i still don't kown how to brun,anyone can write an whole step?
thanks much!
thanks much!
http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/HowToBurn.html
Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 625. (Read 1276928 times)
January 12, 2014, 10:02:19 PM
http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/HowToBurn.html
January 12, 2014, 10:00:21 PM
i still don't kown how to brun,anyone can write an whole step?
thanks much!
thanks much!
January 12, 2014, 09:59:23 PM
No, for me a complete counterpartyd database rebuild on mainnet takes maybe a half-hour, but I have an i5. What hardware are you running counterpartyd and Bitcoind on? Are they on the same machine?
Oh... Lucky you.I guess my new 120$ crappy hardware is really worth only that.
(yes : bitcoind, counterpartyd, litecoind : all running at the same time on the same hardware)
Code:
grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfo
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
Would you mind uploading ~/counterpartyd_build & ~/.config/counterpartyd ?model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
Need rest, 'night people
Agreed, the database rebuild should only take 20-30 minutes at most (that's around what it took for me). Try looking at your processes and make sure nothing is hogging the CPU or I/O.
January 12, 2014, 09:58:15 PM
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Well summed up.
However, I believe MSC is also moving to the op_return route when this becomes available.
Community participation should be better with Counterparty considering that you have to literally burn BTC to receive XCP and there will not be issues of enriching the developer because no one has access to the burnt coins. This "sounds" less scammy. In addition we have an actual working code base from the start.
Also I expect the initial distribution of XCP to be slightly more balanced given the additional exposure of additional protocols running on top of bitcoin compared to a few months back
The downside though is without reservation of any bounties or incentives, moving forward it's highly likely that future developements will need to be driven by the community
A release regarding bounties will be upcoming. We are planning around that now. Our goal is to foster a full ecosystem around counterpartyd and related future core products, and bounties will play a large role in that.
January 12, 2014, 09:55:11 PM
No, for me a complete counterpartyd database rebuild on mainnet takes maybe a half-hour, but I have an i5. What hardware are you running counterpartyd and Bitcoind on? Are they on the same machine?
Oh... Lucky you.I guess my new 120$ crappy hardware is really worth only that.
(yes : bitcoind, counterpartyd, litecoind : all running at the same time on the same hardware)
Code:
grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfo
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
Would you mind uploading ~/counterpartyd_build & ~/.config/counterpartyd ?model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz
Need rest, 'night people
January 12, 2014, 09:54:44 PM
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Well summed up.
However, I believe MSC is also moving to the op_return route when this becomes available.
Community participation should be better with Counterparty considering that you have to literally burn BTC to receive XCP and there will not be issues of enriching the developer because no one has access to the burnt coins. This "sounds" less scammy. In addition we have an actual working code base from the start.
Also I expect the initial distribution of XCP to be slightly more balanced given the additional exposure of additional protocols running on top of bitcoin compared to a few months back
The downside though is without reservation of any bounties or incentives, moving forward it's highly likely that future developements will need to be driven by the community
When XCP exchange is out, maybe the XCP foundation could issue an asset inside the exchange to fund the development of XCP.
I'm all in for it
I really want to see this project succeed just to raise the standard for ipos from "a send btc to my wallet" style to a more clean and fair model, which atomatically deincentives scammy ipos. Right now the altcoin ecosystem is ripe for scammers to exploit.Once the ipo period ends, We can publish a road map for development going forward and the community can start contributing towards that each in their own way
January 12, 2014, 09:53:14 PM
I have an query about:how to determine the number of XCP per burn of BTC?
Assumption all exist BTC burned to XCP,what will happen to XCP and BTC?
Assumption all exist BTC burned to XCP,what will happen to XCP and BTC?
January 12, 2014, 09:34:00 PM
Dont burn more before everything ok!!!
Theorically everything is still ok.It's just that only the dev - or perhaps no one - can verify the latest burning.
Because of the new database creation time requirement, 'necessary due to the last modification in the code.
It's been hours now, and I'm still at block 278510, only.
...
I did the math: it mean up 240 block in 4 hours!
PhantomPhreak, is it that slow for you too?
It mean I will reach present block in 28h, 'so completely sync in ~31h =/
No, for me a complete counterpartyd database rebuild on mainnet takes maybe a half-hour, but I have an i5. What hardware are you running counterpartyd and Bitcoind on? Are they on the same machine?
