[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 621.

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 05:00:56 PM

BTW, even though there is no guarantee for so many things when it comes to XCP there is 724.8935 BTC burned already at the time of
this post. Can't belive it. If I or someone else asked for 0.01 BTC for free no one would send it. All you morons would just go over that
the same way you would go over a guy on a street asking for a change to buy food. Fuck you! I wish you lose all your money invested.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Fine if it's OT. Otherwise, have a rest and re-gather your thoughts. :-)

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

3615 My Life ~.~

I guess the more I learn, the more I become unsatisfied with many things.
Mostly security, convenience and trust issue.
Which create a kind of frustration due to my ignorance and inability to improve things.

I may become one amongst many who start to really realise how little we grasp about Internet.

Step by step. No other way.
Turn on, keyboard, web, email, copypast, http(s), TCP/IP, smtp, ftp, hosting, bittorent, tor, i2p, freenet, server, security etc.
Oscillating between "Damn important I must learn" and "what for, 'never gonna grasp it all, too complex".

3615 My Life ~.~

(Off topic I know, sorry about that. But I'm starting to feel comfortable in this new community and we don't have a dedicated forum yet, so~ here it goes. 'will not abuse ^^)

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 05:00:56 PM

Quote from: led_lcd on January 13, 2014, 04:51:05 PM

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

What would be their motivation to block these transactions?

The more transactions are in the block, the more data miner must submit to network. Due to network propagation, if some other miner
mines block with much less transactions in almost the same moment his block will most likely propagate much faster and thus orphan
block first miner mined, one with many transactions. In other words, increased number of transactions will never be cheered by miners.

Some might do it simply because they can and that is perfectly fine.

Then again that is weighed by the reward of generating 0.0001 additional BTC in revenue (that is why transactions have fees, anyways). Depending on the price of bitcoin in the future, that could be quite significant.

Transaction fees already make up something like 1% of block revenue, and this number will only go up.

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Plus, XCP and MSC transactions generate a LOT of fees (relatively). Study blockchain.info to see why.

subSTRATA

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1043

:^)

Quote from: led_lcd on January 13, 2014, 04:51:05 PM

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

What would be their motivation to block these transactions?

The more transactions are in the block, the more data miner must submit to network. Due to network propagation, if some other miner
mines block with much less transactions in almost the same moment his block will most likely propagate much faster and thus orphan
block first miner mined, one with many transactions. In other words, increased number of transactions will never be cheered by miners.

Some might do it simply because they can and that is perfectly fine.

BTW, even though there is no guarantee for so many things when it comes to XCP there is 724.8935 BTC burned already at the time of
this post. Can't belive it. If I or someone else asked for 0.01 BTC for free no one would send it. All you morons would just go over that
the same way you would go over a guy on a street asking for a change to buy food. Fuck you! I wish you lose all your money invested.

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

What would be their motivation to block these transactions? If some of their members has assets tied to XCP or MSC, why would they want to do this?

When 0.9 is released with OP_RETURN, it will be part of the trunk/reference implementation. If someone wanted to block it, they would have to compile it out.

This argument once again brings up the point that for the health of the network, there shouldn't be so much centralisation of hash power to a few number of pools.

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 10:03:58 AM

I understand what you say. But it's not convincing enough for me to use your betting system.
'certainly not the only one.
Sure an honest feeder will make more money as time pass, reputation increase, ++money as bet rise higher.
So thousands of people will want to become feeder.
Random guy must choose randomly which feed chose, or after 2 month, choosing the one with the best reputation (discovered through hard research, nothing easy).

I do share your concerns. However, even the real world has shown there is no best answer yet (LIBOR).

What you are describing characterises majority of how bitcoin and math based currencies are being traded at the moment. Users of exchanges are trusting the exchanges that the exchanges don't close up and take all the wallets. Of course some exchanges have done this...

