Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 637. (Read 1276796 times)

Thanks for the kind words!

The Counterparty team makes no promises regarding returns-on -investment. Our goal. moreover, was not to make investors rich overnight, but rather to create a working and relatively full-featured client, and to that extent returns-on-investment were secondary. At the same time, however, I believe that the situation you describe does not preclude XCP significantly increasing in value. Specifically, unless a Counterparty fork offers some real technical improvement, I think that XCP-2, etc. will be minted only when Counterparty has proved itself a financial success. And even if a Counterparty fork does offer technical advantage, the importance of being the first Counterparty must not be forgotten. In my opinion, certain alt-coins offer definite advantages over Bitcoin (e.g. faster block-time), and yet Bitcoin has still increased in value and the alt-coin market has, in my opinion, at least for now, proven itself to be by-and-large a bubble. Nothing suggests to me that the situation wouldn't be same if alt-Counterpartys were to appear.

Your BTC and XCP values seem to be a multiple of 6 higher than expected. After all each address can't have more than 1 BTC / 1500 XCP.

Also I see a lot of unfortunate people that messed up the burn. This is why you do a test burn, people.

Particularly it's the multiple inputs part that seems to be a problem. The tutorial should emphasize that multiple inputs are NOT accepted.

The fact that bitcoins are DESTROYED (instead of going to some developer's wallet) will at least hinder adoption of clones by altcoin writers. Why go through the trouble of that when it's so much easier to make a few hundred grand off of a "2nd generation coin" clone?

I've put a couterpart explorer online:
http://www.counterparty-explorer.com/


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4380341

Welcome to try it. Please correct me if my validation criteria is different with the official one.

That, and the fact that any project that blatantly forked the Counterparty code without adding a drastic amount of value-add would be seen as a Counterparty clone right off the bat.

once a lot of services get built around the project then it would hard to replicate that support structure isn't it? I would think it would be hard for any copy cat to replicate the counterparty support community after counterparty has a good head start.

Totally agree here.

I am already hooked by this project - one man can love many women

I think XCP is a very promising project and I think I will do something on it (maybe an counterparty explorer soon).

Nonetheless, I don't think this project is able to give you huge return (more than 10x) like Nxt, so please be warned if you want to be rich over-night.

The reason is simple. Since this is an open-source project, so anyone could replicate it without any cost. They just need to create a new un-spendable address and then there's another XCP-2, XCP-3. Once people find the price of XCP is too high, they can freely goes to XCP-2 and XCP-3.

The smart or sneaky part of Nxt is that they postpone opening their source until the price is already more than 1000x. For master-coin, they have no code at all even at current stage.

Therefore, XCP in my opinion is the most honourable project and it's the project really want to create a decentralized market rather than a be-rich-soon game (the only other one similar is colored-coin).

Any thinking about this is welcome, especially from the developers.

I think the best method to ensure safety is to use an always-offline computer to sign the transaction, like the Armony offline wallet. I'm currently trying to find a more convenient way on it.

I just updated from git and am still getting this error on Ubuntu 12.10.

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "./counterpartyd.py", line 22, in
    from lib import (config, api, util, exceptions, bitcoin, blocks)
  File "/home/counterpartycoin/counterpartyd/lib/api.py", line 7, in
    from werkzeug.wrappers import Request, Response
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.2/dist-packages/werkzeug/__init__.py", line 154, in
    __import__('werkzeug.exceptions')
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.2/dist-packages/werkzeug/exceptions.py", line 111
    return u'

%s

' % escape(self.description)

Thanks that worked

I am having this issue while installing on ubuntu 12.04 LTS :


EDIT: Nevermind, turns out I had a python version compiled from source, removed the existant pip3 binary and installed the needed 1.4.1 , it's working now.

Anyone who was having "codemap"/unicode display issues, please pull the newest counterpartyd from git and let us know if you're still experiencing issues.

We had several unicode characters in the code that were causing the Windows terminal (which cannot properly display unicode from what my research told me) to choke. This has been fixed:

https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd/commit/e7497296b6c1409b3108bca3818dc1b89a452007


LeoC: Also, you are running an older version of counterparty if you are using the installer. I have just pushed up a new version of the installer based off of the latest commit to https://github.com/xnova/counterpartyd_binaries

Try reinstalling using that installer (or just use the source for now as we are regulary making changes to counterpartyd)

I have a problem, I'm running a Windows 8 PC and I want to get Counterpartyd working on it.
These are the steps that I followed:

1. Install the Bitcoin wallet and let it finish downloading the blockchain.

2. Set the bitcoin config to this
rpcuser=rpc
rpcpassword=XXXXX
server=1
daemon=1
txindex=1
testnet=0

3. Download and run the Counterpartyd installer, change the port to 8332, and match the rpcpassword.

4. Restart Bitcoin-qt and start counterpartyd.exe

This is where the issue crops up. Whereas on my Windows 7 box I'd start seeing the blockchain info as well as the burns, I just get a blank screen on this new box.

Also if I leave this blank box open and use another command prompt to run "counterpartyd --rpc-password=XXXXX market", it just freezes with yet another blank screen.

What am I doing wrong? Or is counterpartyd not compatible with Windows 8?

OK did a quick test burn (on the mainnet) from the windows client (the installer). I have a problem:

- I can see my burns in the blockchain (and in the counterpartyd running as server), but then in another cmd window I run counterpartyd.exe address 1CnAK3eozCeKG5WjyS27h7qCZqKrcK7Q31 I can see my balance, but also an error:


Balances
+-------+------------+
| Asset |   Amount   |
+-------+------------+
|  BTC  |         |
|  XCP  | 1.42490909 |
+-------+------------+


Burns
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python33\lib\site-packages\cx_Freeze\initscripts\Console3.py", line 27, in
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 506, in
  File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 103, in address
  File "C:\Python\64-bit\3.3\lib\encodings\cp850.py", line 19, in encode
UnicodeEncodeError: 'charmap' codec can't encode character '\u2026' in position 251: character maps to


Any ideas? The referenced files don't exist on my machine (at least some of them anyway) so I'd imagine those references are for the files that were compiled into counterpartyd.exe

The OS is Win7 x64, EN-GB locale.

Thanks Panonym useful information.

Hmm. What version of datetime do you have?



That's all way down the line.



Right---the protocol spec. is not up-to-date.




I don't think that we need our own forum just yet. At this stage it would fragment the community.

If nothing else, we can't send any messages besides a burn on mainnet yet. There are certainly lots of cool things that we could do, e.g. a distributed mixing service. (If we did that, though, it would probably be free.)

You should create a dedicated forum to keep your project communication organized.
It would increase the quality of this community-in-creation.

Dev, are you open to the creation of a think tank?
Are you open to discussion?

Due to adverse reaction about any change proposal in the wealth transfert to XCP & it's early adopter reward:
I'd like to propose the creation of a new project, on top of yours.

That would be a totally unique kind of asset.
As it is very special: it would require your help, cooperation and openness to discussion.

I call it MSH.
Mixing Share Holding.

This meta-asset would give a divident of the XCP mixing service usage.

The project and it's long term implications are quite vast and complex.

I'm happy to develop more if there is questions and interest.
Let's create a think tank.


Here is some more details about my MSH project:

It's trustless.
You send your XCP to a special address with a special command.
x% of XCP is taken, and shared amongst mixingshareholder.

- Got 1000 XCP, I want them to be splitted in two pseudoentity. I pay 2x%.
- Wanna it splitted in 3? in 4? You pay 3x% fee or 4x% fee.
- All the money you want in one clean address = 1x%.
- Cut in two and two again later? 2x% of 1000XCP, then 2x% of 2~500 XCP.


Example with x = 1:

Cut in two:
2x% of 1000 XCP = 20 XCP.
In 2-2 (cut in 2 and then again in 2, 50% proportion):
20+10 = 30 XCP.
Cut directly in 3?
1000 => 3x% = 30XCP fee.

You can specify with the new-to-be counterpartyd command the origin, the amount and the number of pubkey/which one you want it splitted in.

The 0.10$ BTC transfert fee doesn't disturb me at all.
The value & fee-concept I mean.
The fact it's so tightly linked with the bitcoin unity annoy me more.
But that will be a talk for another time.
It's long term implications.

I'm convince since months already that proof of burn is THE way to go for trustless wealth transfert and distribution.

If we're lucky: there might be a possibility to burn XCP without relying on Eligius pool?

That POB-way:
"MSH-project XCP burning" would be well cleanly separated from your "XCP-project BTC burning".

Nobody can anymore say I'm trying to change the early adopter reward of XCP.
That is a completely new project proposal.
With clearly defined minimal effort requirement from the start.
You HAVE to use the software.
No overeasy way, real reward.

I wish it to be maid with a more drastically decreasing reward over time.
Details can be publicly discussed.

This took me quite some time.
Everyone, please express yourself about it.
Have a nice day.

(Just that you know: I will have less available time during the next 36h)


PS: obviously (I hope) this idea is not a project in competition with XCP-project.
On contrary, it gives it more weight and extent the possibilities of the XCP-project. Increasing it's quality and appeal.
I work for communities.
That's called enlightened self-interest.
Human nature being selfish, we need trustlessness technologies.
& quality thinker's communication.

humm... does it necessary does?
I thought it was just the result of a function on a private key in relation to a referential clock.
Sure the time ref is centralized. But if that only that it can be solved.
Now maybe the verification need a central server. Haven't thought about that.
Unperfect 2FA technology if that's the case.
'thought it worked with multisignature reconnaissance or something similar.
My understanding is vague, I admit.
But with a net of trust amongst master node, 'well doesn't seem completely impossible.
I cannot solve the tech aspect, that much is certain.

Thing is: current security is not enough.
Doesn't seem to be.
Security is not my strong suit.
But if there is a real risk that someone connect to my computer and stole my unencrypted wallet.dat (let's say), then the risk of him having a keylogger, a live watch on my screen, or something taking screenshort regularly:the risk is pretty much the same.
If the guy have the skill for the first, what prevent the second?
He just have to wait until he see either a privkey or your wallet password.

That's why I'm uncomfortable about not being able to move my XCP.
Sole place my coin are safe to me is in privkey outside wallet who never touched an internet connection.
I entered my wallet password in a terminal with a space upfront.
But it happened many time while 'computer is online.
Has to be to use the soft.

I'm not at peace with that.
I have no clue if my computer is secure enough.
Fresh GNU/Linux is better than old XP for sure, but I don't know much more about security.

When I enter "counterpartyd --testnet market" on the testnet it gives me the following output:


It works on the mainnet though. Why isn't it working on the testnet?