Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address” - page 78. (Read 448462 times)

Hello everyone, I was away for a few months, but I originally sent some BTC over to the Exodus address when this all begun.

Fast forward to now; I'm back and just read the last few pages, and it seems like Mastercoin took off.

I still have my offline wallet intact from when I sent the BTC.

How do I get started ?? What should I do ?

(btw, I will be reading the whole post in the next few days, but some heads up would be nice )

To clarify, I was requesting the nicks of (active) board members on Bitcointalk, not Trello, to be listed. I imagine you Ripper would know them by heart and could easily list them here?

Excellent!

I would like to hereby appoint you as the Mastercoin Protocol Lead. Do you accept?

I have no issues at all with your changes. I do however suggest a different work process.


The disadvantage over the way Willett proposed the v1.2 changes is that with his current approach, we cannot examine the full updated spec before he pushes it to master. I would like the master branch on the official repository to always be an up-to-date version of the official spec.

I have cloned the github repo of the spec (https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec), and I have prepared the following comprehensive list of changes planned for version 1.2 of the spec:

• Fix incorrect sequence number description (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3122349)
• Clean up various things which were still undecided as of 1.1 or are now out-dated (as I find them)
• Include description of how to determine change addresses (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3190175;topicseen#msg3190175)
  Quote
  • All protocol transactions should have the same output amount. If one output is different, that is the change address.
  • If all outputs are the same, then look at sequence numbers:
    • If there is a broken sequence (i.e. 3,4,8), then the odd-man-out is the change address (8 in this example)
    • If there is an ambiguous sequence (i.e. 3,4,4), then the transaction is invalid!
    • If there is a perfect sequence (i.e. 3,4,5), then the transaction is invalid!
• Integrate Zathras' Class A/B/C documentation describing multi-sig (https://masterchest.info/files/mscappendix_draft.pdf)
• Clarify distributed exchange rules when BTC is not involved (especially that buy/sell orders can be matched automatically
• Add support for "pay dividend" command (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3233723;topicseen#msg3233723)
• Add support for "spending limits" on a savings address (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3412565;topicseen#msg3412565)
• Add support for "kickstarter" type fundraisers (where money is returned if the goal isn't met) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3451098;topicseen#msg3451098)
• Add support for "Contract For Difference" betting (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mastercoin-suggestion-contracts-for-difference-324830)
• Add support for "Distributed e-commerce" transactions (http://www.reddit.com/r/mastercoin/comments/1nqcq3/mastercoin_could_be_extended_into_a_fully/)

I hope I got everything. If you think something else should be in that list, please let me know!

This document describes the process of making changes to the Mastercoin spec. This process is it's very early stages, and is expected to change rapidly in the future (e.g. to include Voting). The current Protocol Owner is J.R Willett.

Right now, there are two possible change mechanisms to the spec document:

Developers can fork the repository, work on their own copy, push their proposed changes, and send a pull request accompanied with a post to bitcointalk. The Protocol Owner and the community reviews the changes, and when enough consensus has been generated, The Protocol Owner merges the changes back to the parent repository on mastercoin-MSC.

Minor and/or non-breaking changes can be made directly on top of the mastercoin-MSC parent repository, by people who have push right to this repository. If you want to be included in this group, ask Willett.

For sake of convenience, people who already have push access to the parent repository can work on branches instead of forks. This achieves the same purpose as option 1 above, in a manner that might be more convenient to some developers.

This was a great discussion. I'd like to respond publicly to the criticism about the way MasterCoins were originally sold (in a one-month time frame rather than over several years). The root of the criticism seems to be that this distribution was not fair, and I agree. It wasn't intended to be fair.

I think it might be instructive to look at the way new ideas are usually funded. Typically, I would have made the rounds to venture capitalists, jumped through a lot of hoops, and if I was VERY lucky, raised some money to go implement my new idea. Then, if I beat the odds, a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists would become even MORE wealthy. Nobody would call this "fair", but it works.

Instead of that approach, I took my idea to the people in the bitcoin community. Instead of making the rounds to venture capitalists, I launched my project with a kickstarter-style fundraiser. As it happens, a bunch of venture capitalists invested a lot of money, but they were joined by lots of average people who were following bitcoin closely. It turns out that my project ALSO made a bunch of wealthy venture capitalists even more wealthy, but normal people got to participate too.

The distribution wasn't fair and wasn't trying to be fair. Capitalism is unfair. Bitcoin is unfair too. There are other ways Mastercoin could have been sold, but I doubt any of them would have given us the funding (and thus the momentum) that we have today.

The complaints about the distribution model also seem to assume that the party is over now that the early investors are up ~30x. I personally do not think that is the case. I believe the party has barely begun.

Hi all,

We are looking for someone to lead the Smart Property feature of Mastercoin.
Just to clarify - we're not necessarily looking for a Tech Lead, but rather for a Feature leader.

The responsibility of this leader would be to total, start-to-finish responsibility for driving the feature. This means, among others:

1. Defining the precise business use-case
2. Generating the PR material (e.g. one-pager, blog posts, whatever is needed)
3. Communicating with potential customers of this feature, understanding their needs, and ultimately converting them to actual customers.
4. Driving the technical implementation, schedules, testing...

You don't have to be a technical purpose to achieve the above.

You will get any help you require from The Mastercoin Foundation and community, in the form of information, budget, and connections. I'd like to remind everyone that we have a budget of over 5000 bitcoins (and some mastercoins) dedicated to promoting the project. We will be able to allocate appropriate parts of that budget for this feature.

I'm super excited to see this taking off!

Ron

Please excuse my ignorance. I looked into Mastercoin a while ago but I couldn't figure out how exactly to receive them. Do I keep them in a bitcoin wallet? Does the wallet have to only hold mastercoins in it?
 
Is there a good resource with this information? Sorry again for the newbie post, I'm just not a techie and I think mastercoin is pretty neat. 

Please excuse my ignorance. I looked into Mastercoin a while ago but I couldn't figure out how exactly to receive them. Do I keep them in a bitcoin wallet? Does the wallet have to only hold mastercoins in it?
 
Is there a good resource with this information? Sorry again for the newbie post, I'm just not a techie and I think mastercoin is pretty neat. 

Haha yes indeed   I can code both but I chose VB and not C# just because I've more experience there - it's fairly trivial to move it over to C# so I may do so in future if the wallet gets much visibility to help others contribute.

Well, I did admit to being a bit out of touch
It's going to chance now though... thanks.

Ugh, why VB and not C#

I'll check it out, as well as the Ruby wallet.

The MSC devs may not notice your question here on the general discussion thread (they are really busy). Maybe try posting this question on our developer thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/300-btc-coding-contest-distributed-exchange-mastercoin-developer-thread-292628

Today I took a look at raw transactions, multi signatures and class B transactions.

And after observing the exodus address I was wondering:

Is there a specific reason to use an additional output for the change when doing multi sign transactions?

Example transaction:
Tx id: d445e92dc860b9fe62c53200906c7dfefd011ff2c46d3d99ef996dee0f2ae820

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, value: 0.04966 (change)
• 1: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.00006 (reference)
• 2: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.00006 (exodus)
• 3: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.00012 (self reference, data)

Total out: 0.04966+0.00006+0.00006+0.00012 = 0.0499 BTC


If I'm not mistaken, this would yield the same result:

In:

• 0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

• 0: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.0000543 (reference)
• 1: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.0000543 (exodus)
• 2: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.0497914 (self reference + change, data)

Total out: 0.0000543+0.0000543+0.0497914 = 0.0499 BTC


It is possible to use the multi signature output as transaction input in the next transaction with:

In:

• 0: (simplified multi sign tx id from above), vout: 2

Out:
....

Those 1-of-n outputs are redeemable, too, so why not use them?

People can decide on their own Trello id/nick.
I invited the mastercoin board of directors to this board, I imagine most of them won't be active there for the time being.