New round of performance optimizations in the works: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/pull/1379
Block parsing sped up by ~3x... and that's following the ~4x improvement from a couple of days ago with block pre-fetching, recently merged into develop (https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/pull/1374)
- 01 February 2024 (24 messages)
-
-
getting an error on a multi send
Error validating transaction: Error running script for input 0 referencing 6f13dfeb033cf293980e2a75190781891a192705712956428b24a0afdb3cd238 at 0: scriptsig not push only for P2SH. -
can anyone help
-
I've had several of these recently, burnt $120 in BTC trying to do a giveaway a couple of weeks ago...
Your first send(s) are valid, but the second has failed.
@B0BSmith has built a tool to help broadcast the second transaction without using FreeWallet.
It's somewhat of a technical process.
I'm going to work through it, document the steps and see if I can publish an intermediate-level how to guide.
Will update in the next week or so. -
That is the type of error returned by FreeWallet when attempting an MPMA that fails.
I don't know where the error is occurring in the underlying code, I'm not at that level of wizardry.
Regrettably, I was like a monkey pressing the button, attempting it multiple times a few weeks ago, with an increased fee each time, but still getting failures.
I'm pretty much a spreadsheet monkey who is proficient at writing formulas and pressing buttons 😉
I will go back and make a sheet with my failed tx's, and the payment, @B0BSmith showed me the JSON format required to broadcast the second part.
I started trying to learn PostMan, but then @B0BSmith said he's built a tool specifically to broadcast these second sends.
I'm going to look at it in the next day or so. -
@B0BSmith is the man. -
Let's wait for @B0BSmith to be available to elucidate, he'll be able to answer questions about it.
- 02 February 2024 (41 messages)
-
no it hasnt..
-
I think you’re asking non developers to do developer things -
done
-
i did... was instructed that it is a counterparty problem
so here i am -
I made a standalone web based tool that will sign the hex of a tx2 of a mpma send, there is no broadcast just sign -
you still need to use postman to communicate with the api to create the txhex and another tool to broadcast, my Web page tool just does the signing
-
the reason for the tool was signing a tx2 of a mpma send is a different process to the signing of the tx1 of a mpma send and I was just scratching my own itch after Freewallet failed to sign a mpma tx2 using a hardware wallet
-
I think the error users are seeing is due to the fact they have a low fee and that the cp node they using to create the tx2 does not have the unconfirmed tx1 in its mempool
this is why I suggested the counterparty Community node should have a 4gb mempool -
I think the cp nodes are using default 300mb mempool .. which is quite small ... mempool.space has at least a 2gb if not bigger mempool
-
I used a confirmed tx1 to make my tx2 hex as I too saw that error n waited it out by waiting for a confirmation on my tx1
-
my tx2 has a 1.3 sat/byte fee so has never been confirmed 😂
I can't cpfp it as there is no change in the tx2 just the op_return output
mpma is all a bit fragile -
I am thinking the only way I get my tx2 confirmed is by adding an extra utxo and a extra output that I can then use to cpfp ... hardly a user friendly experience
-
any devs care to comment ?
Why are users getting a error when trying to do a multisend?
l don't recall this error being a issue when mempool was empty and 1 sat byte txs were the norm -
Multisend issue is on freewallet github since Jul 2023
-
Issue #124 April 2023 and #152 Jul 2023
-
maxmempool=300 is the default bitcoin.conf
-
so a user can config a maxmempool easily on their node
maxmempool=4000 should eliminate the error -
assuming that is the correct cause of the error
-
its a 2 tx feature and tx2 uses the tx1 as its input .. but in this high fee small counterparty node mempool, large global mempool que world it seems its not working as well as it did in a low fee small global mempool que
-
I have six failed tx1’s costing $120 total to show otherwise :(
-
Was about three weeks ago, I started at FreeWallet’s High fee then ratcheted it up five more times before stopping.
-
tx2 requires tx1 txid to create so it needs to be in mempool if not onchain
-
Yes, that makes sense
-
I just wanted to script a multisend but found out its not as simple as it sounds
-
Joined. -
Yep that’s what I found a while back too - 03 February 2024 (1 messages)
- 04 February 2024 (1 messages)
-
Joined. - 05 February 2024 (1 messages)
- 06 February 2024 (1 messages)
-
Joined. - 07 February 2024 (1 messages)
-
Hi, I'm looking for technical docs on how dispensers are implemented - 08 February 2024 (8 messages)
-
Joined. -
having this error where i set the usd value but the btc value is way higher then the balance
-
if i try to type into the btc amount its the same issue, way too low usd
is this happening only for me? -
weird, I don't see it happening here.. iirc freewallet uses this to determine the BTC price https://xchain.io/api/network -
-
-
where can I find the logic for number of decimals? looks like my XCP amount needs some 😜
- 10 February 2024 (29 messages)
-
hello, just created a new cip, the intention is to have a way to lock description and ensure assets inmutability ofc this is an optional feature for issuers, take a look when you have the time please. https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/cips/pull/136feat(CIP0034):[DRAFT] First draft of CIP-0034 (Lock Description) by JavierCervilla · Pull Request #136 · CounterpartyXCP/cipsCounterparty Improvement Proposals. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/cips development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
Theo already wrote this up
-
Sabotaging oneself is not part of the protocol. Feel free to burn your own ownership.
-
see substitution
-
Don't sabotage yourself then, good part of being optional is that if makes sense for you or your use case you can use it, if don't makes sense for you, don't use it
-
locking descriptions has been discussed a lot over the years, the result was generally that theres no need to lock down part of the protocol that doesnt affect consensus
-
of course there is no "need" to do so.... but what if it is an option and a function that is generally desired by the user community? possibly the majority of the community? (I cant prove that, but for the moment let's assume they do) -
This allows for ownership transfer where the creator can be assured it won’t be altered later. I also think ownership transfer has a lot of value and should be looked at as a potential way to sell the issuance regardless of supply. Akin to selling the original artwork instead of a bunch of prints as assets.
No consensus changes needed and a relatively simple feature sounds like a slam dunk. -
There seems to be the misunderstanding that the old records are replaced with the new descriptions. The old records will always exist the updates are optional.
If the new owner decides to update the description, then that does not change history. If the issuer doesn't want to relinquish control then maybe he should keep it
If I would have changed the token description for POWH, would it have lost any of its value? -
Honestly. Most likely, yes. Despite the previous issuances being public. A new user or an uneducated user usually assume what is showing in the description is permanent. We know this not to be true, but I wondered it when I first started looking through xcp assets and every artist I have onboarded has wondered the same thing.
-
Yeah I think if all the explorers clearly showed those description changes over time then maybe it’s not needed. As you may have purchased a previous version of the asset. Difficult to sell various versions of it however. If I bought an asset of the issuance on v1 description of the issuance I would want to be able to ensure I can sell that version of it. Regardless of future changes v2 and beyond description changes.
Maybe specific assets tied to a specific issuance would be ideal. ie. V1 description 1 (x) asset(s) always tied to that tx hash. V2 description change has 10 (y) assets always tied to this new tx hash in the issuance table -
This would also add a lot of value allowing an artist to paint over the original canvas (asset name) as their tastes change while ensuring tradability and value for the original version
-
or original rare pepe artists to sell token ownership knowing new owners wont "mess up" the description while also giving the new owner freedom to issue subassets (or in the case the token is unlocked.... few cases of this i know.... to issue more tokens)
-
Imagine the value of the issuance ownership! Would it be the value of all of the supply? I think it’s a big win for artists. It’s definitely the most rare piece of the puzzle
-
Especially for artist that gave away or sold 100% of the assets early on. Allows them to have a tremendous value for the issuance while ensuring it doesn’t change as it’s traded. That’s the real grail.
-
I did change the description of POWH 🤓 -
It was blank, and I made it an homage to RAREPEPE's original description
-
-
It is nice how All isuance transactions are displayed on xcp.dev
-
this is funny, with sweeps you can transfer zero balances
-
-
-
that 1AmC address never had a POWH in it
-
so in a way i still hold some remanent of POWH in my collection
-
Thanks, I was momentarily sad about seeing my RAREPEPE 0 balance next to my address - this is a nicer way to thinking about it
-
It's interesting that destructions appear under the issuances, but I see how that makes sense
- 11 February 2024 (64 messages)
-
the vast majority of Rare Pepe only exist as social contracts. there is no on-chain data pointing to graphic information.
