hi

🤓 welcome!

counterparty writes bare multisig outputs when dropping dust in multisig encoded transactions

bitcoin more commonly uses P2SH type multisig

Someone congratulate Jeremy for me: xchain is finally showing consistent hashes!!

Just a few days ago this was still not the case, and I was not yet sure if my non-bootstrap node was legit as I only have a single node. A second one would confirm it was good.

To my surprise, today xchain is showing the same hashes as mine!

So, xcp.dev will be updated soon with this fully parsed “don’t trust, verify” node!

Who would have thought challenging each other and open competition would improve everyone… 😉

Aha! Amazing.

🤯

This is great news!

Too bad most don't understand or appreciate the significance. Thank you Juan!

Thank you so much this means a lot 🙏

xcp.dev has been updated!!!

I let them know in the other dev chat. Several likes 😊 The least i could do.
Knowing that counterparty works without bootstrap is a huuuge relief.

welcome welcome

🙌

Members from this chat have asked me about making a public api. The following GitHub issue has been made, which will help me decide if this is something that xcp.dev can provide is some way:

https://github.com/CNTRPRTY/xcpdev/issues/2

And FYI: https://github.com/CNTRPRTY/xcpdev/issues/3

Regarding api i am using xchain. It's reliable and has been building trust for almost a decade.

You cannot beat that but having a second api would add valuable redundancy.

Don’t trust, verify 🤓

Hello! Was wondering if anyone here has had experience with bitcoinlib (python) signing counterparty transactions (retrieved from the api)

Welcome @reganhimself !

I have been using nodejs (bitcore-lib), based on the code of counterwallet. But using python is a natural as that is the language of counterparty-lib…

Here is a idea .. how's about adding to cip25

https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/cips/blob/master/cip-0025.md

a new filed definition .. pubkeys .. its like dns but for public keys

So for example a 'paynym' could contain your bip47 code string ... a Nostr 'npub' key could be associated with YOURTOKEN

You could publish 'lightning' node details too if you wanted to .. pubkeys are on the increase

What do you think ?

i like it. working on my own upgrade and id like to incorporate something like that. want to comment here or on github? ill add it to my master work file

I don't have a github account, but I am glad you like the idea

you can always put whatever you want in a .json anyway but would be good for interoperability to have it well defined

i understand. if posting here is easiest, then lmk if you think of any other values that this would work out with

pgp is another pub key that gets used

I wonder .. should the pubkeys in the json be signed pubkeys .. to prevent malicious hosts modifying the keys

i dont know the difference. but would like to

Thanks for the welcome. Im just struggling to sign a tx I recieve from the counterparty api. If i compose the same raw transaction using core i can sign it no problem.

With bitcoinlib i get the error Unknown unlocking script type p2pkh for input 0.

if the pub key is not signed how do you know its the correct public key ?

A self-signed pubkey is a pubkey with a subject that matches its issuer, and a signature that can be verified by its own public key.

Self-signed certificates have their own limited uses. They have full trust value when the issuer and the sole user are the same entity.

maybe that's one for a crypto expert to weigh in on .. I think it makes sense if your hosting jsons on 3rd party servers

yeah it does!

Signing the whole json with the bitcoin address the token belongs to is another way to ensure your json can't be tampered with and may be another idea on how to secure your json data

secure/ensure integrity of may be better wording

I have a bit of experience building transactions but not enough to be able to help you with that specific error without having to sit down and study it 😅

Sure thing. Working on a light wallet that minimizes api reliance.

When the wallet cannot verify api data, it shows a warning and links to both xchain and xcp.dev. I think that's the best you can do without running your own node, which 99% don't.

Its probs more a case of me. Not 100% understanding the innerworkings or something.

I will keep at it and seenifni can work through it

Done @jp_janssen ! Looking forward to more specific issues like this than can be quickly closed. https://github.com/CNTRPRTY/xcpdev/issues/4

“…and xcp.dev..” 🥹❤️

ordinals craze is changing that.
more and more people are interested in having their own node for inscribing

I have been exploring the idea of getting as much running at home/office as possible. It would be great to not only have the setup of a full btc/xcp node, and a wallet/explorer that talks to it, but more importantly the whole thing should be repackaged so that anyone can to it themselves easily. While that is considerable dev work, I think a guide to do this would be a nice first step. So, when i do get the time and resources to do it, i will be documenting it. It would be great if anyone wanted to take on this idea and run with it themselves.

None

Yes the ord approach of a single application that does everything really paid off

So if not using a json .. How's about putting a Nostr pub key in an asset or subasset description directly .. so ASSETNAME with description npubblahblah .. and or ASSETNAME.nostr with description of npub ... no need for signing of the npubs if the they are written directly in the description

nostr is calling out for a name service ... xcp could function as it

Are you using nostr? Like the .nostr and having the pubkey being the description

yeah I have a nsec npub keypair

I think it's odd people are still using corporate social media when we now have a decentralised publishing protocol

What app are you using? I still haven’t tried it

Amethyst from Fdriod store

the Google play version has translation tools but they can't be included in Fdriod version

Cool, I’m in iPhone but I know there are already a couple. I’ve seen screenshots that look just like twitter

Damus is the iPhone client

federated models seem to offer more advantages, decentralized is meh

do those models offer strong censorship resistance ?

optional - choose a server that censors if you want otherwise don't
a slight oversimplification, but not by much. basically yes, the majority of nodes will block the most offensive stuff but not everyone will

if you look at matrix for example, your groups and conversations and content are mediated by the node you choose to log into, so people choose servers that align with their own preferences

are there private/public key based access to federated networks? or do you have to sign up using traditional email / phone number ? ..

I think matrix wants some kinda identifier like an email address to sign up n does not allow you to generate a keypair ..but I could be wrong?

yes there are lots of keys involved, all events happen in rooms, where messages are group signed.
I could be wrong, but I think only the largest free servers require email, like the actual matrix.org but only noobs use that

noobs use it because they don't know about others yet, and yes matrix.org homeserver is highly censored

but overall plenty of asshole groups like kiwi farms and others, it's open to all

I need to look at matrix ..ty for the infos

all built on HTTP protocol too, which is nice

nostr appears to be using json data format willbe interesting to see what gets built atop of it