[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 613.

maxmint

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

So for all the folks that just burnt BTC like... 10 burns lost forever ? I just burned 1 BTC and it shows on blockscan.com but no XCP given.... wtf Cry

Blockscan will have to rebuild it's database once the source code got updated. I guess that all burns are safe, they are recorded in the blockchain after all.

halfcab123

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com

From what I'm seeing on Blockscan, the last 20 burns didn't go through.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: SyRenity on January 16, 2014, 08:19:12 AM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 15, 2014, 06:16:29 PM

Are there any plans to implement a voting system, in order to allow the community to express their opinion on protocol or client changes?

AFAIK DAC's should allow this.

Will be nice to hear dev's opinion about this, so the community could decide together on important decisions in a truly democratic fashion.

I would very much like to see that happen eventually, yes.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: maxmint on January 16, 2014, 08:42:55 AM

Quote from: led_lcd on January 16, 2014, 07:21:15 AM

Error in a transaction in block 280807. Just before I was going to do a burn. Typical Roll Eyes

Code:

Block: 280807
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 618, in
blocks.follow(db)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 516, in follow
raise e
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 509, in follow
parse_block(db, block_index)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 57, in parse_block
issuance.parse(db, tx, message)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/issuance.py", line 108, in parse
validity)
OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to SQLite INTEGER

It seems someone tried to create asset "NEXT" in block 280807:
https://blockchain.info/tx/acddcd5bc59349de709b0031e95c5610c233728548e8b308e32efb5d50385ee9

This asset was created with a very large quantity of 2^63 (9223372036854775808) which seems to cause this error.

Yes, my hackish solution from two days ago was off by one, and someone exploited that. I think that I've figured out the correct fix, however, but it requires a DB rebuild, so it'll be a few minutes before I can test it properly and push the commit.

maxmint

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: led_lcd on January 16, 2014, 07:21:15 AM

Error in a transaction in block 280807. Just before I was going to do a burn. Typical Roll Eyes

Code:

Block: 280807
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 618, in
blocks.follow(db)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 516, in follow
raise e
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 509, in follow
parse_block(db, block_index)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 57, in parse_block
issuance.parse(db, tx, message)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/issuance.py", line 108, in parse
validity)
OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to SQLite INTEGER

It seems someone tried to create asset "NEXT" in block 280807:
https://blockchain.info/tx/acddcd5bc59349de709b0031e95c5610c233728548e8b308e32efb5d50385ee9

This asset was created with a very large quantity of 2^63 (9223372036854775808) which seems to cause this error.

sumantso

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

So can anybody help me? I folowed the steps and installed counterpartyd (Win 32) and while trying to run it says 'could not connect to bitcoin-qt'. I am running bitcoin in testnet as a server.

I assume its to do with counterpartyd.conf?

SyRenity

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

Quote from: SyRenity on January 15, 2014, 06:16:29 PM

Are there any plans to implement a voting system, in order to allow the community to express their opinion on protocol or client changes?

AFAIK DAC's should allow this.

Will be nice to hear dev's opinion about this, so the community could decide together on important decisions in a truly democratic fashion.

Asterios

newbie

Activity: 58

Merit: 0

Quote from: led_lcd on January 16, 2014, 07:21:15 AM

Error in a transaction in block 280807. Just before I was going to do a burn. Typical Roll Eyes

Code:

Block: 280807
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 618, in
blocks.follow(db)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 516, in follow
raise e
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 509, in follow
parse_block(db, block_index)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 57, in parse_block
issuance.parse(db, tx, message)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/issuance.py", line 108, in parse
validity)
OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to SQLite INTEGER

Same here. Except it is on block 280518 for me.

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Error in a transaction in block 280807. Just before I was going to do a burn. Typical Roll Eyes

Code:

Block: 280807
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.py", line 618, in
blocks.follow(db)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 516, in follow
raise e
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 509, in follow
parse_block(db, block_index)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/blocks.py", line 57, in parse_block
issuance.parse(db, tx, message)
File "/home/jeremy/counterpartyd_build/dist/counterpartyd/lib/issuance.py", line 108, in parse
validity)
OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to SQLite INTEGER

BitThink

legendary

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

Quote from: romerun on January 16, 2014, 01:26:15 AM

180+ coins burnt today, if this project and MSC fail, 1CounterXX, and 1Exodus would be in the alltime memes of btc history.

1CounterXX is, but not 1Exodus since its just a normal address and all the funds inside will be spent at last. The funds in 1CouterXXX..., however, will be there forever, no matter counterparty succeeds or fails.

romerun

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.

180+ coins burnt today, if this project and MSC fail, 1CounterXX, and 1Exodus would be in the alltime memes of btc history.

BitThink

legendary

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

Quote from: relm9 on January 16, 2014, 12:45:03 AM

Might be a stupid question, but can I burn twice from the same address? i.e. just send 0.01 BTC as a test, then send the rest

Yes, but make sure that address still has enough BTC. Otherwise, if the client combine the inputs from multiple addresses, you will lose what you have burnt. Of course, you will be safe if you are burning with the counterpartyd.

relm9

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: skull88 on January 16, 2014, 12:56:29 AM

Quote from: relm9 on January 16, 2014, 12:45:03 AM

Might be a stupid question, but can I burn twice from the same address? i.e. just send 0.01 BTC as a test, then send the rest

Yes, as long as it doesn't exceed 1BTC, but you can send 0.01BTC as a test and 0.99BTC afterwards.

Great, thanks.

skull88

hero member

Activity: 683

Merit: 500

Quote from: relm9 on January 16, 2014, 12:45:03 AM

Might be a stupid question, but can I burn twice from the same address? i.e. just send 0.01 BTC as a test, then send the rest

Yes, as long as it doesn't exceed 1BTC, but you can send 0.01BTC as a test and 0.99BTC afterwards.

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: skull88 on January 16, 2014, 12:03:00 AM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 14, 2014, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: jimhsu on January 14, 2014, 10:47:48 PM

Sorry guys, looks I broke something again .... :'(

Apparently 100,000,000,000 is too big of a number for coins.

"I was just trying to recreate DOGE .... *slinks away*"

(Wow, how many bugfixes did I cause in github today? lol)

Quote from: jimhsu on January 14, 2014, 10:50:42 PM

Still .. better that these things happen now than in the future, where things will seriously break.

Note: I would suggest a max cap, because no matter what datatype you use, someone could simply issue 999999999999999999999999999.... coins as an attack.

I haven't tested non-alphanumeric characters in the asset name yet -- is there support for that or will I crash something again?

Absolutely. Keep 'em comin'.

I fixed the code so that it will run, but this same problem may exist elsewhere, so hold off on re-creating the problem for another twenty-four hours, maybe.

Asset names should only be upper-case alphabetic, but the code should catch all violations of that rule.

Are there any other restrictions to asset names?
I ran into: raise exceptions.AssetError('Bad asset name.')

Besides the uppercase is there a minimum amount/limit on characters or certain asset names that are not valid like BTC, EUR, XAU,...

No less than 4 and no more than ... ??? upper case characters. (the actual restrictions are based on conversion of the string into an int, so that's why something like "AAAAA" doesn't work, and why there is no "max length".)

relm9

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Might be a stupid question, but can I burn twice from the same address? i.e. just send 0.01 BTC as a test, then send the rest

smi2le

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Quote from: jimhsu on January 15, 2014, 05:05:36 PM

Party like it's 1000! Tongue

https://blockchain.info/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4659/burnnn.jpg

skull88

hero member

Activity: 683

Merit: 500

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 14, 2014, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: jimhsu on January 14, 2014, 10:47:48 PM

Sorry guys, looks I broke something again .... Cry

Apparently 100,000,000,000 is too big of a number for coins.

"I was just trying to recreate DOGE .... *slinks away*"

(Wow, how many bugfixes did I cause in github today? lol)

Quote from: jimhsu on January 14, 2014, 10:50:42 PM

Still .. better that these things happen now than in the future, where things will seriously break.

Note: I would suggest a max cap, because no matter what datatype you use, someone could simply issue 999999999999999999999999999.... coins as an attack.

I haven't tested non-alphanumeric characters in the asset name yet -- is there support for that or will I crash something again?

Absolutely. Keep 'em comin'.

I fixed the code so that it will run, but this same problem may exist elsewhere, so hold off on re-creating the problem for another twenty-four hours, maybe.

Asset names should only be upper-case alphabetic, but the code should catch all violations of that rule.

Are there any other restrictions to asset names?
I ran into: raise exceptions.AssetError('Bad asset name.')

Besides the uppercase is there a minimum amount/limit on characters or certain asset names that are not valid like BTC, EUR, XAU,...

flayway

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

What is situation of official XCP wallet now? When its about coming?

BitThink

legendary

Activity: 882

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Asterios on January 15, 2014, 09:51:27 AM

I am having trouble with my internet connection while running counterparty. Especially when it is building the Database. Between the "Block: xxxx" i always get a "Could not connect to Bitcoinind." This shows up 5-10 times then it continues.

My Internet ist very slow and not reacting for a few seconds while running coutnerparty.

Anyone know why and may have a solution?

May not just the Internet issue. Counterparty connects to Bitcoind locally. Have you checked your CPU usage when running counterparty?

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 613. (Read 1276933 times)