Subasset issuance (ID 21) added to my tx decoder.
https://jpja.github.io/Electrum-Counterparty/decode_tx.html?tx=793566ef1644a14c2658aed6b3c2df41bc519941f121f9cff82825f48911e451
- 01 March 2023 (1 messages)
-
- 03 March 2023 (3 messages)
-
Have a question on issuance. If you issue an asset, let’s just say you do 1000 issuance with unlocked supply.
Can you change it both up and down from day to day.
For example:
March 3: 1000 issuance
March 4: burn 500 so there is 500 left
March 5: mint 5000 so now there is 5500
March 6: burn 400 so issuance is 5100 now
Can you continually do this? -
Ty
- 05 March 2023 (12 messages)
-
Possible to do counterparty vanity address?
Ie: pepe.xcp -
Goes to my address
-
It could exist if someone builds the browser tools. -
Mike In Space (@mikeinspace) on X
A simple demonstration of tying a DNS entry, stored on the #Bitcoin blockchain, to your Counterparty .xcp handle. Working demo by @mariodian.
-
Wow
-
You can just enter your asset name into the destination field in freewallet and it will automatically be changed to the asset owner address….. so if you wanted to send me money for example, you could just type jdog or jdog.xcp into the destination field and the funds would be sent to the jdog asset owner address👍🏻 -
Would this also work for multisend? -
Not currently but it could be added to freewallet and/or CP
-
I guess this could work for dispensers too. For example, set up a dispenser at an empty address then transfer an asset ownership to it. -
If selling one of your own assets, creating a subasset like NAME.Dispenser
-
exploring create_dispenser programmatically. using the coutnerparty API, to create a dispenser on a new address do you have to perform a send first then use create_dispenser? or does create_dispenser do the send / escrow the asset for you? -
oh dont mind me... - helps if you spell the asset name correctly. Caffeine is no longer cutting it i think i might need to actually sleep!
- 06 March 2023 (78 messages)
-
For new addresses the token is automatically credited to the dispenser address balances, then immediately debited from the address and escrowed in a dispenser on the address… all automatic (setup a dispenser on a new address and you’ll see a credit, a debit, and a dispenser setup
-
i wanted to share this here before i share it more broadly, decided to put my thoughts down as to how counterparty can leverage ord by adding it to the federated node stack, https://forums.counterparty.io/t/ordinal-envelopes/6504?u=loon3Ordinal EnvelopesAn ordinal envelope is a mechanism that allows Counterparty assets to be moved into and out of an individual satoshi via its Ordinal number. From a technical perspective, this implementation is fairly straightforward. The challenge is convincing the Counterparty community that the rewards of integrating ord outweigh the potential risk to long term stability of the platform. I’m writing this post to eventually publish as a CIP so will keep the same format for portability… Abstract Ordinal nu...
-
I've been playing with the "federated node" stack this weekend to try to add an ord image (not very successful for now).
I was thinking also that it should have a different name. The "Federated node" name make people think it's a "Counterparty node" (hence the "Sidechain" false idea). I renamed the repo "Bitcoin protocols" for my tests -
I think that’s more of an education issue
-
How big of a footprint is the ord indexing? Fednode footprint already pretty big with having to store the entire btc blockchain and addrindexrs… while I’m supportive of collaboration, not sure it is worth it if it increeases the difficulty/cost of running a node…. Need to be convinced that :
A) brings great value to the CP beyond some simple tweaks and
b) that the fednode stack will not grow become risky harder/larger to maintain… (think POW ETH nodes… normies can’t run them, they require HUGE amount of disk space and CPU)
IMO It is important that anyone can stand up a cp fednode on a relatively normal computer with a couple terabytes of disk space
As the guy who runs most of the fednode servers, I am aware of what a pain keeping the fednode up/active can be… counterblock stopping parsing, addrindexrs index becoming corrupted and needing a reparse, counterwallet always needing restarted, etc.. adding yet another component to maintain (especially one with a large disk footprint and high cpu processing costs) is something I am apprehensive to do.
I like the idea of collaborating with ordinals to allow some sort of interoperability … but, I am not sold on the fact that we should bloat the default fednode install to run ordinals index… at least not in the default install… perhaps a new “ordinals” install type is more appropriate, so only those who want to run ordinals index have to.
Can you clarify exactly what benefits we get by running ordinals indexer in fednode and how/why that is better than just tweaking CP a bit to handle the envelope creation/destruction method you were describing?
I have not played with ordinals much yet, so pls forgive my ignorance -
Vocabulary is part of the education issue imo
-
I think ordinals should be an option
-
Cool, pls explain why, how big is the footprint? Why does multiple days of parsing sound acceptable, what great benefits are we getting by adding it to the fednode stack vs just allowing cp to talk to and already existing ordinals index (just a port/host/username/pass tweak)?
