- 19 January 2024 (148 messages)
-
@theogoodman used to run some sports betting back in the day... I thought that it was natively on counterparty, not sure -
i dont speak code but im assuming betting works on counterparty. is there a tutorial on how to use it? -
my bad i meant to put this in the normal channel not dev, sorry
-
aaah bet.py, was right above my reply and I didn't see it!
-
Dex has seen a huge usage for Rare Pepes since 2016, so it has been well used and deeply appreciated by the Rare Pepe community, and some of the spin offs
-
I think the DEX just needs an intuitive easy to use UI that no one has created yet -
Haha Unisawp is like the DEX?
-
What is really the difference between a dispenser and the DEX? The only difference is Bitcoin is sent to the order?
If I could put Nakamoto for sale in a dispenser for Pepecash, the result would be the same as the DEX functions. -
unfortunately dispenser rugs have cost community members tens or hundreds of thousands in lost BTC
-
Yes, the DEX is better.
-
The DEX is just a UI problem.
-
JDog is the only wallet with the DEX, it’s awesome.
-
it's an issue that was raised multiple times...
we can ask Mr Coins if he was okay with it, he had plenty to say in main group when it happened to him -
yes... the dispenser 5 block close delay has helped to prevent the rugspenser
-
but that caused some other problems
-
the dex is epic, been using it for years. too bad the general public hates xcp
-
If someone created the DEX with a UI like dispensers, it would be a big hit IMO.
-
Ethereum is most definitely a security, XCP is most definitely not :)
-
A stablecoin on CP would be incredible.
No exchanges would be needed to trade Bitcoin. -
What? -
You can sell a nakamoto for pepecash on the dex, what does that have to do with dispensers?
-
Was trying to make a point about the DEX UI. I think dispensers are most popular because of the easy understanding of sending x to x for x
-
Bitcoin is the reason
-
People want to buy and sell with bitcoin
-
Did someone mention reverse dispensers a year or two ago? Users could potentially “sell” BTC for an asset. I guess it doesn’t fix the front-run issue -
Without multiple txs yes exactly
-
Btcpay is a nightmare in high fee environment
-
Not only do you have to wait and be ready to make the 2nd Tx after the 1st confirms but you have to pay another next block fee and hope that you don’t get pushed for 20 blocks
-
A Wrapped btc asset on the dex would be a good solution, I’m pretty sure there was something like that in the early days of counterparty
-
XBTC I think it was
-
can't do that in the US without getting in trouble though -
e.g. cacassius coins
-
Uniswap and AMMs in general were one of the best innovations to come out of ETH
-
Liquidity pools and yield are what drive uniswap
-
i think block speed in general is very important to - people are impatient
-
in terms of all the 'innovation' in eth products comparitively
-
I think you could certainly run an AMM without an exchange token
-
But it def didn’t hurt as far as bringing in funds to build out the platform
-
Yea for sure, it was a calculated risk
-
And with most large token offerings the reward was much greater than the risk and they just paid the fine and moved on
-
i think this is very true. for example the concept of wrapping btc for the DEx is possible it just requires (according to google right now) at least 1 million dollars to even get the license
-
Adoption is different than having funds to build it out
-
Uniswap has adoption because it’s a true decentralized exchange and you can easily swap between tokens on ETH with only the contract as your middleman
-
Have you used uniswap?
-
Remember ether delta?
-
I’ve used uniswap a bunch and never once owned the exchange token
-
In fact I don’t know anyone that owns the exchange token that uses it
-
(actual question) is there a pause/master key for uniswap in the contract?
-
like you pointed out @hodlencoinfield in early Eth NFT contracts?
-
I guess I’m just confused what the point is
-
Eh I don’t think so, people were looking for an alternative to etherdelta
-
That had a centralized order matching system that got taken down and uniswap launched on the heels of that
-
Yeah obvi it’s hard to say, a lot of factors certainly played a part
-
But I remember using uniswap after it launched and just being amazed at how the AMM system functioned
-
It still can’t use Bitcoin natively tho
-
It also released years before the ICO craze
-
Yep bcnext
-
I think that was the guys handle
-
Wow! I def didn’t know it was the same guy
-
I was chatting with @XJA77 about methods for binding assets to utxos to enable psbt trading and I think we can do it without having to track utxos at all only need to know if they’ve been spent or not
-
I didn't know that either. NXT was brilliant. Just a bit too costly to make assets. -
Imagine a traditional send type with a dust output to signal the receiver but rather than be the receiver address the output itself receives the assets
-
Then to send from the utxo you simply need to spend it and the assets can be credited to the first output address
-
We’ve been talking about all different things lol, afaik no one has written out how it would work
-
and i was talking with @herpenstein before 🤣 -
yes the big thing is to dont have to track all utxos
-
Yea just need to know if any utxos with bound assets have been spent or not which can be checked during block parsing
-
i think that if we just do the transfer using utxo but the indexer tracks it on the receive and store in same account model we are okey we have the advantage of the counterparty indexer so we dont need to track all utxos
-
i dont think that we need to check the spend, just the transfer and asign to the new wallet that holds it
-
removin it from the utxo
-
If you eliminate the transfer message you make the psbt much cleaner
-
but how you can reference the asset and the qty to send?
-
You don’t need to, it’s bound to the utxo by the protocol
-
if message just have the qty and asset and you use the utxo as the destination is clean too
-
If you are selling an asset you just need to “create the sell offer” by sending to your dust utxo, then creating a sig hash single anyone can spend where your utxo becomes the input and your output is your address with the sell amount
-
Very clean
-
Anyone that completes the Tx just needs to make sure their address is in the first output
-
Yep
-
You could def add more rules, i just like the simplicity of just spending it to transfer, if you add an opreturn you would need a second input and I’m not sure how that works with a psbt, can you sign it in a way that both input/output pairs need to be present for it to be valid?
-
or you could apply the spending rules when the utxo is created
-
you can spend the utxo to yourself
-
same way you’d do it for ordinals
-
If you check github the funcationality is there -
needs a few dedicated devs to build a front end imo
- 21 January 2024 (1 messages)
-
Joined. - 22 January 2024 (41 messages)
-
Fink Sees Tokenization of Financial Assets as Next Step"The dominant form of bringing products going forward will be in the form of ETFs," BlackRock Chair and CEO Larry Fink says during an interview with David Westin. Follow Bloomberg for business news & analysis, up-to-the-minute market data, features, profiles and more: http://www.bloomberg.com Connect with us on... Twitter: https://twitter.com/business Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bloombergbusiness/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/quicktake/?hl=en
-
I’d like to make a suggestion for the fee structure and the subsequent allocation of the fees collected.
1. Fee Structure
*Fee for creating named assets: 0.5 XCP
*Fee for creating numeric assets: 0.5 XCP
(Creation of a assets should cost the same regardless of whether it is numeric or named. Both BTC and ETH charge fees in their native token for using the network. Counterparty should be able to do the same.)
2. Allocation of asset creation 0.5 XCP fee generated
*Software development fund: 0.20 XCP
*Server/infrastructure fund: 0.15 XCP
*XCP deflationary value creation: 0.15 XCP (burned)
There are several problems facing counterparty that can be ameliorated by this fee structure:
*Software development
*Server/hardware purchase & maintenance
*Maintenance of value of native token
Having these problems solved by reasonable fees paid by people using the counterparty protocol/infrastructure seems like an equitable and logical answer.
I’m sure the dev and user communities will have a wide variety of reactions to these ideas and numbers, but I thought it worthwhile to suggest them.
Thank you for your consideration as well as your continued interest and support of counterparty. -
need @teysol cp, co-founder here and seek for help -
It doesn't appear in the other explorers either.
https://www.xcp.dev/tx/68a309d40b47ef2a41f4b443227f384afdc33c740eb22d1e797370f88830f3ee
It must have been encoded incorrectly -
It appears your other broadcasts worked... I'm unsure why that one did not get picked up by the protocol
-
@jp_janssen should be awake and might be able to look into it and give you an answer as to why that tx is not recognized by the network
-
invalid: feed timestamps not monotonically increasing
Broadcasts have a time value assigned by your wallet (not same as block timestamp)
For whatever reason, your wallet set an earlier timestamp than your previos broadcast. -
Any timestamp less than or equal to your previous broadcast timestamp is invalid.
-
This? No CNTRPRTY prefix. Wrongly encoded. Which wallet did you use?
-
Likely the cause yes. The message is rc4 encoded with the first input as the key.
-
I outlined in detail how bundled messages (transactions) can work. Will easily save 70-90% on fees
.. if my assumptions are correct.
Feedback appreciated.
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/cips/discussions/127#discussioncomment-8209889Bundled Txs = 80% Lower Fees · CounterpartyXCP/cips · Discussion #127By bundling multiple Counterparty messages from several users into one Bitcoin transaction, I believe it can be possible to reduce fees by >80%. Key assumptions: A bitcoin address can be recover...
- 23 January 2024 (20 messages)
-
consider it. times have changed, folks. -
Keith Mukai (@KeithMukai)
Preliminary PR submitted so that @SeedSigner can sign txs with OP_RETURNs and display the data. https://twitter.com/KeithMukai/status/1744476392052462008 ↘️ Quoting Keith Mukai (@KeithMukai) Updated! PR flipped to Ready for Review. @SeedSigner would now display the OP_RETURN text as-is if it's human readable or (less useful) the nonsense garbled bytes if it's just a data blob. Tests added plus these new screenshots added to the screenshot generator.
-
-
new version of counterpartydb
- 24 January 2024 (4 messages)
-
Joined. -
It is ok to do some remagining of CP after all these years. An entire ecosystem of infra and tooling now exists for Bitcoin that CP could leverage.
"numerics are free" is this the decision to keep them free? - 25 January 2024 (5 messages)
-
None -
so, hopefully I'm allowed to stay now haha
- 26 January 2024 (31 messages)
-
EPIC talk!!!!
-
is there an easy way to run this with bitcoind running locally outside of the docker?
-
i know a lot of people already run bitcoind on their machine, would be awesome to be able to just run counterparty and addrindexrs within the docker and connect
-
yes I would love this. I have QT runing fully synced on a machine running fedora. will try and poke around thsi weekend
-
i just installed docker and then git cloned the couterparty-lib
I do not see any directory called simplenode/ to cd into.. -
-
i found it here, updated 12 mins ago - https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/tree/simplenode
but if I type $ git clone https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/tree/simplenode.git
I get fatal: repository not found -
thank you i am not like a real dev at all. but I have some cli experience, it says i've switched branches. progress 🙂
-
and it doesn't appear to like my python..
-
taking a break - thank you for the help so far!
-
this goes on a lot more
bench@fedora simplenode]$ docker-compose up
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/urllib3/connectionpool.py", line 715, in urlopen
httplib_response = self._make_request(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/urllib3/connectionpool.py", line 416, in _make_request
conn.request(method, url, **httplib_request_kw)
File "/usr/lib64/python3.11/http/client.py", line 1286, in request - 27 January 2024 (20 messages)
-
As a fake coder, I use no code tools like Bubble.
I’ve always used the xchain api because of its simplicity.
Will these changes allow someone like me to connect directly to the Counterparty API with the same ease as Xchain? -
you can connect to counterparty API pretty easily right now
-
Will I be able to in the future?
-
of course, none of these changes affects that
-
Sorry I read it as you cannot. Got it. Thanks
-
There is actually a rest endpoint right?
-
anyone else seeing a 404 to: https://counterpartyxcp.github.io/counterparty-lib/counterpartylib/protocol_changes.json
throwing
counterparty_1 | [2024-01-27 18:34:58][WARNING] Unable to check version! Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)
on my nodes 🙁 -
cool thx i figured someone noticed it by now.
-
why i didnt noticed on mine?
-
are you on xcp.dev fork? i'm running on the core
-
maybe juan fixed it 🙂
- 28 January 2024 (1 messages)
- 29 January 2024 (3 messages)
-
Joined. - 31 January 2024 (2 messages)
Official Counterparty Dev Chat
Public archive of Telegram messages.
- 04 Jan 2024 (22)
- 05 Jan 2024 (767)
- 06 Jan 2024 (182)
- 07 Jan 2024 (187)
- 08 Jan 2024 (348)
- 09 Jan 2024 (29)
- 10 Jan 2024 (246)
- 11 Jan 2024 (59)
- 12 Jan 2024 (15)
- 13 Jan 2024 (93)
- 14 Jan 2024 (22)
- 15 Jan 2024 (17)
- 16 Jan 2024 (2)
- 17 Jan 2024 (4)
- 18 Jan 2024 (5)
- 19 Jan 2024 (148)
- 21 Jan 2024 (1)
- 22 Jan 2024 (41)
- 23 Jan 2024 (20)
- 24 Jan 2024 (4)
- 25 Jan 2024 (5)
- 26 Jan 2024 (31)
- 27 Jan 2024 (20)
- 28 Jan 2024 (1)
- 29 Jan 2024 (3)
- 31 Jan 2024 (2)