The database rebuild and the bug that have caused blockscan.com and counterparty-explorer.com to fall behind (initially) are not related.
January 12, 2014, 09:28:15 PM
I have pulled the GIT and this appears to have solved the "bug" issue I reported earlier.
However, it does look like that database has changed a little and I will need to patch this later once the new database download is complete to get [blockscan] working again.
cheers
However, it does look like that database has changed a little and I will need to patch this later once the new database download is complete to get [blockscan] working again.
cheers
January 12, 2014, 09:26:42 PM
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Well summed up.
However, I believe MSC is also moving to the op_return route when this becomes available.
Community participation should be better with Counterparty considering that you have to literally burn BTC to receive XCP and there will not be issues of enriching the developer because no one has access to the burnt coins. This "sounds" less scammy. In addition we have an actual working code base from the start.
Also I expect the initial distribution of XCP to be slightly more balanced given the additional exposure of additional protocols running on top of bitcoin compared to a few months back
The downside though is without reservation of any bounties or incentives, moving forward it's highly likely that future developements will need to be driven by the community
When XCP exchange is out, maybe the XCP foundation could issue an asset inside the exchange to fund the development of XCP.
January 12, 2014, 09:24:58 PM
Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.
That's a great news, so it means counterparty can be used before OP_RETURN is released? Does it mean you have known that 0.9 will not be out soon? Otherwise, it seems quite a lot of work to change OP_RETURN to multi-sig now.
Counterparty is fully functional right now. We didn't want to risk waiting a month or two for Bitcoin 0.9, and we now support both methods.
January 12, 2014, 09:19:31 PM
Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.
That's a great news, so it means counterparty can be used before OP_RETURN is released? Does it mean you have known that 0.9 will not be out soon? Otherwise, it seems quite a lot of work to change OP_RETURN to multi-sig now.
Counterparty is fully functional right now. We didn't want to risk waiting a month or two for Bitcoin 0.9, and we now support both methods.
January 12, 2014, 09:15:47 PM
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Well summed up.
However, I believe MSC is also moving to the op_return route when this becomes available.
Community participation should be better with Counterparty considering that you have to literally burn BTC to receive XCP and there will not be issues of enriching the developer because no one has access to the burnt coins. This "sounds" less scammy. In addition we have an actual working code base from the start.
Also I expect the initial distribution of XCP to be slightly more balanced given the additional exposure of additional protocols running on top of bitcoin compared to a few months back
The downside though is without reservation of any bounties or incentives, moving forward it's highly likely that future developements will need to be driven by the community
January 12, 2014, 09:15:24 PM
Dont burn more before everything ok!!!
Theorically everything is still ok.It's just that only the dev - or perhaps no one - can verify the latest burning.
Because of the new database creation time requirement, 'necessary due to the last modification in the code.
It's been hours now, and I'm still at block 278510, only.
...
I did the math: it mean up 240 block in 4 hours!
PhantomPhreak, is it that slow for you too?
It mean I will reach present block in 28h, 'so completely sync in ~31h =/
January 12, 2014, 09:12:36 PM
One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC. 
That's the mindset (to have even before any GUI)Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?
Trolling attempt? 
Let's try to avoid it.I'll keep it to: Many ideas are similar.
XCP has a working decentralized exchange, where MSC only have words of it (since months).
Fee on XCP are ~3x cheaper.
Lunch style differ greatly.
Community ambiance differ.
Counterparty transaction fees actually had to be raised to enable storing data in multi-sig outputs. The limit is imposed by Bitcoind.
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.
I would also disagree with both (1) and (2).
That's a great news, so it means counterparty can be used before OP_RETURN is released? Does it mean you have known that 0.9 will not be out soon? Otherwise, it seems quite a lot of work to change OP_RETURN to multi-sig now.
For 1), sorry if I made a mistake to say there's no polished document yet. All I have seen is the protocol specification in github and it's not updated yet and not completed. Maybe you mean the wiki and documentation site? That's not so formal in my opinion.
For 2), I mean the features in current counterparty codes are less than the feature listed in MSC whitepaper. I know it's unfair since it's not so difficult to implement all the features of MSC in counterparty. Though my impression of counterparty is that it tends to be as simple as possible at least in the beginning, so those complicated features of MSC are not in the plan.
January 12, 2014, 09:06:08 PM
One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.
That's the mindset (to have even before any GUI)Speaking of, is there any comparison to MCS, meaning how exactly XCP is different?