-
Ord indexer only takes like an hour to complete the index
-
I think the index is currently 90gb
-
I love the term indexer
-
Ok, not nearly as bad as I thought…. As ordinals usage grows, is the index going to explode in size? Ie…. Is the encoded data (images/text/etc) stored in the index or just references to txs and specific on-chain txs that hold the data?
-
They just updated it a few days ago with the help of the guy that wrote redb
-
No it’s predictable actually, because ordinals are just satoshis
-
And the indexer does not download inscriptions afaik
-
In fact this proposal ignores inscriptions entirely
-
Ok… 90% of my concerns are moot then.
-
It only took my like 12 hrs with the old version so not sure why it took you 5 days
-
What benefit do we get by running the index? Ie… what does the indexer do/allow CP to do that CP can not do on its own? Lookup specific sats n associate inscriptions with them and move a specific sat?
-
Link
Just published a new release of ord (0.5.1). This will decrease initial index time to less than 25 minutes on an M1 Mac. Try it out! https://t.co/KlBjaTwRrl
-
Nothing to do with inscriptions, the benefit is that counterparty assets can ride the rails of ord and benefit from all applications within that ecosystem
-
And it stops all the nonsense talk of teleburning counterparty assets
-
Because it’s two way
-
Cloud? Not dedicated servers? Check ovh.com …. Dedicated machines, many cores, lots of memory, unlimited bandwidth, etc… I migrated away from cloud stufff years ago… convenient but usually overpriced
-
It’s not something we should rush to do, but should def start discussing it, could also bring more people into counterparty by having a way to do editions rather than 1/1s
-
Ok.. reasonable footprint and parsing times, and 2-way operability… I’m down
-
Javier is currently working on taproot support for next release… so timing is nice👍🏻
-
That's what I'm using too for my BTC node x Counterparty interpreter
-
best spec x price
-
it's not too demanding also
-
I have a polygon node that requires a 300$ / month server on OVH
-
but it would cost thousands on AWS
-
Another challenge will be building wallet software to handle everything, so obvi this would be a multi step process
-
And the auto-DDOS detection and mitigation is nice…. Just black holes ddos attempts to take down xchain.io ….. combine ovh hosting/services with Cloudflare tools is a winning combo for the past year👍🏻
-
Also by taking on ord into the stack has social implications like what if ord does an upgrade that is controversial etc
-
Thanks for volunteering!
-
Lol
-
Sorry for my ignorance, but how does the ord ecosystem recognize a CP asset? -
took me a few days to DL it, and it was 100 GB if memory serves -
Joined.
-
if there's not a really compelling reason to do breaking changes to the protocol, it seems foolish. Are there any tangible benefits or are we talking about breaking things for potential benefits?
-
Well hopefully we don’t break anything
-
Hey everyone 👋 glad to be here -
It doesn’t need to
-
-
That's the big difference between the two I think, risking losing an Ordinal because you didn't used the right wallet is not a good design
-
It’s just the nature of it, I love that it’s forcing people to learn about utxos and how bitcoin accounting works
-
What if other ord developers don’t want to recognize CP ord assets?
Do you think this will be something fairly easy for them to implement?
Or
Does that mean we need to have a specific wallet and explorer just for CP ord assets? -
If it’s not a standard and it’s not implemented across the board in the ord ecosystem, I’m just worried we make a huge change that won’t be recognized or used by the ordinal community.
-
I love the idea no doubt. It’s awesome.
-
It’s not for the ordinal community, it’s for counterparty users
-
But why would we use ords when we all already know how to use counterparty?
-
I thought the goal was to onboard more users to CP as the reasoning.
-
I would use inscriptions for the CP NFTs description
-
Would be great to do that in one tx in the future
-
That’s a benefit
-
It enhances the suite of tools
-
Oh no doubt, didn’t realize this was included.
-
I think a wait and see approach makes sense too but better to start talking about it now
-
Agree. I’m just a fly on the wall trying to understand. You guys are the big brains, down for whatever the majority agrees to.
-
Joined. -
I’m back!
-
Great news! Xcp.dev which uses a non-bootstrap node finally has matching hashes with xchain.
Very significant imo as it proves that xcp is fully decentralized.
Big thanks to Juan, Jdog and Javier! -
And the ordinals concept is really interesting. Need to let it sink in.
Plus taproot development. Today is triple good news for Counterparty 🍺🥳❤️
Btw. is that taproot data encoding, address format or something else? -
address format im assuming
-
@pataegrillo what are you working on with regard to taproot?
-
i'm trying to figure out if we can create a really large txs using the new features provided by taproot, so we can use that instead of 2 txs using p2sh -
Joined. - 07 March 2023 (48 messages)
-
Thanks for your help dev peeps!
-
I wish more projects did this. I’d have been paying experts for years
-
i wonder if the two txs can be somethings like bech32 -> taproot, taproot-> bech32
-
so that users dont need to really care about taproot addresses
-
seems like the taproot address is only necessary for the witness in the 2nd tx
-
indeed, taproot behaves like segwit when creating the txs. The only good thing we can take advantage is the witness zero-limit and reduced fees, and of course, being compatible with taproot addresses
-
yeah compatible with taproot is good in general but it would be nice to not limit taproot witness storage to just collections with taproot addresses
-
i'm also reading about ordinals, seems really easy, but i don't know if activating something like that could create an avalanche of counterparty nft txs
-
i think counterparty and ordinals layer nicely
-
the thing i worry about is breaking changes in ord that have an downstream affect on counterparty, but if we stick to just using ordinal numbers, thats a the most fundamental thing to ord so extremely unlikely it would be changed
-
and counterparty can look at inscriptions as just an on-chain storage method and not something that affects consensus
-
is there something you want to do that can't be accomplished at the application layer instead? e.g. wallets
-
use ordinals marketplaces with counterparty assets
-
is the first thing that comes to mind
-
very similar to emblem vault but without any third party
-
What about the ppl who are going to do inscriptions for each old asset? Just to have them eternally on the blockchain.
-
yeeep already starting to happen
-
if we can facilitate asset movement in and out of ordinals then its way less compelling to “teleburn” old assets (which is dumb, but it is a thing)
-
yes we created a directory where all the cards must be inscribed - been getting quite some traffic
-
you might have noticed all the ORDINAL assets on the dex
-
over 200 assets already link to inscription data https://xchain.io/search?query=ORD%3A
-
Yes, i saw them. Maybe I'm being paranoid 🤔
-
the best thing we can do is integrate ord so that people dont feel like they need to leave counterparty ecosystem
-
and by integrate ord i mean ordinal theory for envelopes, and inscriptions for asset media
-
the project is really just a trojan horse to onboard counterparty. Other then the fact that I actually do think storing counterparty card images in inscriptions in an elegant solution. Luckily we are trucking with no changes although the ORD decoder and it's istall to XCHAIN has been awesome 🙏
rareordinal.directory if you wanna check it -
Ord decoder?
-
inscribe.art is the easiest way to use it
-
if you use ORD: identifier as your counterparty description field xchain now reads data directly from the blockchain
-
Oh right
-
-
xchain just links to a tool joe created which looks up the inscription and returns the data in a JSON format... then xchain just displays the content 🙂
-
Yeah i still think it's so fucking cool that if you drag the image onto a text editor you see what's actually on the blockchain
-
-
cips/cip-0025.md at master · CounterpartyXCP/cips
Counterparty Improvement Proposals. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/cips development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
I made an image scaler so images for inscriptions can be scaled without dithering and serves the proper mine type
-
-
GitHub - EmblemCompany/image-scaler
Contribute to EmblemCompany/image-scaler development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
what is the easiest way to "crack" a emblem vault... used to be a crack option, but now I dont see it... just bought a pepe on OS and looking to transfer it to my main CP wallet.
-
You need to click approve minting as it's a new claim flow
-
ok, thanks
-
ahh... now I see the option.. perfect 🙂
-
👍🏼
-
i just started a reindex of ord with sat-index which would be required for an integration so i’ll have a benchmark for how long it takes starting from genesis block
-
How big is the dataset?
-
I’ve only heard people groaning about the index, but not the benchmarks👀
-
i just mean benchmark in the broader sense
-
i think the db is like 90 gb with sat points so it could always be part of a bootstrap
-
oh cool that’s what I was hoping to hear
- 08 March 2023 (9 messages)
-
Is there a public api that returns asset ownerships for an address?
-
-
Xchain api is perfect for almost anything. But i cannot find a way to get asset ownerships for an address.
-
-
there are quite a few ways you can do it
-
ownership or holdings?
-
Ownerships.
Issuances api fails to show issuances when ownership is transferred to the address.
E.g this address owns JPJA but api won't show it https://xchain.io/api/issuances/1AnRKzwPZSPFUmjK822LBzfVd1CLJd9fGa -
on some calles you are limited to a certain number of replies
-
so you might need to page though
- 10 March 2023 (2 messages)
-
Joined. - 11 March 2023 (14 messages)
-
Would be nice to have dispensers that can sell asset ownerships and not just token supply -
Mmm you might be able to sell ownership through coindaddy.io -
I believe you can yes .. but that involves a 3rd party .. be nice to minimise trust and sell direct p2p using dispenser tech
-
I know some people have sold ownership using emblem, they transfer ownership to the btc address of the vault, so imported vault owns the asset.
-
same issue, multiple parties, each pulling away from pure decentralization and simplicity
-
its just a idea I throwing out there .. I wouldn't know how to code it .. I guess a 3rd dispenser type would be required .. we have standard dispenser & oracled dispensers, so we could call it ownership dispenser
-
its certainly been talked about before
-
not sure if there was ever a cip or counterpartytalk discussion
-
I found it JPJA started a thread in October 2021
https://forums.counterparty.io/t/pre-cip-btc-swap/6264Pre CIP - BTC-SwapProblem 1: Trust is currently needed when selling an asset for BTC. Problem 2: Bundles and asset ownerships can not be traded on the DEX or dispenser. Solution: Introduce a swap contract. Counterparty escrows the asset and no trust is necessary. Background: On the protocol level the only trustless way of selling for BTC is with BTC_PAY on the DEX. Unfortunately this is only implemented on FreeWallet and not yet properly peer-reviewed. The DEX is also limited to a quantity of a single asset ...