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

From my understanding, low chance.
I might be wrong - please someone with real knowledge confirm/refute this -
But they just can't.
OP_RETURN is a clean way to satisfy +/- everyone.
Without it, you can use multi-sign (even if I don't concretely understand it), what the dev just did.
And even if that fail, you can always link a message to every transaction.

So at worst, they could make it more expensive, but not stop it.

klee

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: subSTRATA on January 13, 2014, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

Cartels.

subSTRATA

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1043

:^)

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

High chance.

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 03:52:41 PM

OK, I see your problem. (You don't want to run bitcoind locally, and don't trust a server). In this case, we'll have to wait for a online wallet implementation, or upgrade your computer/memory to be able to run bitcoind. So far I don't know of a way to sign transactions offline, though it should be possible.

Yup, that confirm the point that was troubling me.
If you have really sensitive data (such as a wealthy wallet, 'can dream), you cannot fully trust a compagny providing a VPS or VDS.
You have to manage your server yourself. (+ learn about tons of thing...)

I don't mind running bitcoind on my computer. It's what I do right now.
I don't mind running counterpartyd either.
I just have this DB creation problem because of low RAM/hardware or don't know what.
I was just studying the possibility.
Thanks for the conversation.

That say, I'm thinking about buying a new piece of hardware.
Basically a fanless (silent) server at home, on 24h/24h, 365day/year.
On which I run bitcoind, counterpartyd, litecoind, etc. + hosting for my websites.
Any cheap recommendation? or very good ratio quality/price?
('making sure slowliness of DB-creation-from-start or other is a problem of the past)
Thanks for any info.
Link on must read about security very appreciated too. 'beginner level -.-'
How to be sure no one else that you can get in? (seems to be a life job, high level career..)

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

OK, I see your problem. (You don't want to run bitcoind locally, and don't trust a server). In this case, we'll have to wait for a online wallet implementation, or upgrade your computer/memory to be able to run bitcoind. So far I don't know of a way to sign transactions offline, though it should be possible.

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

Ok...
Admit I have a dedicated server with bitcoind, an empty wallet and counterpartyd running.
How do I spend money from the wallet that is on my computer?
The only way I see that possible is trough raw transaction, which appear way too complex to me.
That's raw offline BTC sign - online BTC transmission.
Need one more step for XCP.
Not even doc available on the subject to my knowing.

But if you have a simple solution, I'm reading.

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 03:31:42 PM

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 03:24:13 PM

About dedicated server

Well, obviously; I assume that the counterpartyd instance running on your VPS/dedicated doesn't have your actual wallet on there. That would be on your own computer.

Hum... On my computer in order to run counterpartyd, I must have a bitcoind running in the backgroud.
And for it to run, it need a wallet.
Therefore yes, my wallet would need to be on this dedicated server.
I don't see how it can work otherwise.

(on the meantime, someone uploading the XCP database would resolve my main problem.)
('guess +4h isn't that much after days and days... 'afraid a new DB will be needed if soft is changed on v0.9 out)

It could be a wallet ... not your personal wallet with lots of BTC, but just a randomly generated bitcoin wallet.

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 03:24:13 PM

About dedicated server

Well, obviously; I assume that the counterpartyd instance running on your VPS/dedicated doesn't have your actual wallet on there. That would be on your own computer.

Hum... On my computer in order to run counterpartyd, I must have a bitcoind running in the backgroud.
And for it to run, it need a wallet.
Therefore yes, my wallet would need to be on this dedicated server.
I don't see how it can work otherwise.

(on the meantime, someone uploading the XCP database would resolve my main problem.)
('guess +4h isn't that much after days and days... 'afraid a new DB will be needed if soft is changed on v0.9 out)

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 03:24:13 PM

Here we are \o/
1'000'000 XCP created

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 12:45:25 PM

In other news, 16GB dedicated servers can be had for not much more than $20/month these days (albeit a very special deal on lowendbox). (Yes, a real dedicated, KVM and power management and all).

Isn't there a huge trust issue with dedicated server?
I mean, I will have to have my encrypted wallet there, and enter the password many times...
Any solution that guarantee exclusive access & 100% security on that matter?