Trolling attempt? Let's try to avoid it.I'll keep it to: Many ideas are similar.
XCP has a working decentralized exchange, where MSC only have words of it (since months).
Fee on XCP are ~3x cheaper.
Lunch style differ greatly.
Community ambiance differ.
Counterparty transaction fees actually had to be raised to enable storing data in multi-sig outputs. The limit is imposed by Bitcoind.
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
Counterparty will use multi-sig outputs to encode data in the blockchain until Bitcoin 0.9 comes out.
I would also disagree with both (1) and (2).
January 12, 2014, 09:03:26 PM
Also the proof of burn - trusted backed model will definitely add to the value of the coin. As I see it... in a world filled with ipo scams, trust is a rare commodity.
Sure, so obvious that I skipped it.Creating a good probability that most will never sell for less than 1 BTC per 1000 XCP.
(And if you guys wanna make money like I do, avoid selling cheaper than 1 BTC per 100 XCP unless you really need moving funds.)
One we get a few GUI clients in place I'm not selling for less than 10 XCP per BTC.
If this last one transfer will lose my lose ratio is 17% of my btc:s so i really dont sell my XCP too cheap
My transfer is first what no have yet complete burn and if i read right this after that there is near 21-22btc transfers what no have complete burn. Hope not from same person or from someone who cant lose it. Dont burn more before everything ok!!! January 12, 2014, 08:58:47 PM
How long can take before burn is complete? I just send 1btc more and I can see that in blockchain.info page that my transfer have go to 1counterpartyXXXX.... and have already 7 confirmations but i dont see that in blockscan.com page... Hope not go wrong 
You can check at counterparty-explorer and user ctrl-F to search for your address. I list also those error transaction and the reason why it's error there.EDIT: there're no new wrong burnings there, so I think your burning should be fine. Don't worry.
January 12, 2014, 08:55:38 PM
XCP is more like MSC than Nxt. Nxt is an altcoin having its own blockchain, but XCP is based on bitcoin blockchain just as MSC.
The benefit to have its own blockchain is the low level protocol can be designed from the scratch to make all high-level protocols easier to be implemented and parsing more efficient. On the other hand, the benefit of basing on bitcoin blockchain is there's already secure hashing rate and a lot of users are already using bitcoin. Moreover, implementation is easier since there's no need to worry about all those mining things.
BTW, one large advantage of Nxt is it's transparent forging (mining). According to what the dev said, it can help to make 51% attack almost impossible. I'm sure everyone agree that 51% attack is almost the pain of bitcoin and all its copycats.
The benefit to have its own blockchain is the low level protocol can be designed from the scratch to make all high-level protocols easier to be implemented and parsing more efficient. On the other hand, the benefit of basing on bitcoin blockchain is there's already secure hashing rate and a lot of users are already using bitcoin. Moreover, implementation is easier since there's no need to worry about all those mining things.
BTW, one large advantage of Nxt is it's transparent forging (mining). According to what the dev said, it can help to make 51% attack almost impossible. I'm sure everyone agree that 51% attack is almost the pain of bitcoin and all its copycats.
Thanks. What about comparison to MSC?
Compare with MSC:
1) MSC has a complete document: the white paper, but has no codes (almost). XCP has codes, but no polished document yet.
2) MSC has more features, but stay in paper. XCP has less features, but code is (almost) ready.
3) MSC currently use a dummy address to encode the information, while XCP use OP_RETURN. OP_RETURN way is cleaner and has no harm to blockchain, but requires bitcoind 0.9.
EDIT:
MSC uses 1) dummy address (class A), 2) mutli-sig (class B), or in the future OP_RETURN (class C), while XCP uses 1) OP_RETURN or 2) multi-sig (soon).
4) The bitcoins buying the initial MSC are available to the foundation, but XCP has no access to the burn address.
The 4th difference is the most important. With bitcoins there, MSC could hire more people and provide more bounty. On the other hand, there will be less community contributions since people hate to work hard to help others being super rich. I think the extremely slow progress of MSC can partly explained by this.
January 12, 2014, 08:48:23 PM
So if I want to burn more than 1 BTC, it is ok to use the same wallet, just as long as I am making a new adderess for each BTC, correct?
It's very risky to use a wallet with multiple addresses. It's difficult to ensure the inputs are all from the same address. Jump to: