Author

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 639. (Read 1276796 times)

hero member
Activity: 655
Merit: 500

I've burnt my bitcoin using blockchain.info. Is it possible to see how many XCP I will get without running the counterparty software on my local PC?

Is there a rough figure per bitcoin? Is there some type of early bird bonus? I'm cool if there isn't, just trying to decide if I should burn more today, or can I wait until later without any penalty?

cheers

If you post or PM the address you burnt from, one of us which has counterpartyd running can check for you. I'd be happy to check if you'd like.

PM sent, thanks Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 262
Merit: 250
I've burnt my bitcoin using blockchain.info. Is it possible to see how many XCP I will get without running the counterparty software on my local PC?

Is there a rough figure per bitcoin? Is there some type of early bird bonus? I'm cool if there isn't, just trying to decide if I should burn more today, or can I wait until later without any penalty?

cheers

If you post or PM the address you burnt from, one of us which has counterpartyd running can check for you. I'd be happy to check if you'd like.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
We may need to switch to destroying coins by sending them to an unspendable address.

Ugh.  No.  That will simply bloat one of the network's key resources for all time.

See announce/commit sacrifices and other tools.

Frankly the Counterparty system is better off sticking with the unspendable address method. Unlike OP_RETURN it's standard now, it doesn't encourage centralization like announce-commit sacrifice-to-fees does, it keeps an even playing field and doesn't give discounts to big pools, it's way more convenient than sacrifice-to-fees, and finally it is good marketing.

You can complain all they want, but you have to accept that in a decentralized system full of anonymous participants asking people to act against their own interests for some vague greater good isn't going to be very successful.

I am kind of lost. I thought by burning BTC we just send to the unspendable address as described in the tutorial here: http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/HowToBurn.html

I hasn't seen OP_RETURN is used in this method. Does that mean the tutorial there has been obsoleted, or there's a new method using OP_RETURN?
hero member
Activity: 655
Merit: 500
This looks like a very interesting project - well done!

Is there any way to buy XCP now for the technically challenged? I've tried following the instructions but I just can't get it working, and maybe my PC and internet isn't up to it anyway. Can I send my bitcoin to one of the devs who can do the burn for me?


edit: I found your website and can see i am able to use a blockchain.info wallet - excellent!!

Glad to hear it!



I've burnt my bitcoin using blockchain.info. Is it possible to see how many XCP I will get without running the counterparty software on my local PC?

Is there a rough figure per bitcoin? Is there some type of early bird bonus? I'm cool if there isn't, just trying to decide if I should burn more today, or can I wait until later without any penalty?

cheers
newbie
Activity: 47
Merit: 0

It was very important to us not to have our own blockchain, for simplicity above all.

Counterparty is not really proof of stake, but rather 'proof of burn'.
So if you don't have your own blockchain, how do you transfer XCP and secure all transactions ? I understand you're using BTC address, but BTC address are only secured for BTC transactions. So put it simply, how do you manage to secure a non btc transaction with the btc blockchain ?

Edit: I think i got it. you're paying btc fees to the bitcoin network to process and ensure transactions
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
This looks like a very interesting project - well done!

Is there any way to buy XCP now for the technically challenged? I've tried following the instructions but I just can't get it working, and maybe my PC and internet isn't up to it anyway. Can I send my bitcoin to one of the devs who can do the burn for me?


edit: I found your website and can see i am able to use a blockchain.info wallet - excellent!!

Glad to hear it!



Hi,

this is a very interesting project, but I've got some questions  Grin
Why XCP isn't simply a merged mining protocol for asset transfer and smart contract ? why did you choose to burn BTC as PoS ? because of a technical issue or just because you believe more in PoS ? afaik with a merged mining protocol there is also no waste of energy (same miners, new assets).


It was very important to us not to have our own blockchain, for simplicity above all.

Counterparty is not really proof of stake, but rather 'proof of burn'.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
It is a very good step forward though PoW coins (XCP will use BTC blockchain) will soon become obsolete IMHO.
I wish you could do the same thing in a 100% PoS chain..
newbie
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
Hi,

this is a very interesting project, but I've got some questions  Grin
Why XCP isn't simply a merged mining protocol for asset transfer and smart contract ? why did you choose to burn BTC as PoS ? because of a technical issue or just because you believe more in PoS ? afaik with a merged mining protocol there is also no waste of energy (same miners, new assets).
hero member
Activity: 655
Merit: 500
This looks like a very interesting project - well done!

