- 03 March 2024 (1 messages)
-
From Ouziel: 22h21mn to catch up block 832661 in a 8 years i7 with 8go RAM.. I say not bad :-))
𤯠- 04 March 2024 (3 messages)
-
that's excellent... looking forward to giving it a crack on my 8 yrs old i7 with 32GB RAM :)
-
Joined.
-
- 05 March 2024 (3 messages)
-
-
Joined.
-
i need to aviod so many bans
- 08 March 2024 (2 messages)
-
Joined.
-
i need to convert in a string?
- 14 March 2024 (5 messages)
-
I think there's a bug where FW confuses bitcoins with sats while initiating transactions (sends, orders..etc.), Has anyone experienced this as well? I'm trying to replicate it
-
if you can replicate it and it is a wallet thing, post the process and details in the FW github: https://github.com/jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop/issuesIssues Ā· jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop
Desktop wallet for Win/Mac/Linux which supports Bitcoin and Counterparty - Issues Ā· jdogresorg/freewallet-desktop
-
-
ya latest. will do
-
we discuss FW issues in a specific tg too where we troubleshoot stuff, post the issue link in there when youre done too im sure alot of folks would like to know if there is an issue:
https://t.me/freewallet_ioFreewallet.io ChatThis is a channel to discuss FreeWallet and ask questions and let the community answer
- 15 March 2024 (3 messages)
-
Hi everyone! Super excited to announce the alpha release of counterparty-core v10.0.0: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/releases/tag/v10.0.0-alpha
A huge thank you to everyone who contributed, especially Ouziel Slama, who put forth a heroic effort to get this done!Release v10.0.0-alpha Ā· CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-coreRelease Notes - Counterparty Core v10.0.0-alpha Counterparty Core v10.0.0 is a very large release comprising many improvements across different portions of the codebase. āCounterparty Coreā is also...
-
Awesome stuff! Canāt wait to check it out
-
Tabbing through fields instead of clicking through can make a difference, try that
- 20 March 2024 (1 messages)
-
v10.0.0-beta.1 is out (https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/releases/tag/v10.0.0-beta.1)
Changes from v10.0.0-alpha:
* Run automatic software version every 24h rather than on every block (with dither)
* Add the possibility to reparse from a given block on minor version change
* Add warning with confirmation dialogue to bootstrap command and --no-confirm flag
* Add checkpoints for mainnet up to block 834,500 and for testnet up to block 2,580,000
* Re-enable additional tests (testnet "test book") in CI
* Automate Docker image build and publish
* Increase AddrIndexRs required version to v0.4.4
* Accept config args both before and after the command
* Fixed a bug in v10.0.0-alpha that broke Docker Compose deployments (e.g. with SimpleNode)
Only 3 open issues remaining (of 106!) before we get a v10.0.0 release candidate. (https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/milestone/12)Release v10.0.0-beta.1 Ā· CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-coreRelease Notes - Counterparty Core v10.0.0-beta.1 Counterparty Core v10.0.0 is a very large release comprising many improvements across different portions of the codebase. āCounterparty Coreā is als...
- 22 March 2024 (19 messages)
-
-
-
-
yes, but before doing it, I would like to check fast that it's not just some error on my part that doesn't need an issue
-
when I check a message in the DB I get something like that:
sqlite> SELECT * FROM messages WHERE message_index = 100;
100|278767|insert|burns|['block_index', 'burned', 'earned', 'source', 'status', 'tx_hash', 'tx_index']|1711097817"
Where the binding part doesn't contain any data -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
in general, *any* unexpected (and undocumented) behavior is a bug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
-
- 23 March 2024 (13 messages)
-
-
Not sure I understand the question šare you asking if anyone has successfully synced to the current block height?
-
Yeah, without my bug (no data in bindings)
-
I did a full sync a few weeks ago but without docker, directly on the host.
-
-
i was having addrindexrs trouble (started from scratch even though I had already indexed the whole blockchain and maxed out my disk) but i'll blast addrindexrs away and try again with latest version and lyk if I run into the same bug.
-
Thx. I might also try an older version of addrindexrs
-
-
there's a minimum req version of v0.4.4 to avoid consensus breaks (fixes an old source of non-determinism)
-
Fix 'bindings' field in 'messages' table by ouziel-slama Ā· Pull Request #1549 Ā· CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
Counterparty Protocol Reference Implementation. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
testing this!
