Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address” - page 26. (Read 448480 times)

Big Announcement:

the dev's have finally reached 100% consensus on transactions after a weekend long hackathon across the 4 Master Protocol implementations:

Masterchain.info
Mastercoin-explorer.com
Masterchest.info
Mymastercoins.com




https://masterchest.info/consensus_masterchestinfodev.aspx

Note there is a slight issue with dev mastercoins vesting to 1EXoDus time stamp calculation but that is being fixed.

thanks so much, i do try to post these but sometimes i do forget (lots of stuff going on)

Because there aren't any updates at bitcointalk anymore about the Master Protocol:


- Starting off 2014: Mastercoin's Top 10 You Want To Know About http://ow.ly/soTQh

- Vice: Making Your Own Cryptocurrency Has Never Been Easier http://ow.ly/shVkH

- Mastercoin Foundation Paying Out ~$1 Million upon Completion of Distributed Exchange http://ow.ly/svJGA

- Master Protocol & ‪Mastercoin‬: Development Update #2 http://ow.ly/srmwa

- What's Happening with Mastercoin? Check out our main Trello Board! http://ow.ly/ssmG8

- Mastercoin Foundation Searching for a CTO http://ow.ly/sq7nQ

- Two new exchanges: Dutch www.koopmastercoin.nl and the English www.mastercoindirect.com


and please vote for Mastercoin (MSC) on Cryptsy https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/45070

More Exodus Address funds are moving offline to the following 10 offline addresses held by one of our board members:

14U8kCELPcFghQLk5REPvpCnvoRxJvyUad
13MAUshaCbAnWrrJXqmfaKe9rwY4nCvfsk
1KgzQ3EWN4SbxyFBVCajgmC6kTNAjdL7pE
14zy9vb2uPmQPMHPCRZMmKYN88fmYrVxW5
15sX78oHhV9rsx9id7M55z5D6nd4eKPryj
1ErkNG7s1zPpEGCNyb4jydkvDT7JGBoFTg
1EG8or2YJskDPjMch4ue6esypgBxjJy2nN
1Etsrob7fxx2a5mwHYZFoJrVLKksRx19fB
1BvpM2u1b6wtcdf1vKvweBMrxpjFz6sRYQ
18w1KqtRxS7mXUSf8uuU7viiBNBuSaRMjS

This will be done in a couple days (to give him time to say "oh crap my email was hacked")

Thanks

Just a note here. I was asked by a reporter/writer about Mastercoins and one of the topics that came up was why would MSC have value.

I know this topic comes up occasionally and we all seem to forget so here goes again (answer by ripper234)

Me

Ripper234

Yes thats how you send MSC from a specific address in your wallet.

Excellent. So I'll send all BTC to one of the specific addresses that hold the MSC that I want to send.

Hope I understood correctly. Thank you sincerelly, jeroenn13. 

The wallet you currently have (Bitcoin - QT) can have more addresses which have different amounts of BTC. If you want to send from 1 specific MSC address you have to send your total balance to the address you which to send from, so Bitcoin Qt will be forced to send from that specific address because it holds all the BTC.

Thank you jeroenn13, maxmint.

Two more questions: I have 3 addresses in my qt wallet, each one of these having different amount of MSC.

1 ) If I choose to send from the first address, how is the advisor informed for the sending address (I guess it doesn't need to know which is the sending address, just the receiving..) and how do I choose the specific address?

2 ) Can you clarify to me what the first step in advisor mean ("send all funds in your wallet to the address which owns the mastercoins (the following sends must come from that address)")?


Thank you in advance  

Do it like this: https://i.imgur.com/wif7mPs.png

In Bitcoin QT- Click on "Add recipient"

Someone please tell me how to send mastercoins using the advisor with bitcoin-qt in windows? how I make 3 transactions at once?

hi all, if you use or don't use the mastercoin forums (http://talk.mastercoin.org), can you vote on them, we want to see if people like or don't like them:

https://talk.mastercoin.org/index.php?p=/discussion/87/what-do-you-think-of-the-current-forum-s-user-interface?new=1

LOL. If I wanted to "spread my endless FUD", i would have said things which are several orders of magnitude more harsh than what I wrote above.

I was simply discussing various design decision with this fellow (use of alt-chain vs. use of Bitcoin blockchain) and had to mention some facts...