Is there any way to buy XCP now for the technically challenged? I've tried following the instructions but I just can't get it working, and maybe my PC and internet isn't up to it anyway. Can I send my bitcoin to one of the devs who can do the burn for me?


edit: I found your website and can see i am able to use a blockchain.info wallet - excellent!!
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
There's a 1BTC limit per address mentioned in first post.Is it ok to burn more from another address in the same wallet?

The limit is per address.
sr. member
Activity: 317
Merit: 250
There's a 1BTC limit per address mentioned in first post.Is it ok to burn more from another address in the same wallet?
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1160
We may need to switch to destroying coins by sending them to an unspendable address.

Ugh.  No.  That will simply bloat one of the network's key resources for all time.

See announce/commit sacrifices and other tools.

Frankly the Counterparty system is better off sticking with the unspendable address method. Unlike OP_RETURN it's standard now, it doesn't encourage centralization like announce-commit sacrifice-to-fees does, it keeps an even playing field and doesn't give discounts to big pools, it's way more convenient than sacrifice-to-fees, and finally it is good marketing.

You can complain all they want, but you have to accept that in a decentralized system full of anonymous participants asking people to act against their own interests for some vague greater good isn't going to be very successful.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
Can feeds or bets _automatically_ reference the price of an asset in open orders or last trade?
sr. member
Activity: 390
Merit: 254
Counterparty Developer
Once the initial buy-in period is over, how will the price be determined?  Will a decentralized exchange be online then?
On testnet it is online and working.
On mainnet the code is the same and work if miner process OP_RETURN.
Good chance are all miner will process it with the upload to bitcoind v0.9.
This day it will be online and usable.

TBH I have yet to see any authorized voice not speaking bad about this, so I wouldnt be so sure to see this finally implemented on .9 . I like this project and how it has been launched, but all this project and the BTC spent (burnt) depends on the implementation of a feature that may or may not appear on 0.9 and it is uncertain even when. I would like to have a more clear roadmap for this nice project.


Good point.  I am now feeling very nervous. Sad


Since OP_RETURN relay support is already merged into the upcoming 0.9 release, the probability of Gavin tearing it out is very remote. He even commented on it in his development update 5 (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=290), and PhantomPhreak has talked to him about the 0.9 release timeframe.

Also, from the conversation at the actual commit page, it seems the core dev team members there are fine with this change: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738

I think, minimally,they see the value of having OP_RETURN over not having it, since there is a huge demand for this kind of feature, and using OP_RETURN is a much cleaner and less wasteful method, compared to other approaches. We are committed to accomplishing this effort in a way that plays as well with the blockchain as possible, which is why we are going for OP_RETURN (and looking into the announce/commit sacrifices item that Jeff Garzik mentioned).

However, worse case, if for some reason OP_RETURN relaying support is ripped out of 0.9, we will just resort to another method, such as multisig. It will not stop this project.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
Oh, didn't notice on my last pull.... did you push?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
Here's patch for a few more issues I ran into

Quote
diff --git a/lib/bitcoin.py b/lib/bitcoin.py
index c61636b..6d8ed5e 100644
--- a/lib/bitcoin.py
+++ b/lib/bitcoin.py
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ def serialise (inputs, destination_output=None, data_output=None, change_output=
     # List of Inputs.
     for i in range(len(inputs)):
         txin = inputs
-        s += binascii.unhexlify(txin['txid'])[::-1]         # TxOutHash
+        s += binascii.unhexlify(bytes(txin['txid'], 'UTF-8'))[::-1]         # TxOutHash
         s += txin['vout'].to_bytes(4, byteorder='little')   # TxOutIndex
 
         # No signature.
diff --git a/lib/blocks.py b/lib/blocks.py
index 7a9985b..827a0d6 100644
--- a/lib/blocks.py
+++ b/lib/blocks.py
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ def get_tx_info (tx):
         if not data:
             asm = vout['scriptPubKey']['asm'].split(' ')
             if asm[0] == 'OP_RETURN' and len(asm) == 2:
-                data = binascii.unhexlify(asm[1])
+                data = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(asm[1], 'UTF-8'))
 