Well, obviously; I assume that the counterpartyd instance running on your VPS/dedicated doesn't have your actual wallet on there. That would be on your own computer.

Well, created and matched my own order. Hope it goes through and gives some useful data points to implement actual transaction viewing on blockscan.com.

panonym

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Help and Love one another ♥

Here we are \o/
1'000'000 XCP created

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 12:45:25 PM

In other news, 16GB dedicated servers can be had for not much more than $20/month these days (albeit a very special deal on lowendbox). (Yes, a real dedicated, KVM and power management and all).

Isn't there a huge trust issue with dedicated server?
I mean, I will have to have my encrypted wallet there, and enter the password many times...
Any solution that guarantee exclusive access & 100% security on that matter?
I have in mind that if someone has physical access, then it's not secure.
Glad to learn more about it.

Quote from: kdrop22 on January 13, 2014, 12:53:27 PM

Quote from: panonym on January 13, 2014, 10:03:58 AM

[about feed/bet trust-issue as it is currently implemented]

Agree with your point.
However, centralized feeds seem to be the only workable option right now.
[...]
If you have an alternative model, please feel free to propose it.

'might have.
I will need time to polish the idea, think how to actually implement it, and text it.
It will probably be something in the idea on my MSH project, adapted for betting.
Therefore coding from the dev unavoidable.
MSH, TSH, BSH : many ideas. But I kind of feel none will be implemented... We'll see.
Keep you posted.

SyRenity

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

Any chance the BTC mining collective would simply block XCP (and MSC) transactions altogether, making the whole protocol useless?

SyRenity

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

Quote from: Anotheranonlol on January 13, 2014, 02:54:32 PM

If you are asking how to verify (or at least know with high probability) that the coins are destroyed and actually unspendable:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4317890
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4396187

Thanks, this exactly what I wanted to know.

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: xnova on January 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM

Quote from: jimhsu on January 13, 2014, 12:36:15 PM

The transaction seemed to go through, but I am stuck with Status: 0/unconfirmed without any broadcasts for about 20 minutes so far. Bitcoin-qt is well connected (10 active connections). How long does it take typically?
It did actually go through, though not for 30 minutes.

Also, more error reports:

1. rpc-user and rpc-password should be prefixed with "bitcoind-" in the autogenerated config from the installer. Or at least make that part of it clear.
2. I still get the u2026 unicode errors in windows when doing "counterpartyd market".

Open Orders
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "counterpartyd.py", line 608, in
   market(args.give_asset, args.get_asset)
  File "counterpartyd.py", line 41, in market
   print(str(table.get_string(sortby='Price')))
  File "c:\Python33\lib\encodings\cp437.py", line 19, in encode
   return codecs.charmap_encode(input,self.errors,encoding_map)[0]
UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2026' in position
483: character maps to

This worked before (albeit being blank), so obviously some of the new transactions that have come up in the last day are causing this error.

Thanks for these bug reports! Installer has been updated (new windows binary is available), and this unicode bug should have been fixed. Thanks.

Confirmed fixed. Great job w/ the updates.

All that's left is a blockchain.info style wallet ... take your time with that though.

Update: the "get quantity" values for XCP/BTC transactions looks a bit weird though. Almost as if the values have been shifted by 1E-8. However my TEST/XCP order looks correct. Issue w/ divisibility?
NB: the issue seems to be with "get quantity" and "price", but "give quantity" column looks correct.

Anotheranonlol

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 504

Quote from: SyRenity on January 13, 2014, 02:46:50 PM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on January 02, 2014, 12:44:13 PM

We may need to switch to destroying coins by sending them to an unspendable address.

By the way, any way to verify this?

If you are asking how to verify (or at least know with high probability) that the coins are destroyed and actually unspendable:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4317890
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4396187

If you are asking how to verify you have correctly burned, simply search the address you send from.

http://www.blockscan.com/ or http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 621. (Read 1276933 times)