-
Just saw that I had an older version (v0.4.3)
-
- 24 March 2024 (11 messages)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Before the latest updates, close to 2 weeks
-
I think it would have taken even longer for me ^^
-
-
@teysol wondering about the e2e time to sync a counterparty node w/o addrindexrs. when addrindexrs is killed will the indexing we need still have to be done serially b/t bitcoind and counterparty-server syncing?
-
so it'll be a pipeline with some async code and some synchronous code. the only code that needs to be synchronous, and run sequentially, is 1) the parsing of counterparty transactions qua counterparty transactions (e.g. send, issuance), and (2) some dispenser logic. the fetching of the blocks from bitcoind, the indexing of the transactions, etc. can all be done concurrently
-
great news.
- 25 March 2024 (11 messages)
-
-
hm
-
did you do kickstart?
-
I just completed a sync in < 24 hrs
-
Nope I wanted to check how much time a full sync would take
-
kickstart is a full sync, it just reads from the block files directly, bypassing the rpc interface
-
-
The Bitcoin node needs to be stopped for that?
-
-
-
- 26 March 2024 (2 messages)
-
Reaching 640813 now. It's a challenge to not stop and kickstart š (but I want to know the sync time without it š )
-
lol, best of luck and keep us posted!
- 27 March 2024 (19 messages)
-
reaching 723376. 'Only' 113000 blocks left š¶āš«
-
ah yeah expect slowdown from here
-
-
dispensers are the big performance hit
-
-
-
idk! I never tried start from scratch!
-
how many days in are you @ffmad ? is it faster up to the current block height than it was with 9.61?
-
For me it wasn't syncing at all
-
? you got stuck at the first block?
-
-
got it, okay. yeah i don't think you'll get _stuck_
-
i ran start from block 820k
-
was slow but for the most part a few seconds/block
-
-
-
very cool, thank you for the update! lmk if you run into any issues!
-
-
- 29 March 2024 (32 messages)
-
-
yep should just be a few hours. you're past the last big slowdown.
-
Is there any good reason why there isnāt a group of people who use a multisig to
1) create an asset called cpBTC (or something similar)
2) create a dispenser for the asset that sells it at 1:1 parity with btc
3) use the funds received to make a btcpay order to buy all the cpBTC back at say 99% the price of btc (1% profit for the multisig custodians) -
Users on other platforms are used to use wrapped assets
-
And you can create a single tx that buys cpBTC from the verified dispenser and executes a dex buy in one tx
-
For a new user buying cp assets, one click that buys the wrapped asset and used it to buy the NFT is a big ux advantage
-
Then if they want their btc back, we just need a somewhat slick btcpay ui
-
Wouldnāt that require a dispenser that auto fluctuates in price?
-
The dispenser is denominated in btc
-
So 1 cpBTC == 1 BTC
-
-
I think the btc one would be doable, the others would require variable dispensers
-
there would need to be someone at the trigger to match every btcpay tx
-
Ah thatās the rub
-
Every order would need the multisig to sign off
-
Who signs what in btc pay?
-
I thought it was seller posts order, then buyer post request then buyer sends funds?
-
yeah, still an imperfect solution to offramp the BTC
-
this is always the weakpoint for all wrapped non-native coins
-
but with psbts⦠might be something there
-
@hodlencoinfield In the current setup, If the theoretical multisig holds 1 btc, canāt they post a single btcpay order for 1 cpBTC
-
And then other parties sign txs to fulfil it until itās complete?
-
-
-
or USDerp
-
Trying to figure out why people arenāt doing things like this.
-
-
Yeah, you would be trusting the custodians of a multisig.
-
Thatās how wbtc works on eth
-
its expensive to be fully in compliance and the current users of the protocol are mostly artists and devs
-
i thought about doing something like this with an emblem vault when shannon teased making counterparty asset vaults
-
- 30 March 2024 (3 messages)
-
@marceh0le just updated the docs to show how to run kickstart with Docker: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/Documentation/blob/bc5416136e3b6797fc6eed60bbd5619895ce83b1/docs/advanced/how-to/docker-kickstart.md
As said several times, kickstart is going away with v11 (i.e. in a month or two) but for those who want to use docker now have at it.Documentation/docs/advanced/how-to/docker-kickstart.md at bc5416136e3b6797fc6eed60bbd5619895ce83b1 Ā· CounterpartyXCP/DocumentationOfficial Documentation of the Counterparty Project - CounterpartyXCP/Documentation
-
-
Releases Ā· CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
Counterparty Protocol Reference Implementation. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core development by creating an account on GitHub.