Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 632. (Read 1276928 times)

Both are worked well,thank you

Some clients put change address in a random position to enhance anonymity. That could be the reason burn address goes to the second.

ctrl-f and enter your address

I sure hope the official reference is correct then ^^
(which does mean we have a mysterious 0.037BTC lost?! whatever, it's the 0.001 fail that concern me)

I didn't check how you created your block explorer.
It's directly made from counterpartyd log, is that it? Good job.

You can check for confirmed XCP balances at http://blockscan.com. Just enter your BTC address in the search box.

Just for clarification ... The data from BlockScan only includes all confirmed transactions as per the Counterparty client. So unless the Counterparty client burn transactions database is incorrect this is what is recorded by the official client

Really need help how to quickly find or search my burning transaction from http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/
Anyone can help?
Thanks

When bitcoind v0.9 is out, XCP transaction will be possible thanks to the implementation of OP_RETURN.
But XCP living on top of BTC, 0.0001 BTC is needed for every transaction.
So keep a millibit or something. (You can add it later, no problem. It will just link ownership between your addresses in the blockchain history.)


And now~
Maybe a few more people start to grasp well why I said bitcoind is crappy software (especially knowing it's 5 years old).
You cannot always explicitly control what it does.
You cannot even specify from which key in your wallet you wish your btc to be sent.
Also no warning nor confirmation-ask before it mixes all necessary address to reach x amount if 'not enough in 1key.
(No choice either? about what is done with your bitcoin surplus when you send only a tiny part.)

So now we officially have 1.2 BTC which has been burned for nothing. It's lost. No XCP in exchange.
A bit mean, but I honestly don't care too much about these two because they have been made negligently using blockchain.info
The counterpartyd software does allow to chose from which address the coin are destroyed.
And so this is theoretically not possible to happen using the software.

What concern me much more is this one:
What did happen here?
Bitcoind seem to have fucked up for no reason (therefore crappy/unreliable),
because it sent the bitcoin surplus to another address instead of the same output one (where in the first place, it shouldn't have moved these 0.448BTC at all - if we don't want it to (but it's bitcoind... no full control)).
I do not understand why this happened. Why was it sent to 1CounterpartyXXX only in 2nd? If anyone can explain, I'm interested.
Very lucky it happened only once.
These 0.001BTC were also burn for nothing, lost.

Obvious advice to everyone: start by burning a very tiny amount, and verify it worked before burning more.

PS: I advise using the counterpartyd software even if it makes you lose 3-4 days, as it did for me.
That way there is almost no risk.
You're free to follow someone else advice.

577'950.8549 XCP are created as of now.
But peculiar fact: we can reach 3 different value for the equivalent total BTC burned.

(which mean that if blockscan.com is correct, additional unspotted ~0.037 BTC burn failed)

Sadly, the same guy just wasted 0.5 BTC made another invalid burning and threw another 0.001 BTC.

https://blockchain.info/tx/e8bc59126544d18f7f2d5e00f70188496350aec44c82ed26306e20f7868b5d7d


This time, the error was that the burning address was in the second output, which is not allowed by the XCP protocol.

Yes, Qt client will create a new address for the change.  After burn once, all the coins left, if any, will go to a new address. Therefore, you will be safe if you never send bitcoin to the same address more than once.

Nonetheless, I still think the developers can do just a little bit more work to avoid this tricky part. if all burning are credited to the first input address, these invalid burnings will be valid.

Yes, it does look like that is what is happening. Therefore the safest solution as far as the QT client is concerned, is to do a "full"  burn from a "NEW" wallet which you have newly funded to a single address. However, after the first burn any remaining balance could get allocated to a different change address. The QT client lacks coin control at the moment.

Yes, it only happens when the client combine two previous outputs of two different addresses. It usually happens when there's no enough BTC in any single addresses.

Take the above transaction as an example. Because both addresses have less than 0.5 BTC, but the user wanted to burn 0.5 BTC, so the client has to combine previous outputs in two addresses.

Normally, the client only shows the sum of all its addresses, so it's not so easy to know when the client will combine inputs from the different addresses. Therefore, the safest solution is to only burn from a wallet with only one address.

Does this happen only sometimes? Beacause i did burn from multiple addresses from the same wallet and the burn seem to go through fine and I was able to verify the xcp balance on those addresses as well.

https://blockchain.info/tx/9615ea60603430587f67a82f4bf62eaa1a4cae4a156807cb62b7ccaaab3ba4f9

Another invalid transaction with 0.5 BTC !

Attention:

Please stop burning from a wallet with multiple addresses !!!!!!

PhantomPhreak:

I really think it's better to credit the XCP to the first input address. This will not cause any serious issue (at most adding 2 to 3 lines of code) in my opinion.

我本不想灌水的，但是你们逼着我灌水，我就没办法了。每天都登录，它娘的时长就不增长，郁闷死我了

Yep.

same here too, i was anxious that i am gonna messed up the instructions.

+1

thank you for clarifying this.

Ok, but the Couterparty client is logging the transaction in the sqlite transaction table. So it does look like the client is logging all transactions with an OP_RETURN?

Cheers

Attention, I've found the first invalid burning, which has two different input addresses. This may have already caused 0.7 BTC was burnt for nothing.

https://blockchain.info/tx/0ffcfaca47b5e962913e5e12ef914cb665bbaecec7132de476bd132c8edce732

PhantomPhreak:

Is it possible to do as MasterCoin: credit all XCP burnt by this 0.7 BTC to the input address which has the maximum input value? In this case: 1NMwvn6DWFr5LPrHX2M1KAJzxfy6heRSTH

or credit to the first input address: 1bPb7NZ1mdH9sQPEWp2j3shPmHS1BMVos?

It's totally fine to just ignore this transaction cause you have warned the users all the time already, but just asking whether this is doable to just save this guy from losing 500 bucks. Thanks.


ATTENTION:

Do not use a wallet having multiple addresses to burn BTC, cause it may burn BTC from two addresses together and currently this kind of transaction is invalid and may cause you lose all the bitcoins for nothing.