     # Only look for source if data were found (or destination is UNSPENDABLE), for speed.
     if not data and destination != config.UNSPENDABLE:
diff --git a/lib/btcpay.py b/lib/btcpay.py
index 7241c98..8a2501b 100644
--- a/lib/btcpay.py
+++ b/lib/btcpay.py
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ LENGTH = 32 + 32
 
 def create (db, order_match_id, test=False):
     tx0_hash, tx1_hash = order_match_id[:64], order_match_id[64:] # UTF‐8 encoding means that the indices are doubled.
-    tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(tx0_hash), binascii.unhexlify(tx1_hash)
+    tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx0_hash, 'UTF-8')), binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx1_hash, 'UTF-8'))
     data = config.PREFIX + struct.pack(config.TXTYPE_FORMAT, ID)
     data += struct.pack(FORMAT, tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes)


Thanks, but I already fixed all that.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
Here's patch for a few more issues I ran into

Quote
diff --git a/lib/bitcoin.py b/lib/bitcoin.py
index c61636b..6d8ed5e 100644
--- a/lib/bitcoin.py
+++ b/lib/bitcoin.py
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ def serialise (inputs, destination_output=None, data_output=None, change_output=
     # List of Inputs.
     for i in range(len(inputs)):
         txin = inputs
-        s += binascii.unhexlify(txin['txid'])[::-1]         # TxOutHash
+        s += binascii.unhexlify(bytes(txin['txid'], 'UTF-8'))[::-1]         # TxOutHash
         s += txin['vout'].to_bytes(4, byteorder='little')   # TxOutIndex
 
         # No signature.
diff --git a/lib/blocks.py b/lib/blocks.py
index 7a9985b..827a0d6 100644
--- a/lib/blocks.py
+++ b/lib/blocks.py
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ def get_tx_info (tx):
         if not data:
             asm = vout['scriptPubKey']['asm'].split(' ')
             if asm[0] == 'OP_RETURN' and len(asm) == 2:
-                data = binascii.unhexlify(asm[1])
+                data = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(asm[1], 'UTF-8'))
 
     # Only look for source if data were found (or destination is UNSPENDABLE), for speed.
     if not data and destination != config.UNSPENDABLE:
diff --git a/lib/btcpay.py b/lib/btcpay.py
index 7241c98..8a2501b 100644
--- a/lib/btcpay.py
+++ b/lib/btcpay.py
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ LENGTH = 32 + 32
 
 def create (db, order_match_id, test=False):
     tx0_hash, tx1_hash = order_match_id[:64], order_match_id[64:] # UTF‐8 encoding means that the indices are doubled.
-    tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(tx0_hash), binascii.unhexlify(tx1_hash)
+    tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes = binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx0_hash, 'UTF-8')), binascii.unhexlify(bytes(tx1_hash, 'UTF-8'))
     data = config.PREFIX + struct.pack(config.TXTYPE_FORMAT, ID)
     data += struct.pack(FORMAT, tx0_hash_bytes, tx1_hash_bytes)
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Help and Love one another ♥
Yes, but as written, the record of the burnproof is still existent.
Allowing a new distribution of a modified project. Without reburning.

It works on testnet. Most of recent project do not have that public.
If v0.9 isn't out in a month, it will be in 2.
Will see.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
this project and the BTC spent (burnt) depends on the implementation of a feature that may or may not appear on 0.9 and it is uncertain even when.
It is a risk.
You block your money for a month, with the possibility to lose it.
Therefore the thought in some that the early reward in a bit tiny.
But it's true that one month isn't that long either.

Whatever.
Pretty sure OP_RETURN will be on v0.9, 'coz the block chain is getting messy and messier without it.
Good dev like clean thing.

In the worst case scenario, the proof of burn are still a record of investment.
That let the dev considering alternative development, with coin distribution according to burning.
It would rely on trust. But it would be a nice gesture of the dev, 'clearly possible.
Let's just hope everything goes smoothly =)

What happens if OP_RETURN is never added or there is something wrong with it or for some reason the bitcoin devs decide never to add it?  Then all the BTC burnt is as loss for investors.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Help and Love one another ♥
this project and the BTC spent (burnt) depends on the implementation of a feature that may or may not appear on 0.9 and it is uncertain even when.
It is a risk.
You block your money for a month, with the possibility to lose it.
Therefore the thought in some that the early reward in a bit tiny.
But it's true that one month isn't that long either.

Whatever.
Pretty sure OP_RETURN will be on v0.9, 'coz the block chain is getting messy and messier without it.
Good dev like clean thing.

In the worst case scenario, the proof of burn are still a record of investment.
That let the dev considering alternative development, with coin distribution according to burning.
It would rely on trust. But it would be a nice gesture of the dev, 'clearly possible.
Let's just hope everything goes smoothly =)
Jump to: