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
Burning BTC using the last working version (not including the latest commit) is safe, correct?
January 17, 2014, 01:57:12 PM
apsw issue is fixed in the newest push for Ubuntu 13.10. (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS build is currently broken because Werkzeug doesn't support python3.2, which that version of Ubuntu uses). However as we will be most likely switching to from werkzeug cherrypy shortly (due to its much better WSGI performance) this isn't a super big deal.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
Windows build will be fixed this afternoon. Probably what will need to happen is to use Python 3.2 (install that from the python site) and use the apsw library for that. If that is the 'fix', I'll just update the docs to say so.
Updated windows 64 installer will be issued once all of this is worked out.
January 17, 2014, 11:01:29 AM
I guess this is due to a missing dependency, "Another Python SQLite Wrapper": https://github.com/rogerbinns/apsw
I tried to install this but ran into more errors so I switched back to the old version which is working just fine.
I'll wait for further instructions from the devs before using the latest commit.
I tried to install this but ran into more errors so I switched back to the old version which is working just fine.
I'll wait for further instructions from the devs before using the latest commit.
Yes, I saw that earlier but there no build for win64 platform. Did not try it anyway. I will wait this out?
Is there are specific git command to roll back to the previous release ?
I'm not sure about that, I just always keep a backup copy before updating to the newest release.
January 17, 2014, 10:59:50 AM
I guess this is due to a missing dependency, "Another Python SQLite Wrapper": https://github.com/rogerbinns/apsw
I tried to install this but ran into more errors so I switched back to the old version which is working just fine.
I'll wait for further instructions from the devs before using the latest commit.
I tried to install this but ran into more errors so I switched back to the old version which is working just fine.
I'll wait for further instructions from the devs before using the latest commit.
Yes, I saw that earlier but there was no build for the win64 platform. Did not try it anyway. I will wait this out...
Is there are specific git command to roll back to the previous release ?
January 17, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
About the future value of XCP: could you just realize that nobody has a clue, please.
Anybody saying that he know is just trolling. Up or Down, same same.
Indeed an instant x100 is very unlikely.
We may even suffer a relative lost during the first week/month after-burn.
Yet MSC is valued at 60 million.
XCP despite it's alpha-stage and few bug has already more presently working functionality than it's concurrent.
Both may succeed, both may crash, one may succeed better than the other.
But if MSC is valued at 60 millions, theoretically there is nothing preventing XCP to reach 30/60/120 millions.
Just don't expect such valuation too fast.
It could happen in 4~6 month, it could happen in 1 month, or it could never happen.
Just as BTC itself could lose most of it's value if a really amazing innovation appear in 6 month.
I personally plan to hold my XCP a few month, and will not sell them at loses.
If I must way 6 month for that, then 6 month it will be.
Middle term I hope a very nice ROI, but it's gambling.
Are we done?
If a troller come trying to lower XCP credibility without quality argument, just ignore him.
Don't feed the troll.
Everyone can think for him/herself.
If you guys can't resist talking about that, open a dedicated topic for speculation.
Most here are not interested in the "tiny war" between metacoin.
Let's keep focusing on XCP testing and improvement in all field.
Obvious reminder:
Don't invest more than you can afford to lose.
Anybody saying that he know is just trolling. Up or Down, same same.
Indeed an instant x100 is very unlikely.
We may even suffer a relative lost during the first week/month after-burn.
Yet MSC is valued at 60 million.
XCP despite it's alpha-stage and few bug has already more presently working functionality than it's concurrent.
Both may succeed, both may crash, one may succeed better than the other.
But if MSC is valued at 60 millions, theoretically there is nothing preventing XCP to reach 30/60/120 millions.
Just don't expect such valuation too fast.
It could happen in 4~6 month, it could happen in 1 month, or it could never happen.
Just as BTC itself could lose most of it's value if a really amazing innovation appear in 6 month.
I personally plan to hold my XCP a few month, and will not sell them at loses.
If I must way 6 month for that, then 6 month it will be.
Middle term I hope a very nice ROI, but it's gambling.
Are we done?
If a troller come trying to lower XCP credibility without quality argument, just ignore him.
Don't feed the troll.
Everyone can think for him/herself.
If you guys can't resist talking about that, open a dedicated topic for speculation.
Most here are not interested in the "tiny war" between metacoin.
Let's keep focusing on XCP testing and improvement in all field.
Obvious reminder:
Don't invest more than you can afford to lose.
January 17, 2014, 10:59:14 AM
Agree!!!:
More people burn now means less chance to get more than 10x return like Mastercoin in short time.