So you are telling me that any curation in the entire future is guaranteed to be worse than blanks? That not doing anything to bring these individual tokens up to standard is the best option if the current owner chooses not to? -
why does this topic upset you so much?
a rare pepe artist could update the description with onchain info (maybe an ordinal link or something similar, maybe an arweave link or ipfs) then sell the token issuance knowing it wont be changed - not that hard to understand the worth of - or the perspective of wanting this functionality ..... users have wanted this for YEARS mate -
there are several issues that stem from the dogmatic approach that has been dictated over the years.
Removing the right to repair was beyond unjust -
are you unwilling to have an authentic conversation exploring the topic?
-
this has been unsettled "for years mate"
-
oh im being beyond authentic
-
if that is how you spell it
-
if you are being authentic, then why are you trying to put feelings on me, like "upset"??
are you unable to have a conversation without projecting on others? -
im not sure what you even mean by saying this.... and i dont want to clog up the dev chat on something so trivial - i explained my viewpoint and ill leave it at that
-
bro
-
where do you want to have the authentic conversation? GitHub?
-
i simply interpreted this conversation as being something that seems to bring up past things for you. probably shouldnt have worded it that way. sorry if i upset you
and yes I believe you should publish your thoughts (especially if you disagree with the CIP) on the github -
double down on drama man. nice
-
-
JSYK, I dont want anyone to try to conflate my articulated viewpoint as invalid because they have trouble projecting feelings on others. I am passionate about this project and often voice view points, or perceptions which are equally as valid as those who are championed by the current band-wagon. It is important to examine all perspectives in order to start to determine consensus. Too many times with the old-gaurd, proof of berating was instituted, open discussion was shut down, and contentions changes were forced. Institutionalized gasslighting is not fitting for this community, hence other chat rooms.
-
"up to you" "optional freedom" will quickly become another prerequisite for participation and yet another source of waste over time. I give it 90 days after activation before it becomes more than an evident problem.
Have you asked yourself why this change is being pushed recently? Have you considered that perhaps people have been conditioned to pigeonholing usefulness into perspectives by people who do not understand the gravity of the choices in light of longevity? Are you attempting to pick apart my concerns as to invalidate them, or are you genuinely trying to understand a perspective that is not yours in order to best reach a common ground? -
Ser i don't understand at all why an optional feature is a big problem
-
You can use it or don't use it
-
If for some usecases needs to be updated update it but if for some usecases inmutablility is important then let them to be inmutable
-
Imagine I sign a contract and put it on the description of the asset I won't like to be able this contract to be changed
-
imagine being on repeat
-
You are so focused on your usecase don't thinking in the whole usecases this is why I repeat ser
-
-
Anyway I see you as the only one complaining, and I see more voices in favour of this feature
-
in the other chat you expressed "Removing the right to repair assets will become a prerequisite for affluencer copycat projects."
how so?
also when you mentioned "It is also very ignorant for people to weigh in on this topic unless they can comprehend the concepts of link rot or deprecation of data formats over time"
what did you mean by this? -
-
Just Duncan, dudes a troll and why he was banned here, deservedly so
Notice how when Jdog went rogue, the only person he gave a big FU to was Duncan 😆 -
proof of berading
-
xcer is an emotionally driven individual who always resorts to personalizing any mild criticism.
-
I like how @davesta is having such a respectful confersation that he answered my questions with questions. like I said, you are trying to pick apart a message sentence by sentence without stopping to read of understanding the message
-
hello
-
can someone help me to help a guy which has been scammed
-
his pkey has been compromissed
-
but the scammers didnt steal yet his counterparty assets
-
so im thinking in a sweep to save them
-
im calling the api to perform it but idk how does it works
-
im asking for an experienced guy here that could help me
-
receiving this error:
-
Did you try making destination a list by enclosing in [] seen similar things before
-
this doesnt work
-
added it
-
but i think may be bc is empty the wallet
-
but if we send funds there im not sure they wont be scammed too
-
api doesnt create the tx with empty wallet
-
thanks ser
-
really appreciate
-
is possible to instead of fee add fee_per_kb?
-
i dm you the details
- 12 February 2024 (7 messages)
-
How did they acquire the pkey?
(Good to know so we can avoid it) -
Fake website srr
-
With a connect wallet button
-
When you press it it says error and give you the option to connect manually ...
-
Social engineering hack
-
Very basic actually
-
Wondering if someone has a good VPN to flood this form with fake data
- 13 February 2024 (1 messages)
- 14 February 2024 (101 messages)
-
Hello people ! -
I have a question I might have missed something
-
but what are the plan for counterwallet ?
-
a receive a lot of feedbacks from OGs and new people thinking counterparty is offline due to counterwallet not operating
-
So counterparty the protocol has no official wallet right? I was also thinking counterwallet was the official wallet and would one day be back up -
so the official working wallet is casa tookan and freewallet
-
“official”
-
officially working wallet
-
to route users to
-
rarepepewallet.wtf works great, the .com has worked since 2016
-
rarepepewallet is branded as rarepepe
-
can be confusing when managing non rarepepe stuff
-
freewallet is the most complete
-
sure but its officially working 😛
-
and it does support all counterparty assets
-
i think xcp.ninja does too
-
even tho its made for stamps
-
so there are multiple options for users
-
so there is a plan to revive the wallet ?
-
what are we lacking funding ? devs ?
-
shaban didnt you guys build casa tookan?
-
yes we do
-
so wouldnt you just point your users there?
-
book of orbs
-
yes but book of orbs doen't have all xcp features
-
such as create dispensers and stuff like that
-
why not invest in adding the features that are missing?
-
tbh i wouldnt point anyone to counterwallet, its been barely maintained for years
-
thats why i only point people to rarepepewallet.wtf and not the .com lol
-
rarepepewallet.wtf is built in react and has ledger support and bech32 address support among other things
-
rarepepewallet.com has a ton of technical debt
-
and people generally dont want me change it because its sort of a piece of nft history now
-
because it still works and i havent finished dex support for .wtf
-
once i get dex support rolled out i will begin to sunset it
-
two weeks TM
-
as soon as you get your butterfly labs miner
-
lol, im working on it now and i have it working in a develop branch but now i need to build out the UI to make it e4asy to use
-
hopefully by the end of this month i have it in a state where i can release it
-
This is what we are evaluating but ideally it needs to be redone technical debt but also desktop version
-
Is it open source ?
-
no, but just like with the .com, all tx building happens in the client so you’re welcome to review code in your console
-
yeah its just so funny to me because people love to talk about open source like its a panecea but when you look at something like freewallet which is opensource it is actually blind signing txs from a server
-
so its technically less secure
-
but i get it, its a buzzword that people like to throw around without actually understanding the implications
-
Well open source doesn’t prevent to run a rogue implementation. Was asking more to know if we can build on top of it a more generic counterparty
-
i have a basic framework that i built with ledger support that is open source if you want to check that out
-
GitHub - loon3/counterparty-hw: Counterparty wallet for use with Ledger Nano S / S Plus / X
Counterparty wallet for use with Ledger Nano S / S Plus / X - GitHub - loon3/counterparty-hw: Counterparty wallet for use with Ledger Nano S / S Plus / X
-
-
Feels like an iOS app on web, so smooth
-
No different than counterwallet in that regard
-
I agree, I would like to open source rarepepewallet.wtf at some point
-
What would help a lot is a node package for building txs
-
There are some out there but they aren’t complete, some wrappers for the api etc
-
yes everyone got ord to work, was CLI but it worked well ebough as wallet -
even fake-technical people like me could inscroob
-
You’d probly be horrified at the way I do it lol
-
Converting to strings etc
-
Maybe I can get chatgpt to start the framework for one
-
great find
-
btc_notes/ordinal_runes.md at main · zhiqiangxu/btc_notes
Contribute to zhiqiangxu/btc_notes development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
this is some of the best documentation ive seen
-
simple and concise and tells me everything i want to know
- 15 February 2024 (1 messages)
- 18 February 2024 (4 messages)
- 21 February 2024 (2 messages)
- 22 February 2024 (7 messages)
-
I think ninjas are using it, will ask
-
I think multidispensers, like add to cart and pay one time for all
-
Is cool to save some fees
- 23 February 2024 (4 messages)
-
Thx @XJA77 , and we are using this feature to allow multiple purchase at once but also make a purchase in the same tx as another like minting. -
Save on tx fees for the users too.
- 27 February 2024 (91 messages)
-
Joined. -
hey as you likely know i'm not a real dev, and I don't know if this is helpful but i *think* i figured something out about MPMA (i know they are sloppy, but they exist) that has given me problems in the past before. I'm going to outline what i think is happening, perhaps you (people that know things) will be like "DUH" but here.
So 'sometimes' when you send an MPMA it creates this wierd new txn that always has a low fee and you can't RBF or CPFP it cas it's not coming from your address.
example: i tried to send 30 Rare Ordinals cards to fresh wallets for paper wallet giveaways and I am stuck with this. https://mempool.space/tx/bbb35c1946acc1b43ccbcf2fa755c6b97697bb120ea1c9ac112259b988ef10feBitcoin Transaction: bbb35c1946acc1b43ccbcf2fa755c6b97697bb120ea1c9ac112259b988ef10feExplore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.
-
this txn has a 0.00000546 output, which i noticed pre-stamps when i had this issuse but did not understand
-
now that stamps exist i posit that these 'larger' MPMA's use the same 'keyless multisig' (whatever the correct jargon is) to create a space large enough for them to deposit their XCP ledger changes
-
i don't know if that makes sense, or if it's helpful. but, yeah i think thats what happens, at high level. their input is 'forced' into a stamp like state to put the MPMA data into OPRETURN
-
got confused with the logo i didnt mean to and delted now -
weird new txn ? that to me looks like a standard mpma 2nd tx
-
546 is the dust limit so that's why it's used in the first tx
-
mpma and stamps use different tx types
stamps use bare multisig to store data in the utxo set and the outputs are not meant to be spent
mpma uses p2sh utxos to store data in the first tx that is then spent as fees in the second tx -
it's a 546 input the op return is the only output
-
Joined. -
the question is where did it come from, and how to make it not happen.. this 2nd txn doesn't clog your address, as the 1st one clears. I've sent 5 10 card MPMA's since that hanging txn from my address that worked as expected. I've noticed the 546 output and this problem before.
I of course might be wrong about technicals, just my observations from experience -
the fee reflected in this txn is not accurate to fee I paid for or that the 2nd txn cleared with
-
(or 1st txn whatever order you want)
-
you made it in the 1st of th 2 mpma txs
-
yes the 1st one clears but this second one doesn't
-
hold on
-
you make it not happen by not using mpma
-
lol, i know i know of course
-
if you use mpma expect to make 546 sat outputs
-
they the data carrying outputs to do your mpma send
-
this is the one with the hanging one i'm talking about https://mempool.space/tx/e9fb48de98204bd529ccaec691cacd0922db6264c8ed6d84a5e32aea7dfb7720Bitcoin Transaction: e9fb48de98204bd529ccaec691cacd0922db6264c8ed6d84a5e32aea7dfb7720
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space
-
the second tx has no change so can not be cpfpd so you must wait in mempool based on the fee YOU used
-
yes I know i said that
-
>"can't RBF or CPFP"
-
correct
-
I think you can cpfp if you create a custom tx
-
word, well i know the real answer is don't use MPMA. just a quirky behavior i've noticed
-
add a input and add a output then it cpfpble
-
and i think it's depended upon the size
-
yes I have a mpma send tx2 of 1 card to 9 addresses with a fee rate of 1.3 sat byte as it only has a 546 input
-
you have 8000 sat fee as 1x546 plus 1x7454
-
had you wanted to have more fees your 7454 output would have been bigger
-
my point is the 546's happen with fee rates not reflective of what you paid matter how much you pay, i've experiencded it
-
and this is the current example
-
the 546 is used on all but the last data carrying outputs of a mpma tx1
-
the last data carrying output in tx1 makes up rest of fee
the final output in tx1 is your change -
0.01706616 was your change
-
7454 + 546 = 8000 the fee is the same on tx1 and tx2
-
if you want higher fee in tx2 then you must use higher fee for tx1 also
-
https://mempool.space/tx/e9fb48de98204bd529ccaec691cacd0922db6264c8ed6d84a5e32aea7dfb7720 fee 8000
https://mempool.space/tx/bbb35c1946acc1b43ccbcf2fa755c6b97697bb120ea1c9ac112259b988ef10fe fee 8000Bitcoin Transaction: e9fb48de98204bd529ccaec691cacd0922db6264c8ed6d84a5e32aea7dfb7720Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space
-
the txs are a pair as it were
-
had you wanted 9000 fee the output 2 in tx1 would have been 8454
-
and this one out of that address i paid 6500 (2x) and no 546 https://mempool.space/tx/f406500d3f6860813504953c514e88fa9f3a42f6b6b666dc76ed51bb017bd299Bitcoin Transaction: f406500d3f6860813504953c514e88fa9f3a42f6b6b666dc76ed51bb017bd299
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space
-
was 10 cards
-
output 1 in mpma tx1 will always be 546
-
and i did liek 5 others that all worked
-
n they all use 546s I bet
-
not in this one
-
unless i'm dumb and missing something
-
or any of the subsequent ones i sent
-
Bitcoin Transaction: 6527338a7688f5b1b884b84be19867af27ed6f03d7d10a2769d4eabf63f728ba
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with mempool.space
-
there are more
-
I think freewallet was recently updated for better fee
-
yeah i'm using months possibly >1 year old freewallet
-
and all of those came outta the same wallet
-
the only thing i can also think is UTXO consolidation after the 1st one that is still hanging with 546
-
but MPMA does not ALWAYS have 546's
-
i can tell you that
-
100%
-
as a user
-
546 is the dust limit and you can't use less than that for a output
if you set high fee and only have 1 data carry output in mpma tx1 then it won't be 546 ... but if you have big mpma sends then most of the outputs at 546 except the last data carry output -
it depends on a) mpma size and b) user set fee
-
https://xchain.io/tx/2703685 5 cards to single recipient with 22 sat byte fee means no 546 output as only 1 data carry output
https://xchain.io/tx/2703391 has 53 recipients and so has many 546 outputs -
hence why i think it's 'stamp like'
-
3 x546 plus the 0.00031896
-
the 546's are encoming more data...
-
i dunno it might be gloss over not exactly correct
-
nothing like a stamp
-
okay fine
-
but it's a second way counterparty is adding more data to it's OPRETURN
-
stamp uses bare multisig mpma is p2sh
-
which as i understand is what stamps exploit to exist - even if thisis a differnet one
-
okay great, stamp-LIKE being the key heh
-
thank you for talking this through with me, something that has boggled my mind for over a year. only when i'm trying to set up paper wallet for these events
-
p2sh or bare multisig or op return are all valid cp data encoding
-
and no one could explain when I was asking
-
albiet i was probably not asking right
-
as i said in the first comment
>"perhaps you (people that know things) will be like "DUH" but here." -
it' only from trial and error that I learned how mpma works n I happy to share what I learned
-
my 1.3sat byte mpma that's not cpfbable remains in mempool lol
-
yeah lol, i already printed out and stickered those damn cards for giveaway lol. lesson learned send before print. sticking to batchs of 10's for now on
-
my tool to sign mpma tx2s was created after me trying to do mpma from hww that resulted in a unrelated utxo being totally wasted in a tx that did nothing when it was confirmed .. some hard learned lessons are more expensive than others
-
Thx 🙏 -
Joined. -
thatll do it - 0.9.28 is better suited to correctly denote fees (now in sat/vb!!!) than any other version prior - though still has an issue with two specific functions which is
1. long form asset descriptions (linking jsons to an asset) and
2. longform broadcast tx's with alot of info
..... in which in those 2 specific situations the "effective fee rate" is too low when tx gets broadcasted - 28 February 2024 (1 messages)
- 29 February 2024 (3 messages)
-
Joined.