-
is btc_pay really trust less? Or is the trust just placed in software vs a human?
-
I might be confusing btc_pay with BTCpay server
-
Btcpay is a specific tx type which pays for btc order matches on the DEX (btc is never escrowed by CP… so yeah, trustless)….. BTCpay is also the name of a separate project as well
-
That was my confusion. I always assumed that dispensers were clever transaction types built using bitcoin script
-
Dispensers were primarily created because using btc to buy things on the dex required 2 txs and was kludgy… 1 order and one btcpay to pay for the order match….. vs dispensers which just do it in a single tx👍🏻
- 14 March 2023 (34 messages)
-
gm devs, I met a fren today from Australia who operates a MM dollar real estate business.. he's thinking about launching a token, backed by said real estate... is there anywhere I might be able to find a dev who would be interested in helping develop this?
I'm just a pleb who knows nothing... apologies if this is not the place ✌️
Actually though I'm interested to know if this sounds reasonable to you smart people...
I figure it could be done as simply as by creating a new xcp token, and choosing the supply etc, but I don't know if that would then allow voting/tailoring/other functionalities 🤔 -
His problems won’t be so much technical as regulatory. I spent 1.5 years working in a startup that specialised in exactly that in Australia. The biggest challenge is what kind of security structure and financial services licenses to operate under. -
Australia is about three years away from any serious regulatory certainty around tokenisation of real estate.
-
That’s optimistic
-
Various projects have gone ahead under various models, a couple of them followed models I suggested, others went in different directions
-
My web3 specialist lawyer and I can probably assist with initial feasibility advice. Let me know if you’d like to discuss further.
-
@B0BSmith are you still hosting that site that helps consolidate op_checkmultisig outputs?
-
yeah you can find it @
hy7qsqjoqbufjnavqwsetb75khq6ooq2kfjffihhzg24grwzzohagiqd.onion -
js still only running on a Rpi3 but this time the .onion is linked direct to the flask server as I was getting timeout issues when proxying with nginx
-
Do you mind sharing the code you’re using?
-
I hadn't finished writing it yet .. it only works for upto 2000 tx on a single address as I need it to loop the blockcypher api call for addresses with larger tx histories
-
Ahh so you’re using blockcypher api?
-
Its odd how it shows as an address starting with 4
-
yes I query blockcypher api for a list of all txs made by an address
I then inspect each tx by querying my own node for unspent multisig dust outputs -
Got it, i was just playing around with bitcoin-cli yesterday constructing txs with createrawtransaction
-
I do that once I have a array of unspent outputs
-
Need to do anything special or bitcoin core just knows how to spend
-
then use bitcoin cli sign raw transaction with key
-
try my tool, it will show you the bitcoin cli command it uses ..it won't ask for your private key
-
you need the txid the vout number and the scriptPubKey for each utxo
-
nice ok i see the spend script
-
spend command i should say
-
nice ... yeah core will sign it and you can then broadcast as you wish
-
what query are you using with bitcoin-cli to find the multisig outputs once you provide the txid
-
I downlosd the tx .. I then look for a output that is 7800 sats and then I look to see if the 3rd of the 1 of 3 pubkeys belongs to the address we working with
-
so it's python code not a bitcoin cli command ... if I find what I am looking for I use a bitcoin-cli command to see if the tx output is unspent
-
yep got it, wasnt sure how granular you were getting
-
theres actually a flag you can use on blockcypher to include tx hex
-
with utxo
-
i have to use it for signing txs with ledger
-
although maybe thats what you’re using
-
I am not at my desk at the moment but will be again in a bit n can get you some more infos
-
no worries, i appreciate the info so far!
-
sent you a dm
- 15 March 2023 (11 messages)
-
Hi, I have been trying to sign a simple tx made using the counterparty servers (signing the raw tx using bitcoinlib - python)
It seems it doesnt like the transaction. when i try importing it and then printing info with:
t = Transaction.import_raw(rawtx)
t.info()
I get:
"Unknown unlocking script type p2pkh for input 0"
its a simple create issuance transaction with only one input.
if I replace the hash with another unsigned not made by counterparty servers I can see the info no problem.
do I need to do anything special with the hex from the counterparty servers in order to read it and sign it. i can decode it fine using blockcypher.com
here is the raw tx incase you wana peek:
010000000147e4efecb198d013f9a938904d560d4c831cb3e7ae84cf899c10c5689ed0c2ed000000001976a91409c4d51c89d31a374706ae80249bb408f02b86ba88acffffffff0200000000000000002a6a2846e58e6bfb7a15bc6cc1e430745ddf644b9ea57539d2b77b57a822a3ac811d7d6846e3416cccc4c673600000000000001976a91409c4d51c89d31a374706ae80249bb408f02b86ba88ac00000000 -
what do you mean if you create a tx not made by counterparty api, like using bitcoin core?
-
you could pull the data hex for op_return from block cypher for this one and recreate the exact same unsigned tx with bitcoin core and then compare the two
-
Yh or electrum.
Ok will habe a go at that when im back home -
ok recreated the transaction with bitcoin-cli and it gives me a hash i can read
-
i did notice "script" : "hex" missing from the input from the bitcoincore generated hex as a difference between them
-
the bitcoin core hex:
020000000147e4efecb198d013f9a938904d560d4c831cb3e7ae84cf899c10c5689ed0c2ed0000000000fdffffff0273600000000000001976a91409c4d51c89d31a374706ae80249bb408f02b86ba88ac00000000000000002a6a2846e58e6bfb7a15bc6cc1e430745ddf644b9ea57539d2b77b57a822a3ac811d7d6846e3416cccc4c600000000 -
What do you mean here?
-
"script": "76a91409c4d51c89d31a374706ae80249bb408f02b86ba88ac", is present in the decoded raw tx which was made using the counterparty api
but not present in the bitcoin core created tx - this is the only obvious (to me) difference yet i can read and getinfo for this transaction using bitcoinlib -
Interesting, I wonder if js libraries just ignore that
-
Or i fluffed something up making the transaction 😅
- 16 March 2023 (12 messages)
-
legendary advice, yes, ty, will shoot you a dm and take it outta here ✌️
-
gm again,
I recently tried to create a new token, didn't realise I didn't have enough xcp too fund it... transaction failed due to insufficient funds.. now that token appears to belong to a null address... did I just burn myself? or can I still claim that token name, somehow..? -
i was successfully able to sign and pushtx the Bitcoin Core hand fettled transaction:
https://xchain.io/tx/b457d067f926df18e1b7778106cef2edb56e8f7083e0e745b8289b54b520d8e1
Any ideas why im not able to do this with the counterparty.io api transaction using bitcoinlib? -
weird how its showing up as transfer = true
-
ohhhh its because the change output is the first output in the tx
-
gotta be careful with that
-
Yh that is odd but might be cus of the way i did it manually etc.
Has anyone got amy experience with bitcoinlib and counterparty.io?
I mean it will be a heck of a lot easier to sign the tx made by the api then having to pull it apart, recompile it and sign etc -
havent used bitcoinlib to sign txs before.... mainly use bitcore and bitcoinjs
-
Signing in freewallet (bitcore & segwit done with bitcoinjs)
https://github.com/jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop/blob/master/js/freewallet-desktop.js#L3127-L3220
Signing in Counterwallet (bitcore)
https://github.com/jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop/blob/master/js/util.bitcore.js#L295-L475freewallet-desktop/js/freewallet-desktop.js at master · jdogresorg/freewallet-desktopDesktop wallet for Win/Mac/Linux which supports Bitcoin and Counterparty - jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop
-
Yeah would be nice to figure out exactly what’s happening
-
Yh i will continue to play and see if i can work through it hopefully just me being dumb
- 17 March 2023 (5 messages)
-
just to confirm the locking script made by the counterparty api is just a standard p2pkh locking script? or is there something funky with it?
The "script type" says pay-to-pubkey-hash but im still having trouble. -
this is the script used to create the change output for legacy addresses
-
Do you know why when i build the tx with bitcoin core there is no script but when I use the counterparty api there is?
-
I would appreciate some dev feedback on this PR and the proposed solutions. (it fixes the long-time issue in CP where we get told we dont have enough BTC when in fact we do) https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/pull/1228Send change smaller than DUST to miners fee instead of error by pataegrillo · Pull Request #1228 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib
This fix adds a new parameter dust_size to the backend utxo sort function in order to change it from DEFAULT_MULTISIG_DUST_SIZE to DEFAULT_REGULAR_DUST_SIZE depending if the tx uses a "multisi...
-
God I love watching this channel, thanks for the invite @hodlencoinfield
- 20 March 2023 (6 messages)
-
Is there a limit on the number of xchain API requests I can make in a given time? -
No enforced rules currently, but will implement rate limiting in the near future to ensure the service stays up/available to all (freewallet needs xchain API in order to function properly)…. 2 requests per second is fine… but only make api requests when you have to…. Blocks only come every 10 mins, so no need to spam api requests for new txs😀👍🏻
-
Also might offer a premium service with no rate limiting… a decent amount of bots constantly send api requests to get market info (frontrunning bots prolly)… want to cut that traffic out of xchain main traffic… premium service where they pay a few bucks a month seems fair👍🏻
-
Sounds great!
Also, I noticed that xchain is much faster in updating mempool than my local node. Is speed based solely on server specs ? -
Yes… all xchain gets mempool data from a single server currently…. That server has 32 cores and 128gb of ram… also streamlined the backend infrastructure a bit using MySQL replication instead of running a node on each sever…. Plus some sql query optimizations I made around Christmas😀👍🏻
-
Yes I remember when you explained how CP deals with mempool & the optimizations you worked on late Nov.!
- 21 March 2023 (3 messages)
-
Does the latest version of FreeWallet allow Arweave Links char limit was increased? -
It looks like I limit asset description to 200 characters... personally not a fan of really long asset description urls so I limit to 200.... if you want to change your description to something longer, I believe you can do so in counterwallet (no limit)
-
https://github.com/jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop/blob/master/html/issuance/token.html#L239-L244
https://github.com/jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop/blob/master/html/issuance/description.html#L90-L95freewallet-desktop/token.html at master · jdogresorg/freewallet-desktopDesktop wallet for Win/Mac/Linux which supports Bitcoin and Counterparty - freewallet-desktop/token.html at master · jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop
- 22 March 2023 (54 messages)
-
finally finished indexing ord with —sat-index flag
-
looking at my ORDTELEBURN issuance which "burns" a single sat in the op_return, which is the same method i proposed in Ordinal Envelopes to empty the envelope back to counterparty
-
-
all the info necessary so should be able to start working on PR
-
ord index database with sat-index is 117 gb
-
took 65 hours to index on my machine with 32 gb RAM
-
sata or ssd?
-
Pls monitor disk usage over the next 30 days... will be curious to see how much the index grows
-
making a backup of the db now so will be able to compare against that as time goes on
-
SSD connected via SATA
-
HDD is a no go, but honestly i after upgrading i dont know why anyone continues to use HDDs
-
larger disk capacity... cheaper in servers, etc.... ideally everything would be SSDs... but, still waiting for cheap 5TB SSD drives so I can do RAID-1 in a server without having to pay extra money each month for some "special disk config".... SATA HDDs still the standard unfortunately.... I run HDDs in all the xchain servers... might consider moving them to SSD in the future if/when prices come down
-
so yeah... cant assume everyone is going to be using a large SSD... hence why I am very interested in the performance on a SATA HDD..... 65 hours to index on an SSD... wonder how much was CPU bound and how much was disk bound.... Bitcoin syncs in less than 24 hours... indexd builds its index in a few hours, counterparty downloads the bootstrap and is caught up in an hour or less... currently can spin up a full CP fednode on SATA HDDs in a lil over 24 hours.
-
sure but thats with a bootstrap
-
you could easily bootstrap ord and it would be ready to go
-
and you can probly index next block on an HDD
-
just cant run the initial index
-
yep, would prolly want to make that the standard like we do with the CP bootstrap (takes weeks to process otherwise).... but, would like to get an understanding of how long a full parse would take on a base level system.... for those "Juans" among us who demand to parse all data themselves 🙂
-
hahaha yes absolutely
-
probly makes most sense to do sequentially rather than async, also i was on 32 gb RAM and that seemed to be the chokepoint
-
had full RAM utilization during writes (every 5000 blocks)
-
-
-
working on freewallet updates.... think ppl will be happy with the CIP25 integration and being able to see the "Official" banner and card information (audio/video/image) data in the wallet 🙂
-
not allowing the custom html content in the wallet tho.... too risky/sketchy for my taste 🙂
-
man gpt-4 is killing it, just got it to write a python script to update ord index every time a block is found via zmq
-
is that out now???
-
i want all the AIs
-
joined!
-
my ordAuto script is running great, using it to benchmark block indexing times
-
that’s better than my chatgpt vscode plugin
-
I’ve been using gpt4 to transpile code for me (not a real transpile, but write this monolith python script into a modular nodejs library type of thing)
-
the AI + code use case has blown me away tho
-
yeah its nuts, its really great at explaining code too
-
this copilot x is gonna be great for working on other people's repos
-
no kidding
-
as im getting more comfortable with python im going to start converting scripts to rust to start learning that
-
chatgpt is that buddy that knows everything i always wish i had when writing code
-
that’s a great idea, I’ve struggled with rust. but mostly setting up a working rust env… no ai is doing to help me….. hmm I wonder how good it is at writing docker
-
im sure its excellent
-
also noticed a huge differenct going to GPT-4, it doesnt make the same dumb mistakes that GPT-3 did
-
they have a version of gpt4 in the api’s that’s trained on current (as of last month) data, and is designed for analyzing code, vs just conversation.
-
I'm also thinking about learning rust
-
i've wanted to for a while
-
Rust for Bitcoiners https://meetu.ps/e/LZk0z/v9RDM/iRust for Bitcoiners, Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 6:00 PM | Meetup
Join us online as we learn Rust for bitcoin development! This meetup is designed for bitcoiners who want to enhance their skills by learning the Rust programming language.
-
Not the virtual ones, this groups in person was great tho. So 🤞🏼
-
- 23 March 2023 (61 messages)
-
Is there a way to check if a BTC address is an XCP address? Someone used a form to collect XCP addreesses but think some are BTC only.
-
The noise of the pain when the asset hits Coinbase -
-
I'm not sure, as at the end the thing would be to differentiate if the address is self custody so the owner can import in a counterparty wallet or not
-
so if I have a self custody btc I can import into XCP wallet?
-
I guess while the address type is compatible it should, no?
-
at the end counterparty addresses are no more than bitcoin addresses (or at least I've always thought so 😬)
-
re: ledger integration in rpw.wtf, is "just" a tool to be able to sign transaction writing in the OP_RETURN with your ledger addresses (legacy / segwit)
-
Yea this is correct, the only bitcoin addresses that you can’t send counterparty assets to are taproot addresses
-
Any valid legacy, p2sh or bech32 address can receive assets
-
so in laymans terms for users, it needs to be an address they control and not an exchange deposit address
-
neither taproot (but quite unlikely they are using taproot imo)
-
unless they started their path after ordinals 😁
-
-
Multisig bech32 is also not compatible with counterparty. Starts with bc1q like regular bech32, but much longer
-
Are those the same as taproot addresses?
-
No, taproot begin with bc1p and use bech32m, not bech32 (whatever that means)
-
P2WPKH (Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash) addresses:
These addresses represent SegWit transactions that require a single signature from the owner of the associated public key. P2WPKH addresses are similar to P2PKH addresses in terms of their function but use the Bech32 encoding scheme. A P2WPKH address begins with the prefix 'bc1q' on the mainnet and 'tb1q' on the testnet.
P2WSH (Pay-to-Witness-Script-Hash) addresses:
These addresses represent more complex SegWit transactions that can involve multiple signatures or other conditions. P2WSH addresses are analogous to P2SH addresses but use the Bech32 encoding scheme. A P2WSH address also starts with the prefix 'bc1q' on the mainnet and 'tb1q' on the testnet, but the length of these addresses is usually longer than P2WPKH addresses. -
so P2WSH arent enabled in counterparty
-
@pataegrillo if you're working on P2TR compatibility then we should def add P2WSH as well
-
-
good table from this post https://unchained.com/blog/bitcoin-address-types-compared/Bitcoin address types compared: P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, and more - Unchained
If you’ve been using bitcoin for a while, you’ve probably noticed that some bitcoin addresses appear quite different from others. You may have also seen discussion around several acronyms beginning with “P2,” such as P2PKH or P2WSH. If you’re unfamiliar with what these acronyms mean, here we’ll look through all the standardized on-chain methods for […]
-
Won't fit the 20 address bytes in enhanced send. What workaround do you suggest?
-
it should fit, just wont have room for a big memo
-
p2pkh, p2sh and p2wpkh all fit in 21 bytes
-
So if the version byte indicates p2tr or p2wsh, then more bytes will be set aside?
-
yep that would make the most sense, use the version byte to determine how many bytes after make up the address during parsing
-
my ord/counterparty bridge is coming along too thanks to gpt-4
-
-
this is my ORDTELEBURN issuance tx where i sent 1 sat to the op_return
-
a really interesting dynamic is unwrapping an envelope into another envelope
-
also thinking why limit it to sending to a single sat id when you could also send to a range
-
What happens if a range spans multiple owners?
-
doesnt really matter from perspective of the protocol
-
Is it multi owned? Or any of those sats has unwrap rights
-
All we do is make history on Bitcoin non stop over here
-
sat ids are just addresses, so you can send to any address regardless of who holds the private keys
-
Okay, I'll keep sitting and watching 🍿
-
i think first iteration should be limited to single sat send as well as single sat burns, then see how everything holds up before opening it up to sat range send and multi sat burn
-
will need to think about how that would be stored in the db, because you dont want someone sending like 100,000 sats to an op_return resulting in 100,000 rows being added to db
-
i think the way ord handles it is it stores sats as ranges
-
so you'd have a single db entry for a range within a utxo
-
Of course, i was thinking on that too 😁
-
is it possible to add an output to a counterparty.io api call? i cant see it anywhere as an option just wondered if there was an undocumented way other then building the transaction myself?
-
Not currently... but it is on the todo list for a release in the near future (as its not a protocol change, we can include it faster)
-
Add support for `custom_outputs` in advanced create parameters · Issue #1214 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib
We currently support custom_inputs which allows a user to specify exactly what inputs to use in the transaction. We should also add support for a new custom_outputs parameter where a user can speci...
-
i know that if i do, i need to be carful of the order of the outputs 😅
-
Javier has been looking into taproot support first... since adding support for this custom_outputs would also need to support all the protocols CP supports... so, makes sense to add taproot support first, then this.
-
Cool
-
yes, make sure the last output is change 🙂
-
has anyone made any advanced tx tools for XCP? I'd like to pay for a tx using another address's utxo/key
Like have a fee wallet that pays for other wallet transactions. -
Trying to sweep wallets without having to fund them first
-
At least I thought I could do that with btc… maybe I’m hallucinating
-
Thanks ChatGPT, now I know what to ask. Does counterparty support MIMO transactions, and partially signed transactions?
-
That wouldn’t work because addrindex uses the input to determine which address is sending
-
You just need to chain two txs together, send btc in, sweep out
-
good point
-
It’s possible counterparty only looks at the addrindex of the first input and some psbt magic could be done but I haven’t had gpt-4 explain that to me yet
-
Lol I got it to give me the rpc calls to build a MIMO tx and sign it using both keys lol
-
But didn’t ask if it knew counterparty protocol
-
Lol
- 24 March 2023 (5 messages)
-
On a burn memo is it freewallet that has a limit and truncates the string or counterparty.io servers?
-
-
the memo length limit is in CP... "Valid memos are not more than 34 bytes long"
-
can stuff in a tx hash.. or some text 🙂
-
Ok cool tyvm was hoping it was freewallet truncating. Will try your suggested work around :)
- 25 March 2023 (13 messages)
-
is it possible to pay a dividend to all sub assets of a parent asset?
-
other then scraping addresses for a multisend etc... i was hoping for a quicker way of achieving the above
-
No… subassets are independent if parent asset… no dividends from parent to subassets
-
Ah np multisend it is then!
-
does child pay for parent not work for a multi send? I think not based on giving this advice and it not working, not sure any other suggestions
-
Yes cpfp works with all btc tx types… including mpma
-
Mempool is just busy n you prolly not paying enough… I did a bunch of cpfp txs in the past day n they worked fine.
-
I wonder if they made a mistake with the 1st tx I have not see it typically show "OP_RETURN 2qw2Z?"
-
Bitcoin Transaction: 9105fe9fe9494cf47aa9804eba3cb675da2ce439c3e6b6e3fa31f350f240248c
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space
-
this was the tx they were trying to push thru
-
they did 2 high tx that went thru and did not push the others, but perhaps that are not sending from same wallet
-
thanks for the help
-
Or using different utxos than the ones the pending txs used
- 26 March 2023 (6 messages)
-
Anyone got that proposal about condensing the magic word in the op return ? Iv misslayed the link!
-
Im trying to understand in greater detail how op return messages are encoded etc :)
-
This? https://jpjanssen.com/compressed-xcp-transactions/
I haven't formalized it into a CIP yet it features some possible algos to compress and bundle xcp transactions. -
-
The ultimate would be a technique explained by Devon Weller. The cntrptry message is signed by the sender but another address inscribes it onchain. With bundling and taproot encoding, the fee for an xcp send would be very low, much less than for a btc send.
-
It finally when thru, not sure how you use a different utxos, what might be helpful is for a multi send (this was 27 items/cards) what is the best way to calc a fee to get into first block?
- 29 March 2023 (20 messages)
-
anyone know how many bytes of data is stored per mutisig output roughly?
-
could we not just examine an existing stamp, divide its filesize by the amount of outputs generated?
-
i guess, id like to know specifics tbh
-
fair
-
...if available
-
it appears to be 3 pub keys .. of which one is an actual pub key and the other two are actually encoded data and not pubkeys .. so its 3 x op pushbytes 33 .. so 99 bytes plus the op pushbytes 1 (51) oppushbytes 33 x3 (21)op pushnum3 (53) plus op checkmultisig (ae) .. so 105 bytes?
-
the string is 210 chars long for scriptpubkey (hex)
-
-
I marked in blue and yellow the encoded data. This is just one output. There can be many.
-
Sweet
-
This helps! Thnaks guys
-
https://jpja.github.io/Electrum-Counterparty/decode_tx.html?tx=793566ef1644a14c2658aed6b3c2df41bc519941f121f9cff82825f48911e451
In the source code you can find exactly where the data is encoded. -
if anyone wants to help me test i just released a new version of rpw with asset issuance that autopins to ipfs, handful of other updates too alpha.rpw.wtf
-
Will rpw.wtf ever feature DEX capabilities? -
And dispenser setup?
-
my plan is to build an ipfs daemon that can be connected to counterparty node and seed any ipfs cids used in asset descriptions
-
Yes eventually
-
-
- 30 March 2023 (3 messages)
-
ive been running ord daemon for last few days to get some stats on how long index takes per block and nothing show stopping so far
-
Start block height: 782749
End block height: 783190
Total blocks analyzed: 442
Min block index time: 3.109384298324585
Max block index time: 55.82824158668518
Mean block index time: 12.555476826240573
Standard deviation of block index time: 4.606243983910093
95% confidence interval of block index time: (3.5274045137724954, 21.58354913870865) -
my plan is to run ord index daemon in parallel with counterparty and perform search for sat burns last
- 31 March 2023 (1 messages)
-
😐