I simply rephrased what J. R. WIllett said himself: he said that it is very important to keep Mastercoin simple to be able to implement it ASAP, and that rules out use of alt-chain/side-chain. (On the other hand, hashrate is nearly irrelevant here. That was the point of my message.)

As to calling it an "illusion of working cryptocurrency", well, it isn't a secret that Mastercoin wasn't functioning as a cryptocurrency for the first two-three months of its existence: there was a way to send coins, but no way to check that payment was made (aside from manual inspection).

You are a profoundly annoying fucking piece of garbage shithead.  Go fuck yourself.  Why do you insist on trying to throw shit on Mastercoin at everyturn?  Doesn't your stupid project demand all of your time?  I guess you feel the only way you can get your project advanced by knocking Mastercoin further.

This explains everything you write.  You think you are a competitor.  However, as your project is underfunded, underengineered and pathetic, you feel a need to come here and spread your endless FUD.  Eat shit douchbag.  Your points are worthless as your motivation for saying these things is clearly corrupt.  Besides, showing no understanding of what a cryptocurrency is.  

jimhsu also cross-posted a very good response above, as well.  Thank you both.


I hope others here appreciate that killerstorm’s comments continue to improve the Mastercoin community and its ongoing implementation by keeping some of us sane (and keeping us humble), even though he is the primary developer of a “competitor.”  

We’re not going to keep improving as quickly as we are if we don’t all work together on making solid, robust concepts into solid, robust implementations.  (This also implies that any concepts that aren’t solid or robust need to be made into those that are.)

Competition breeds excellence, but only when competitors see the good things being done on the other side, and work to improve upon them.  Killerstorm understands this, and I, for one, appreciate it.

You're pathetic, people: I described it in detail several pages ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4365991

Getting profitable fast enough is definitely not related to hashing power, there are more important reasons to do it on Bitcoin blockchain:

1. it needs to be on Bitcoin blockchain to make it possible to send bitcoins to exodus address
2. "simple send" can be done using a normal bitcoin client, this way you can make an illusion of working cryptocurrency (you can send coins!) spending only a couple of hours on making some basic script


A robust cryptocurrency protocol is supposed to be resistant to all kinds of attacks.


I'm well aware of competitors, in fact I am the lead developer of one of them. I just wanted to know which of them you had in mind. Invictus?

1.) Its always been about hashing power. The alt-coin method of establishing your own blockchain was discarded from the outset, because the lead dev was worried he wouldn't get profitable fast enough.

2.) Bitcoin can be abused like any other resource, and while its utility exceeds most cases of this abuse, it doesn't detract from the fact that the abuse occurs. Ignoring this is the usual M.O. for Disastercoin participants.

3.) You then make the contradictory case for an alt-chain's usefulness. If the principle is fundamentally useful, why wouldn't more miners support it and users participate? Having to hook into Bitcoin and co-opt hashing power just means that there's a real fear that any other way wouldn't yield any interest, so they shove it down the miners throats instead. (And users, by extension of full verification node resources.)

4.) You then setup a nice little straw man in the form of "all alt chains are obscure, therefore"... riiiiiight. The real issue here is this - The ONLY reason Disastercoin is co-opting Bitcoin is because they are afraid of it not succeeding otherwise. Of course they ignore the fact that failure, or "tail risk" still exists regardless of their implementation. Again - if the idea has ANY MERIT AT ALL, it would survive just fine as an alt-chain.

As for other competitors, why should I bother? The information is out there and available, just look for it.

Crossposted from the XCP thread.

Perhaps I'm not understanding stslimited, but isn't that analogous to asking what is the functional difference between 1 BTC, 1 mBTC, 1 uBTC, and 1 satoshi? All of those monetary units can be used as a basic transfer of wealth (of which 99.99% of it is used for that purpose right now), to send messages, to denote proof of ownership (colored coins), etc. (the latter two are not the primary uses of BTC right now, but could be). Similarly with MSC and XCP, I expect similar analogies to apply -- a store of value, until a network can be built that utilizes the other functions of these coins. How many bitcoin do you need "to do anything"? What someone is willing to take for them in exchange for goods and services. 

Where I could understand is if stslimited considers MSC and XCP transactional currencies, rather than stores of value. And that is right to an extent; the non store-of-value features of these currencies has been a selling point, so to speak. However, in light of this view, I'd like to point to several posts highlighting the transactional currency status of BTC itself, which the community has (by now) embraced the store-of-value concept. Thus, I don't think at all that the transactional and store-of-value concepts should be segregated at all, at least when talking about these.