Those kind of return (10x -> 1000x) requires that people highly suspect it in the beginning and then later found it real and useful. The extreme case is Nxt. Almost no one trusted it in the IPO stage (they got 21 BTC only), and then when the client came out and it worked, the price shot up because the demand suddenly increases but most chips are controlled in the hand of a few people and it's quite easy for they to hold and see the price up to the sky.
For XCP, 1) people are already quite familiar with the idea due to MSC; 2) the 'Prove by Burn' removes the trust issue; 3) the client is working and we can see the source code, so you can see that there're already 1200 BTC burnt in less than half a month. The situation, however, is almost the same after the IPO. Most of people want to buy will burn now anyway. For the demand from those new comers, the supply (from those want quick profit of 30-40%) will be enough to keep the low price.
Therefore, no reason to expect the price could rise significantly without any big news (e.g. a beautiful and user friendly client; a famous asset such as AM moves in; or a lot of bets like those in bitbet are available).
More people burn now means less chance to get more than 10x return like Mastercoin in short time.
Those kind of return (10x -> 1000x) requires that people highly suspect it in the beginning and then later found it real and useful. The extreme case is Nxt. Almost no one trusted it in the IPO stage (they got 21 BTC only), and then when the client came out and it worked, the price shot up because the demand suddenly increases but most chips are controlled in the hand of a few people and it's quite easy for they to hold and see the price up to the sky.
For XCP, 1) people are already quite familiar with the idea due to MSC; 2) the 'Prove by Burn' removes the trust issue; 3) the client is working and we can see the source code, so you can see that there're already 1200 BTC burnt in less than half a month. The situation, however, is almost the same after the IPO. Most of people want to buy will burn now anyway. For the demand from those new comers, the supply (from those want quick profit of 30-40%) will be enough to keep the low price.
Therefore, no reason to expect the price could rise significantly without any big news (e.g. a beautiful and user friendly client; a famous asset such as AM moves in; or a lot of bets like those in bitbet are available).
There is already 60 times more Bitcoins invested in XCP than there was in Nxt. Considering that most people invest to make a quick profit : this is not gonna work !
The profit from the people that invested early in Nxt was about 50 times (like me). We may have 100 times more BTC invested in XCP.
People may loose money
Yes. The risk is becoming more as the burned coin increase. The new burner may have great risk now.
Every burners have lower stakes when new burners coming in. The only solution to keep the your percentage stake is to burn more. Since XCP functionality is very similar to mastercoin and it even has the codes compared to the vaporware in mastercoin, I don't see why XCP should not be valued at least half of Mastercoin market price.
Fair XCP market cap valuation should be at 1/2 mastercoin market cap which is at 60 million$ right now.
BTW: can anyone estimate how many days more until the burning is over ?
Mastercoin spends more on marketing.
Counterparty spends on code.
Why is XCP expected to be 1/2 of Mastercoin?
Really, the price of the coin isn't the point. It is the features, the utility and the implementation.
Having a decentralized precious metal exchange is going to be worth it. The London Fix is out, counterparty is in.
January 17, 2014, 10:41:52 AM
Guys, chill out!!
I'm pretty sure there will be a very positive ROI in XCP.
People are already talking about 1BTC = 10XCP.
XCP is the first from all!! to have a decentralized biuld-in market.
I'm pretty sure there will be a very positive ROI in XCP.
People are already talking about 1BTC = 10XCP.
XCP is the first from all!! to have a decentralized biuld-in market.
from the looks of things, it seems XCP After the Proof of burn is over
& if XCP are in anyway shape, form or fashion similar to MSC or remotely
better than it's possible XCP could easily be worth potentially alot
more than what people are currently valuing them at.
whether 10 XCP = 1 Btc is correct I see the market going there
but how soon it may be a bit premature to tell.
decentralize, Peer2peer, trustless innovation may be some of the most
interesting projects of 2014
January 17, 2014, 10:32:28 AM
Hi PhantomPhreak/xnova
I have noticed that duplicate ASSETs were allowed to be created. Please see http://blockscan.com/asset.aspx.
You will notice that the duplicate asset names for "SPACE" and "NEXT" both were created by the same issuer. Wouldn't this lead to confusion?
Cheers
I have noticed that duplicate ASSETs were allowed to be created. Please see http://blockscan.com/asset.aspx.
You will notice that the duplicate asset names for "SPACE" and "NEXT" both were created by the same issuer. Wouldn't this lead to confusion?
Cheers
Those aren't duplicate issuances, but rather cumulative (with a max of 2^63 - 1).
EDIT: I just tweaked this.
Noted. Any updates on when the "ImportError: No module named 'apsw'" issue will be fixed?
I guess this is due to a missing dependency, "Another Python SQLite Wrapper": https://github.com/rogerbinns/apsw
I tried to install this but ran into more errors so I switched back to the old version which is working just fine.
I'll wait for further instructions from the devs before using the latest commit.
Jump to: