- 01 May 2025 (3 messages)
-
Bitcoin sync speed is very dependent on ram. Use the dbcache bitcoin conf. During IBD, make it as high as possible. After sync you can remove it again. -
Try now -
I'm afk, but it looks like I'm not connecting automatically. Would anyone else mind also connecting and seeding? - 02 May 2025 (3 messages)
-
have you posted this torrent on a tracker site? could you please? there are many to choose from
-
-
🤷♂ maybe I can put in your IP? lol
- 03 May 2025 (2 messages)
-
Try magnet link : https://ctxt.io/2/AAB4pZFwEA
-
Is anyone online today who may be interested in helping getting and seeding this? im having difficulties connecting to JP and although a few trackers show peers, i am unable to connect. Maybe if there are more peers?
- 10 May 2025 (6 messages)
-
Finally running my own Counterparty node 🥳 🎉 🎆
Manual install. It was a real pain. On almost every step some error. With help from chatgtp and you guys 🔥 i managed eventually.
How long can i expect the parse to take? (Default setting is not bootstrap, right?) -
default setting in counterparty-core is to download bootstrap so should go fast.... as far as how long it will take for a full parse, according to Adam, it should take less than 24 hours.... also, wonder why you had such issues installing, according to Adam, it should be just 3 lines of code to run and the docker should download and setup everything... you having CP communicate with its own external node or something? -
Either way, congrats on finally getting a CP node up and running 🙂
-
Glad to see that you are not trying to be first to market just to have the community test it for you.
-
Im on manual install. I don't think it uses bootstrap (?). Counterparty started parsing immediately. Now after 12 hrs we're at block 450k. Hopefully done by Monday morning. 🙏
-
With Docker I was never able to get Bitcoin to sync. Way too slow. Same whether on Windows or Ubuntu VM.
Manual install didn't work on Windows.
What finally worked was manual install on Ubuntu VM. - 11 May 2025 (5 messages)
-
@jp_janssen it was slow even with the dbcache? How much ram do you have?
-
Maybe i celebrated too early? 😢
The VM crashed during the night.
I am able to restart where it crashed at least. Now continuing at block 470k -
VM max 10gb.
My laptop has 16gb. -
That should allow ~5gb for the dbcache
-
Maybe even more
- 12 May 2025 (3 messages)
-
Parsing complete 🚀
Block 896387. My tx and ledger hashes match tokenscan and xcp.io. The message hashes are different tho.
On xcp.dev and memepool all hashes are different.
Horizon is down. -
Still down ?! - 13 May 2025 (13 messages)
-
Horizon is up. All hashes are off 😱
-
I wonder if their "test suite" is actually testing if the calculated hashes are correct... I know at some point they were talking about updating CP to recalculate all hashes (which I think is a mistake, ppl should be able to check/verify the same hash has been used for blocks since the first block).... so maybe they integrated their new hash generation code... its sad, but no real way to know what is going on anymore 🤷️️️️️️
-
yep just verified... all hashes on horizon are different, none match, including hashes on block 866000 (when they changed/broke dispenser functionality).... so either their test suite is not comparing hashes hashes to the previous version, or they are recalculating new hashes using new code
-
eh... classic was more of just a point of standing up for what is right... I dont expect ppl to continue using it unless they absolutely want the dispenser functionality that was lost (origin, etc)..... XChain platform is the way forward I think.. but time will tell 🙂
-
-
neway... enough talk about CP and classic and xchain... I know Juan wants to keep this channel most clear of that stuff 🙂
-
that is some of the code for the "swap" functionality... xchain has orders (DEX), dispensers, and swaps (swap one token for another)... similar to how things work on the DEX, but with swaps, the swap amounts are exact, and the swap can take place ocross chains.... ie, you could put up a swap to swap a RAREPEPE on the BTC chain with 1M of RAREDOGECASH on the DOGE chain.... since the logic lives in a component above the blockchain encoder/decoder, the platform can work with any blockchain.... got some really cool shit planned for cross-chain functionality... "swaps" is just the basic version to demonstrate that you can have one platform that can perform actions across multiple blockchains 🙂
-
anyway... if you want to know more, prolly best to chat about it in the xchain platform channel at @XChainPlatform
-
and... the code shouldn't make your eyes bleed... every line has normie text explaining what is going on, as well as very simple logic / checks to follow along with.... easy peasy for any dev to figure out what is going on and contribute / build on it 🙂
- 14 May 2025 (37 messages)
-
Horizon shows identical hashes up until 334137. At 334138 something causes the hashes to diverge. This is December 2014.
Horizon runs on v11.0.0 -
In comparison .... xcp.dev shows identical hashes to xchain at 850,000 .Xcp.dev runs an older version, so it's expected that they diverged at some point RECENTLY
-
Hashes are hardcoded in check.py, right?
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/commit/9cd1aa498d363d84abb21e4156d0515884fb0a49Add checkpoints · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core@9cd1aa4Counterparty Protocol Reference Implementation. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
That are just checkpoints I think -
So the indexer can check against it at this points
-
Is there still two ledgers classic and 2.0 or did that get sorted out -
That's yet another discussion. Anyone's free to fork. Juan rejected a fork some time ago too, so that makes it three ledgers.
But if i get this v11 thing right, that's a whole different level. It is forking Counterparty back in 2014 ..AND claiming this is THE Counterparty.
Maybe i missed something. I'd really like to read the justification for dropping one decade worth of checkpoints. -
Protocol Change Proposal: Fix Bech32 Address Support · Issue #3053 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
Fix Bech32 Address Support Motivation It has been 8 years since Bech32 addresses were introduced and became the standard for most wallets. Bech32 address support was added to Counterparty in 2018 w...
-
This is what i missed. I will let it sink in before voicing my opinion.
-
Looks like it is too late to voice your opinion bro... they already decided that this is the way that they wanted to do things, an so they pushed forward with it... now you gotta just deal with a decade of hashes being changed.... This is the new way of cp core dev.... sneak shit it on github, if no one views it and objects (and even when ppl do object), they do what they want... I know we dont see eye to eye on some topics, but it is really difficult to continue calling Counterparty a "community driven" project any more when all changes and decisions are made only on github and only by a handful of devs and community input is no longer valued, requested, and quite often ignored.... I hope CP finds some traction in the future, but IMO it is no longer a community driven project, and it is a for-profit driven company driven project.
-
so... according to Adam, the "cleanest" way to do things is the way that he did it which changed a decade of hashes.... no real discussion on the value of having hashes continue to match... IMO the codebase should not be changed to change things in the past, only going forward... it would not have been that difficult to keep the database the way it was and only fix the bech32 addresses going forward.... but, whats done is done, now ppl get to just deal with it 🤮️️️️️️
-
At least the hashes match back to the genesis eh? 😛
-
at this point, they might as well stop parsing txs from the blockchain and just load up data over the years from a CSV... will be much faster.. and the whole point of having the hashes is so that one can go back and historically proove that the hashes match and the data was parsed accurately... now that the hashes have changed, lost that ability, so might as well go with "the cleanest" method of loading historical data and just generate a CSV with all the history..... since we have no hashes to verify, we are now in a position where we have to "trust" the devs have parsed teh data right.... not very Bitcoin.. "Dont't Trust, Verify" is the bitcoin mantra... tho now seems to be "Don't verify, Trust" with counterparty 😛
-
and i was attacked for having counterparty nodes download bootstraps instead of doing full parses.... which funny enough, is EXACTLY what counterparty core devs do now by default (same as I was).... the ole "Do as I say, not as I do" tactic... neway, enough rambling about the sad state of CP and its broken / fractured community... back to dev on xchain
-
side-note: the "fix" that they put in, Javier and I put in as well when we submitted a PR for taproot support 2+ years ago (which was subsequently ignored).... the difference here is that Javier and I made it so that the change activated on a given block... which is how things SHOULD have been done... find an issue, leave things the way they are historically, fix things going forward starting from an activation block.... so, they already had all the code to fix things properly at their fingertips.... tho, they went with the "cleanest" way, which is clearly not clean, as it breaks all validation methods for 10 years of blocks
-
</end rant>
-
really? that is pretty cool... not a fan of rust myself, but it is impressive that you built a cp parser in rust... it parse full blocks or just individual transactions?
-
very cool... you might want to make it available on github for anyone to take a peek at... similar to jps decoder
-
Electrum-Counterparty/decode_tx.html at master · Jpja/Electrum-Counterparty
Generate OP_RETURN for sending Counterparty tokens from Electrum - Jpja/Electrum-Counterparty
-
I also wrote an xcp tx decoder based on JPs code when I was writing BTNS 🙂
-
BTNS-Decoder/xcp.js at master · jdogresorg/BTNS-Decoder
Broadcast Token Naming System (BTNS) Transaction Decoder - jdogresorg/BTNS-Decoder
-
Has anyone analyzed the differences in balances between v10 and v11 ?
I believe many OLGA stamps will get a new owner. I burnt these on purpose by sending to a address that due to the bug would save as a different kind of address. -
omg
PEPOLGA changes owner with v11. Same for all stamps from my minter. -
OMG, that is really bad news
-
One burn address replaces another, not the end of the world here.
But i do think i know a way to cause real loss of funds. Tomorrow i will give it a try. Someone is gonna lose a few sats (when/if v11 is introduced) to prove my point.
Domt worry, I'm gonna reimburse them tho. -
Every time there is a hard fork a new Counterparty Classic is created.
-
Or, a new Counterparty X? We should be at Counterparty 17 (or whatever is the number of hard forks) today? 🤔
-
Salad, main course, shrimp.
It seems conventionally, only three are useful -
The current “Counterparty Classic” is more like Stamps SRC20. The old versions are the real “classics”…
- 15 May 2025 (50 messages)
-
Nice comment @BrrrGuy on github
I added a comment there too. Messing up ten years of hashes is too risky and bad optics imo.
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/issues/3053Protocol Change Proposal: Fix Bech32 Address Support · Issue #3053 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-coreFix Bech32 Address Support Motivation It has been 8 years since Bech32 addresses were introduced and became the standard for most wallets. Bech32 address support was added to Counterparty in 2018 w...
-
Aaaand now I am blocked from contributing to the discussion... 🙊
-
WTF?
-
"CounterpartyXCP
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators"
Im not that github savvy. What makes you collaborator ? -
Add full addresd support starting now.
No need to rewrite history. Many stamps will change owner for example. God knows what else will happen with v11. -
Opposite. It's introducing a security risk.
-
I wrote how in that github post.
-
I can think of one way. Short addr is real. Long address is fake.
Now if you send to long addr, short address receives it due to the bug.
Short address then send the tokens around.
With v11 that initial send to long address will not go to short address. All of short addr's txs will be invalididated. Everyone receiving those tokens will lose their balances in v11 -
Who’s profiting ? lol 😂
-
Oh, lots of stamps will have new ownerswith v11. Good luck with that 😁
Regarding the funds, it's not really an attack vector. With v11 balances could get distributed from real address to a burn address. Everyone loses.
I stress that this is a theoretical case. Not sure anyone ever did what i outlined. If the bug is still present I will be happy to show it now. -
-
Typical at the great leader of counterparty behavior…. Doing whatever the fuck he wants and when people bring up issues, regardless of who they are, he calls it nonsense and absolutely ridiculous, and then limits conversation so that no one else can disagree with him.
-
Regardless of if you agree or disagree with the proposal, there should be no limitations of users being able to give feedback on proposed changes…. Or rather changes that were proposed where no one saw them and now are being forced up upon the community.
So much for 10 years of hashes and being able to validate that data on a note was passed in an unacceptable way .
I’m sorry that you two now are experiencing some of this treatment JP, at the hands of Adam…. He is very good at ignoring developers feedback, and doing whatever the hell he wants…. The only time that I have ever seen him do something that he doesn’t want to is when a huge major majority of people are objecting….. for instance a couple weeks ago when a huge majority of people said that they didn’t want the FUD messages on counterparty.io anymore…… he was happy to stand his ground and ignore users over months requesting that however once he made the mistake of taking a poll of the community and the Paul overwhelmingly showed support for removing the FUD messages, then he had to take the messages down.
I don’t believe he will make that mistake again of openly putting something up for a vote to the community -
Shit just keeps getting worse and worse with counterparty…. Regardless of if you agree with the functionality that has been added or not, there is no way to argue that this is an open source community driven project where consensus is met before changes are pushed….. that mindset died the moment Adam took back over.
In fact, Robby actually warned me that Adam was a ruthless optimizer and that he made Adam promise that he wouldn’t delete the counterparty-lib repository or the fentanyl repositories….. but of course Adam found a and run around those as well by renaming the counterparty live repository to counterparty core thereby breaking all the installations that called on the old repo….. and that also happened to break fat note which he wanted to get rid of anyway…..
So you see, even with the former cofounders, he is not respectful of wishes and will do whatever the hell he wants and figure out ways to cut corners and achieve his goals , even if that means ignoring community members who have been involved in the project longer than he has, including myself and yourself -
Been doing that for a year and a half… it will launch shortly… multi chain platform with support for cross chain functionality @xchainplatform
-
no one... tho not for lack of trying... ie, see forced atomic swaps into the protocol with no demand, and charging users a monthly service fee in horizon for storing their PSBT (something that could/shold be done on a protocol level).... Adam and Horizon def trying to monetize their updates... just no real community demand for the features they building. 🤷️️️️️️
-
- 16 May 2025 (3 messages)
-
-
Zapped
-
I get zapped all the time lol
- 19 May 2025 (1 messages)
-
Does the bech32 truncation bug affect dispenses?
Any example of a long bech32 addr sending btc to a dispenser? - 20 May 2025 (6 messages)
-
19fNvdGbD3dP5zqAsQhDqGyENnR5bHvZB1
42684 XCP in v11
42691 XCP in v10 -
How did you do it?
-
Compare v10 and v11 balances by ouziel-slama · Pull Request #3163 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
$ python3 tools/comparebalances.py Mismatch: v10: ('bc1qmj7zxs9arakv82c28zrsypj8a3r35fu7pure55', 'IMWITHPEPE', 1, 675550, 1553378, None, None) v11: ('bc1qmj...
-
-
I saw the v11.1 was on horizon wallet for a while now back to 10 for a while
Now it’s 11.0 again ? -
Current ?!
- 21 May 2025 (75 messages)
-
-
interesting... I raised the same objectionsJPJA did about the hashes changing.... and it got me blocked from the repository.... so now i'm not able to even contribute bug reports.... sucks, cuz I just found and reported an issue last week with dispensers not being able to be created using subasset name (even tho the documentation indicated we should, and always have been able to reference the asset by asset name or subasset name)
-
Unable to create dispenser using subasset name · Issue #3156 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
It seems like functionality has been lost as now users are no longer able to specify a subasset name when creating a dispenser, and instead have to specify the NUMERIC name for the subasset instead...
-
Gotta love the decentralized manner in which Counterparty is being run.... its an open source project that anyone can contribute to.... except me, the guy who kept it alive for the 10 years adam was gone... lol... what a tool
-
and my offense? simply objecting to the fact that all the hashes for 10 years of counterparty had changed.... Guess talking back to Adam is considered "abuse" and worthy of a ban..... so, no more finding and reporting issues for Counterparty by me anymore 🤷️️️️
-
Looking for the owner of wallet
1Ea7GFTA8cBNcpKNQsVnXgXB4RUFmkCWvM
I bought from your dispenser and never got my xcp! Please reach out
Heres the transaction:
https://blockstream.info/tx/60ff55f6b191ee097a5817bbfce327020f55f6ceca337c3b44dec1d6a7481739Blockstream Block ExplorerBlockstream Explorer is an open source block explorer providing detailed blockchain data across Bitcoin, Testnet, and Liquid. Supports Tor and tracking-free.
-
Also looking for the owner of wallet:
16TNY6JF5dkYC3ghRuJ9nb27oE9Z6zA3GM
I bought from your dispenser and never got my xcp! Please reach out
Heres the transaction link
https://blockstream.info/tx/db681cb0c1056be90d191260f17015cca8cecdd2369d72fa8c63c75fcf69362cBlockstream Block ExplorerBlockstream Explorer is an open source block explorer providing detailed blockchain data across Bitcoin, Testnet, and Liquid. Supports Tor and tracking-free.
-
best to ask your question in oneplace and wait for someone to reply... I see you have spammed this message all over the place in a bunch of different chats
-
I replied to your question in the freeewallet channel.
-
Yeah too many xcp channels and Community fractured
-
yep, its sad days for Counterparty, and only going to get worse as time goes on unfortunately.
-
Wait they are charging for what now? -
they charge for storing Partial Signed Bitcoin Transactions (PSBT)... 1 credit or $2 per PSBT taht they store for you
-
-
-
Sounds like a good way to minimize db bloat lol -
It is not..
-
Does not cost 2$ store a psbt
-
A seller fee instead of a buyer fee. Semantics. If it was all protocol level then nobody could monetize the sales and everyone back to begging for donations?
-
Remember the time artists and community members had to pay $3000-5000 THOUSAND? For a "Collection" on xchain, no landing page, no curated collection statistics....just a green banner.... I hope that fee for artists is no longer there that was ridiculous for years -
I dont remember that time at all because it never happened... dunno where you guys get your info from, but the most I have ever charged for a green banner was $1000... and most ppl got their green banner for free
-
if you guys want to support adam and the direction he is going, that is fine... but dont talk shit about stuff you know nothing about to try and make me look like the bad guy.... and as far as database bloat... disk space is cheap... and Adam and team is letting ppl store images and other data in asset descriptions... so he is 100% fine with database bloat.... UNLESS it comes to impacting his ability to earn.... could have very easily implemented PSBT into counterparty on a protocal level and charged an XCP fee for storage.... THAT would have been the right thing to do... versus making it a pay service in a private company.... The mental hurdles you guys are jumping through to make what he has done OK and what I have done "bad" are pretty hilarious
-
so... only way to make something a success is to allow monetization of stuff which could be done for free... thanks for explaining your viewpoint... prolly why your Stamps and SRC minting service charged such high fees... I'm from a different mindset where everything should be built in a way that anyone can use it for as cheap as possible.... different strokes for different folks..... we will see which is the better path in the long run.... but so far... atomic swaps are not being used... and the numeric subassets which Adam added cuz he was assured by the stamps ppl that it was a needed feature, have exactly 22 stamps in 6+ months.... So far, not seeing any traction on anything Adam has added... just created confusion and division.
-
-
haha a bunch of ball busters. it's a tough line. would be much better at the protocol level imo. then if any service wanted to charge fees they could add to the psbt, then a fair 'competition' environment and a great user experience cuz all exchanges would see the sell listings. in the same way dispensers work
-
there are zero fees on stamp/src-20 minting/deploy/transfer on stampchain ser.
-
and free buys from dispensers ofc.
-
out here begging for donations so i can relate to the 'auto-donate' feature. but reallistically that's no different than an auto donate transaction/service fee on a buy/mint/etc.
-
-
eh... a bit different since a donation can be turned off.... meanwhile, can't post a PSBT on horizon without paying... so not quite comparing apples and apples... but its fine 🙂
-
-
Oh but you get two free for every email!
If you have Gmail, you can get more by inserting a random period in your username
/>Tree.fiddy@gmail.com
/>T.reefiddy@gmail.com
/>Tr.eefiddy@gmail.com
All go to treefiddy@gmail.com
That's the hack, I'm sure they did not fix -
My openbook stores the psbt on Bitcoin for less than a dollar and makes everyone able to buy it
-
truth. hard to argue with how people chose to monetize. allowing users to pay or not to pay vs forcing payment. i guess that's what free markets are for.
I think the community suffers by not having all psbt sell orders at the protocol level regardless. But then the option of even having a 'pay to list' model would be pointless for any service and probably factored into their decision. perhaps short sighted imo. -
i think there would be a markeet for a CP atomic swap exchange that didn't charge buyer or seller fees (or something far less than < 1% of volumen) that monetize in other ways simply through user adoption, eyeballs, and volume.
-
in fact now it makes me think an optional user selected fee on stampchain for each trx as a donation on the transaction level is a good idea in alignment with your auto donate. just uncheck the box each time. curious to see if there would be outrage lol
-
This doesn’t solve the front run issue… correct? Can I see in the tx in the mempool and then sign mine with a higher fee?
-
Yes you can do that, but you won't loose your btc
-
If you don't get the assets
-
Yeah that would be the benefit over dispensers
-
Yes
-
Frontrunning could be solved adding a multisignature required
-
Hmm but then that goes back to requiring that other signature “authority”…
But it has the benefit of being open book!
And this solution wouldn’t even need an “attach” then “move”… right? Can it be done just with a classic send? -
Like was done a while back by keyuno?
-
Atomic Swaps: Advancing Decentralized Asset Exchange and Trust Minimization · CounterpartyXCP/Forum · Discussion #100
Introduction: Atomic swaps enable direct peer-to-peer asset exchange between Bitcoin and Counterparty assets without the need for intermediaries or trusted third parties. They utilize Hash Time Loc...
-
With a multisig yes could be possible
-
But would require the asset to be transfered to that msig
-
Yeah because the protocol requires the first input to be the source right? But then anything after is allowed?
-
Man it would be super funny if is possible to achieve the same without all the protocol changes done 🤯
-
Are you familiar (or anyone else) how the “move” works?
-
Mmmm this was possible before, but there was a security risk on it
-
I think in 9.6 is still available that issue
-
You need an utxo signed by the person who holds the assets
-
Then the opret message can be anything
-
So you could perform a sweep for example
-
In the psbt merge
-
-
Yeah is not the same as just hosting a PSBT… but this hosting still requires some “trust”. You sign whatever the service provider gives…
-
Unless the wallet client shows and verifies the complete tx, there is still trust involved…
-
Yes
-
With the utxo attached that trust is vanished
-
How the “move” works? Does it require the tx to still follow a certain “format”?
How is the utxo tracked? What happens in utxo consolidation for example? -
It's tracking the utxo once there is an attach, in any tx that there is a tracked UTXO involved always goes to the first output
-
There is just one case I don't know what is the result, if you full spend a UTXO with an asset and there is just one opreturn output I don't know where goes that asset
-
And also to any incompatible address correct?
Is there any limit to the moves? -
If there is sent to an invalid address (for example taproot) the utxo is still tracked
-
Won't be possible to detach the asset in a taproot address but if the asset is moved to a compatible address will be possible
-
Ok, and is there any XCP fee involved? Only charged once?
Asking because this sounds more resource intensive than the vanilla BTC dispenses ever were… -
Comparing them as both types of txs that have no CNTRPRTY prefix
-
One variable xcp fee on the attach and detach
-
Now is free as it depends on number on this kind of tx
-
Ok thanks for the info Javi!
-
You are welcome sir if I can help anyone I'm open for it
- 22 May 2025 (26 messages)
-
If I remember conversations correctly, atomic swaps made Counterparty significantly more resource intensive because they now run ordinals as well (need to track utxos).
-
No, does not run ordinals
-
Runs electrs
-
Very lightweight
-
Really? I was under the impression that when a token is assigned to a utxo, counterparty must track movements of that utxo under the ordinal fifo assumption. Which is resource intensive.
-
Noo
-
Ordinal theory not involved
-
I believe the motivations were entirely coattail theory
-
It must be part of the core per block per tx logic. Independent of electrs, which is for address indexing.
-
Yes I was wrong with electrs
-
Is just for tx generation
-
Will need to check the code
-
Yes looks like is part of the parsing tx logic, it adds a new step in the tx detection logic
-
counterparty-core/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/parser/gettxinfo.py at 18de91c4e13aa2ef2c734f95ded6a08f3b2fc825 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
Counterparty Protocol Reference Implementation. Contribute to CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core development by creating an account on GitHub.
-
Also relies on a third-party service, which can go down at any point…. Used to be that we had addresses and the complete counterparty stack could be run on a node…. Now I’m consistently seeing complaints from users who are getting error messages from electrs when trying to generate transactions….. no real help from the counterparty core team on how to solve this issue since it is relying on a third-party service where the error is being generated…. So users are having to open electron wallet and send all their bitcoin from their address back to their address in order to generate new UTX’s and try their transactions again…..
In my opinion, we sacrificed saving a bit of disk space for making the counterparty stack rely on a third-party service …. -
I run my own electrs service
-
Is not much different as running addrinexrs
-
Javier and I wrote a UTXO tracker for X chain platform, which keeps track of all active UTX’s as well as all address balances with a much smaller disc footprint since we are not tracking every UTXO that has ever been created, but rather tracking the active UTXO set only…. Something which counterparty also could a very easily done if they weren’t in a hurry to outsource UXO stuff to a third-party service.
-
That’s great for you however, electors is not included in the default stack and is not maintained by counterparty… sure you can set up your own server…. But the default install relies on a third-party service, which seems to be throwing errors for users randomly.
-
Do you have an explorer to list off all of your successful atomic swaps?
I know you said that the one swap in three months was only for horizon swaps so I’m curious if you have an explorer that shows all the swaps that happen on counterparty, regardless of what service they are using ?
I have chosen not to support atomic swaps on tokenscan, and instead focus my energy on building the X xchain platform -
Not explorer, just the API yet
-
These were the endpoints mentioned at one point
Electrs servers
https://api.counterparty.io:50001 # mainnet
https://api.counterparty.io:60001 # testnet -
Yeah I see it adds 2 steps actually, another related to a cache in the finally
-
The whole addressindrs blaming was just a scapegoat. Replacing it with Electrs was trivial. And relying on a third party service is just to be able to claim disk savings.
@BrrrGuy you and anyone running a node as a service provider should run the address indexing themselves also. Like @XJA77 and I are doing.
But you have a point @BrrrGuy, the electrs requirement should just be included in the full stack docker compose. Like addressindxrs was, but now not requiring its own maintenance. -
I believe that don't need to maintain a service is a win
-
It has been a win, with no protocol changes needed. Xcpdev has been running with electrs in v9
- 23 May 2025 (7 messages)
-
I run a node, manual install without electrs.
What's it for? All tx building? Atomic swaps? -
utxo selection
-
I am using fulcrum as the electrs server
-
@jp_janssen electrs is for address history and balances, that’s it. If you don’t plan to be a service provider, then you shouldn’t need it, and relying on a third party in any case you do should be good enough
-
“Don’t need it” only considering the hard coded txs. If you want to full verify the ledger, then you actually need it
-
What a issue if you want toto run regtest ...
-
It is a necessary dependency
- 24 May 2025 (5 messages)
-
I'm confused. I did a manual install. No bootstrap, no electrs. It took almost 48 hrs to parse every block. Wasn't this a full verification?
-
On my node a v2 api address balance request takes >5 sec. Same request from counterparty.io takes 0.4 sec.
The v2 output includes utxo info.
My node is slow bcs it doesn't have electrs? -
There are hardcoded transactions, used to be only burns now there are others. You are trusting the list, not verifying each block’s txs fully
-
Don’t know about this, I am still running v9
-
Yes I believe is using the external Electra API by default
- 26 May 2025 (1 messages)
-
Joined. - 27 May 2025 (27 messages)
-
-
-
Nice job JPJA on, forcing the core developers to change their path to making this hash change recalculation stuff a normal protocol change…. I tried to give my opinion, but as I said before, Adam has blocked me from giving any comments or feedback on anything having to do with counterparty🤷🏻♂️
-
Tnx, i hated doing it but saw no other option. When I warned about it, i was ignored (even ridiculed) and discussion closed.
Hash mismatch would be bad enough but rewriting balances is 😱
Even if these were assumed accidental burns, I wont be surprised if our creative community did these on purpose. Ie burn tokens through this bug. Like burning 990 out of a 1000 supply. From v11 permanently burned supply would magically get unburned. Everyone investing in such a toke since 2017 would get screwed.
I did what i had to do. -
More strangeness going on between versions 10.10.1 and v11.0 ..... Cody has been asking for answers for 3+ days and no reply from adam... and i'm unable to file a bug report to get an answer, so forced to ask him publicly on twitter.... sad state of things
-
-
-
asked him directly... we'll see if I get any reply
-
The issuance that failed on v10 but was valid on v11..
.. my hypothesis is that it failed on v10 because insufficient XCP. The message about reset was just a meaningless message.
I will look into it tomorrow. Bedtime here now. -
Horizon's hashes match v10 now.
They didn't this morning.
So it means the current v11 is not the v11 that Horizon ran up until earlier today. -
That said, Im skeptical to the inscription thing v11 introduces. Is it documented somewhere? Discussed?
-
Ideally the protocol gets ‘pickled’ at some point. Meaning no more protocol changes. This is what needs to happen. I’m back from a break and a bit behind on reading. I’ll catch up. Any highlights to help debrief? -
This highlights why people should run their own node, but we should also be more specific when talking about ‘running a node’ because there are different risk vectors if you’re talking about ‘node’ as in the node helping you create/broadcast a tx vs the ‘node’ you connect to for ledger information (explorer)
A challenge/response initiated by the user could help with wallet and explorer node trust. Maybe each node comes with oauth or similar access control for the public, requiring a token (non-btc/xcp think web dev API token) to access important server resources intended to protect users from fraud or errors. Requiring an API key would prevent people onboarding with default wallet settings and getting in over their heads. Force people to think a bit about what they are doing. The access token can be easily obtained freely but changing code on the node would invalidate keys, informing users of a potential protocol change or security risk. The process for gaining such an access token can be the act of choosing your preferred explorer and node while double verifying the protocol version. Make sense?
We could add an output on transactions to ID the version of counterparty used to create tx, making transactions larger and more expensive
Still catching up reading this channel. I’m glad at least one channel didnt go down the drains. Thanks @uanbtc -
What are fentanyl and fat note?
-
-
It’s kinda bizzzar really isn’t it
Maybe passed too funny and closer to PEPENOLIKE -
Kinda like Saylor saying no to proof of reserve
-
No need to be thanked. This has been an educational experience. And the technical aspects are the least interesting.
The human aspect, the cult, and why it becomes like this… all because of an arbitrary ledger. The “cool kids”, and “the rest” that follow whatever these decide.
There are literally tens of possible ledgers. And anyone can decide to follow whatever version they want.
And then some call these “collectibles”? Impossible to collect something that has literal strings attached to an entity that constantly changes the rules. Aren’t collectibles about NOT changing?
Is all fake.
Interestingly, ordinals that track satoshis, are the best way to avoid all these forks.
Counterparty was a pioneer and great to experiment, but ordinals cracked the code. (Still not perfect, satoshi tracking is off-by-one from a certain block). -
lol voice to text is not always accurate…
Fentanyl = fednode
Fat note = fednode -
I know…. Like wtf bro? Supporting ppl buying paper BTC instead of simply showing proof of reserves?!?
21.5 M BTC coming to an exchange near you soon🤷🏻♂️😜 -
Dang I kinda wanted some fat note
- 28 May 2025 (23 messages)
-
* Support simultaneous Ordinals Inscription creation when composing an Issuance, Fairminter or Broadcast txs (docs: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/Documentation/blob/f5647d7b8da7c578bb9d2cae892c2d697bf84796/docs/advanced/specifications/taproot-envelope.md)
I don't fully understand. Do you mint an ordinal in addition to Counterparty tokens?Documentation/docs/advanced/specifications/taproot-envelope.md at f5647d7b8da7c578bb9d2cae892c2d697bf84796 · CounterpartyXCP/DocumentationOfficial Documentation of the Counterparty Project - CounterpartyXCP/Documentation
-
It seems like it, but there is a way to unbind the sat
https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions/pointer.html -
Ok, basically in one Counterparty transaction you both do the issuance and attach to sat at once ?
-
Oh darn, i looked more into it. The nonsens error message is because of changes to the issuance message. Everything pre v11 will break
-
Non-backward compatible change to issuance message · Issue #3171 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core
This issuance was valid on Horizon (v11) but not on other explorers : tx_hash = 9adf03f0e989eb825a7b888148603fe3179aa49abb0d0cfe4a39f7e10ccc1b6a Raw issuance message: 434e54525052545916871b**00ff0c...
-
Intersting indeed.
And honestly I am having trouble enjoying ordinals.
Cp and dp still feel as close to an artists playground as you can get I mean unless you got to play on xchain
Oooow that’ll be fun.
Funny
How it all started with damb the man
Fun memes and memetic deep thinking vibes
Now feels like we have entered the spreadsheets and profit loss bull and bear market
Ideas of what was once pure.
And I’m new but I’ve got an old janky ass memetic soul !
No point just a rank lol
Love ya -
This sucks, but unfortunately, it is exactly the type of behavior I expect from Adam and his team…. Changing things in the way that they want and breaking reverse compatibility while telling users that they didn’t object to the proposal, which was quietly raised on get hub and not discussed anywhere in the community and now it is too late…
And one wonders why I said that counterparty is centralized and no longer community driven project 😢 -
The only thing counterparty has going forward it is it’s historic assets, and I believe, and I’m already seeing, users, dumping assets for cheaper and cheaper as they finally tune into the fact that counterparty is on a dead end road😢
-
I’m sorry you’re being treated this way JP…. And you are once again correct in that they should simply come up with a new message ID and use the new format on the new message ID rather than breaking backwards compatibility with previous versions.
I know you have been encounter party just as long as I have and how much it means to you to be able to have an open community driven project to play around with ….. and it’s frustrating and saddening to see you being talked down to and ignored.
I’m working on a new platform which should be released in the next few months which has all of the functionality of counterparty and more, and which ports over all of the asset ownership from counterparty and dogeparty…. Hopefully you will enjoy this new platform and find it as a new home for your ideas and experimentation.👍🏻 -
I’m seriously starting to reconsider my viewpoint on the snapshot…. I was planning on just launching X chain platform and snapshot the asset names and asset ownership, but not balances…… but with all that’s going on I’m very tempted to snapshot balances as well and give people the opportunity to simply start using the tokens that they have on counterparty on X chain….. still considering it… thoughts?
-
The ord inscription format allows specifying the sat (if you want it different from the default first), which can be none I believe, but I’ve never done it.
Seems like the issuance/broadcast data is split in different parts of the tx? -
I’ve been playing with this, but based on the original db architecture, which I still believe is way simpler
-
We need a kick ass mobile app !!
That is lacking !
When I’m out and about I find myself begrudgingly using horizon fml
And rare pepewallet is even worse now !
“New” upgrade
Very constricted
I wish FreeWallet had a sweet mobile option !!
But maybe Something new !! Would be nice !
I am sure XCHAIN WILL. have. A deadly mobile wallet.
Instant winner if the mobile wallet is awesome ! -
I strongly believe we need to start with an explicit social contract
-
Hmm
Wouldn’t it be cool if a masked coder ninja built it all and walked away
I hear we play on a thing like that ! KEK -
Stray from Satoshi, become the shitcoin -
I’m saying wouldn’t it be cool if cp was dropped flawless and free like Satoshi did
-
It kind of used to be like that. This was one of the reasons I was attracted to it initially, founders left and it was still alive
-
Puts you in a box
-
Some new thing? Or what is already natural: the ledger version
-
Not some new thing, clarification after a decade of evolution
- 29 May 2025 (38 messages)
-
Hahah I nailed this
Love the current cp bug fixes haha -
I want need this in my collection!
-
Yes I think Toofunnypepe
Will be an invite only asset ! -
😰
-
I’m dropping 20 cards in one day
The copypastegold mini series in LFG2series
I’ve got 6 more to make !!
Keep your eye peeled -
pretty hilarious that the problem with TOOFUNNYPEPE was that the core devs were using v11.0 in production without letting users know to generate txs.... 10.10.1 parsed the tx that 11 generated in a funky way since it had additional bytes in it (the new issuance format).... and Adam explanation as to how it happened was that "someone was using a pre-release version of v11".... since we know it was Cody that did the tx, and we know that cody is not running his own v11 node.... it indicates that indeed Adam and team were running v11 in production before release... ie, letting the community test their software before release.
-
so yeah... i'd say its a historic asset... @codythecampbell you might also want to issue that numeric asset that failed to issue due to this issue.... and make it a historic asset as well... both sides of the bug... the v10.10.1 issuance parsing a v11 issuance 😛
-
A9735376114921552403
-
and yeah...we know that adam and team were running v11 in production before release... as it is how JP and I detected the 10 years of changed txlist and ledger hashes 🤷️️️️️️
-
yet another VOATBURGER and BADBURGERDAY type asset indicating a problem in CP 😛
-
Great idea done
✅ -
-
Haha
-
Here’s a little mystery for you
It happened twice !!
Who can find the other asset lol
😂
I get issueing and often do several lol 😂 -
So then I never really looked but I probably paid because it was bitcoin transaction onchain
Fuggers made me pay twice haha
Well no one made me hahh
And all assets have been issued and reissued I’ve got some fun ideas haha
#toofunnypepe -
@jp_janssen @BrrrGuy
@krostue
Are definitely receiving a little gift pack once the drop is ready to go ! Thanks for helping. And have a grand old time with me on this one. -
✅
-
And now Im lectured on what 's not okay. Too bad i can't reply. I'd be happy to remind him that booting the people that invited you to Github is not okay, cancelling the CIP process is not okay, forcing changes without community support is not okay, reversing balance history is not okay, non backward changes to cntrprty messages are not ok ..
-
That is not like peeing with your Pants all the way down at all !!
Doesn’t feel good man
I’m adding some stuff to PEPENOLIKE -
This warning obviously means counterparty communicates with some outisde server. I am new to running nodes. Has it always been this way?
-
What happens after block 902,000?
My node gets killed if i dont downgrade? -
Adam and co implemented telemetry. It is on by default and tmk it is only able to be turned off with a manual install or manually changing a config file. Also the wording to disable telemetry is non-intuitive, meaning unclear or ambiguous. Telemetry not good imo. Funny story, the telemetry had an error and ate up a big chunk of their development budget by logging data too often.
-
Yea, i found it in server.conf
no-telemetry = 0 is default
I changed it to 1 but I still get that warning.
In all fairness also bitcoin checks for updates. As long as there's no possibility to remotely manipulate/kill my node im not too concerned about this. -
Verified this. As of the version xcp.dev runs (v9.61), there are 48 ledgers.
Since Adamparty there have been 3 more, which will be 4 in the next fork. -
Jeeeeeeezus
-
Once upon a time...
-
It was far from perfect, but it worked and I was happy
-
I've come to the conclusion that it's not the code.It's the people
-
I'll be wherever the people are
-
So if it's contra partay version 17.9 im there
-
By “the people” you mean the “cool” grifters? lol
Just be aware that whatever you are selling, with each fork is even more fake. -
What
-
Not calling you a grifter, the REAL grifters are the ones that knowingly hide all these flaws so that you continue trusting these are “collectibles”.
-
Ok
-
Is literally a cult, the leaders know they NEED to hide the truth to their followers.
Any resistance, and you must be shunned. The lie (more like “keep them ignorant”) must be kept.
I’ll repeat, Counterparty was a pioneer and has historical relevance, but the technology is way weaker than ordinals (which is not perfect either). -
nope... Nodes have never communicated with any external server until Adam took over... he built in telemetry and defaulted it on so he knows exactly who is running nodes on what IPs, and now apparently is using that telemetry to try and force old nodes to update, etc... You dont comply, your node prolly stops parsing.... who knows, since tons of code updates are being made without community discussion or consensus
-
Lots of outrage today over v11 changes
-
https://x.com/jp_janssen/status/1927973069244567903
https://x.com/jdogresorg/status/1928151893542588818
https://x.com/shaban_shaame/status/1928096073639162207
https://x.com/jdogresorg/status/1928159685481484490J-Dog (@jdogresorg) on XAnother case of a long-time Counterparty member raising valid concerns about how changes are being forced into the protocol (changing format rather than issuing a new message type id, which is what has been done each time the issuance format has changed over the past 10 years. I
- 30 May 2025 (7 messages)
-
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/issues/3173
Soneone mind checking the claim that taproot encoding is indeed cheaper than opreturn for ~80 byte message?Revert CBOR Encoding (?) · Issue #3173 · CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-coreAs part of the v11.0.0 protocol change, we switched to a new transaction data encoding method using the CBOR standard for Sweep, Enhanced Send, Fairminter, Fairmint, Issuance and Broadcast transact...
-
I had a quick look at the example. Surprised they compared fee in sats, not vBytes, and the opreturn tx used an old 1.. address.
-
Im supposed to put the kid to bed but couldn't help researching this LOL
Adam's table fails to account for bc1q addresses. They take up 200 vBytes for 80 byte opreturn.
Taproot encoding will spend 256 vBytes.
With CBOR that 80 byte msg will become 82 bytes, so you're forced to use taproot.
This will theen increase the size by >56 vBytes.
This should add about 25% to the cost ... not reduce the cost as advertised. -
This.
Also changing header from counterparty to xcp or three characters saves 1 vByte. I mentioned this before Jeremy started using xcp message header for classic. - 31 May 2025 (26 messages)
-
It would save 5 bytes, ie add possibly 5 chars to description when using opreturn.
Several in the community have pointed out that consistently using CNTRPRTY prefix is beautiful in itself.
Like most things, a tradeoff. -
It's actually going to be refreshing when the two dividing camps settle on their own chains. One group that hadn't done any dev since Villar dispensers can run the art project chain.... which will be completely suitable for their means. The other chain will continue on developi g with the original vision of a l2 btc for multiple use cases. I think both can exists in their own corners of the crypto verse.
-
Good luck with the continuing future with a divisive leader who splits the community any chance he gets.
-
Thanks. You as well.
-
All the best to everyone who has contributed
-
Iam starting to realize the severing is crucial and liberating for both sides
-
You're missing the bigger point by being smug. Lying and manipulating will not stop so you will find yourself with a split community in Adam's faction within no time. With leadership like this forks are bound to happen because development is being pushed single-handedly
Too bad he can't just find a new brand for his new project. -
Not being smug just not emotionally connected to the outcome. And having 2 groups of ideas is best behind 2 separate chains.
-
-
;)
-
Isn’t the whole point that it isn’t l2, with cntrprty we ride in l1. -
I proposed that Adam shortened the header to XCP quite a while ago to save on fees…. He had plenty of opportunity to do so, as well as a great chance to do so by adding replay protection back in October… I gave him over 30 days to make this change which would’ve benefited the counterparty community before I decided that replay protection was absolutely necessary and changed the prefix in counterparty classic to XCP….. now he’s lost that opportunity to shave a few bites off of every transaction and make it cheaper for everyone using the platform.
-
Lots of changes were made since John Villar and I implemented dispensers…. Javier and I added Support for CIP3 and resetting token and divisibility…. We added additional functionality on dispensers like origin functionality, which allowed users to open and close dispensers from an origin address, making them much easier to manage and cheaper to use, we added limitations on dispensers to limit them to 1000 dispenses before closing, and Javier and I had taproot Support ready to go and ready to merge in when we handed control back to Adam 2 years ago….. thanks for trying to make it sound like nothing was done in counterparty since John Villar died but lots was done.
And as far as the different versions of counterparty settling on their own chains …. Not sure what you mean…. No one is pushing users to use counterparty classic and I don’t see it gaining much additional adoption in the future…. However, I do see users migrating away from counterparty to a multi chain platform like X chain platform, which has all of the functionality of counterparty and more, including cross chain functionality…… and will be a community driven project not one that is driven by a single developer and their “I am always right” their views -
There is no severing and dividing the community between one version of counterparty or the other, there’s simply poor leadership, lots of community confusion, users, losing faith in the stability and future of counterparty and a lack of on boarding any new users to counterparty for any of the new features that have been added…. Fair mints, atomic swaps, numeric subassets….. we’re coming up on nine months plus of these things being implemented on counterparty and yet usage is at all time lows and there is absolutely no growth in the community….. division and confusion is not good for anyone, and simply pushes users to find other platforms to use
-
You need to do research on how Counterparty works, bro…. There are no separate chains, both counterparty and counterparty classic run on the same block chain Bitcoin….. there are multiple ledgers, but the underlying chain is the same🤷🏻♂️
-
Ok ledgers not chains
-
Same chain, btc, different protocol ledgers
-
Got it
-
Is what it is... two communities two ledgers
-
Its cool like that no?
-
I’m sure everyone would prefer a single community too, but that’s seeming more and more impossible to retain - despite a massive value in retaining a unity that serves both (for want of better words) factions
-
No, it’s not cool like that and is the main reason why I have not pushed any users to use counterparty classic…. Having ledger, forks and different ledgers only causes community confusion and division…. I could’ve very easily started forcing users of freewallet to use counterparty classic by default and I believe this situation we are in now would be entirely different, and counterparty classic would have way more usage than counterparty 2.0…. Considering dispensers are easier and cheaper to use than they are on cp 2.0…. And there’s no real usage or adoption of the new features that have been written into CP 2.0 …
however I felt it was best to focus on building a better platform that works on an infinite number of block chains and builds the foundation for playing around with future technology and cross chain functionality rather than continuing to make incremental changes to a platform which is forever bound to a single block chain -
It’s very sad to me that all this is going down like this (a user since 2016)
-
Counterparty will continue to exist and function I think…. But it has lost the one thing that made it special, which is the amazing community behind it and the ethos of it being a community driven project where everyone has to say and feels heard…..
Imo with that unique thing now being lost, it’s just another non-unique platform doing the same thing every other platform is doing chasing liquidity, and not putting the users and functionality first..
The only thing it has going for it now is that it has a lot of historic assets on it , but we already see OG’s and longtime users selling their wallets and moving on because they have lost faith…
Definitely very sad times -
Anyway, all this has been said before and unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done to change the path of counterparty now…. If after two years of development and over a year of users, objecting to changes hasn’t softened Adam‘s position or made him reconsider any of his viewpoints that he knows best how to run the community and his views are more important than the community, I don’t see that changing in the future.
Now I’m off to have some lunch with my son and enjoy some of this beautiful weather outside …. Don’t forget to get outside and touch some grass guys. Life is much bigger than a handful of nerds disagreeing on implementation and ethos…. We are all still very early. -
XCP Dev Chat
Public archive of Telegram messages.
- 01 May 2025 (3)
- 02 May 2025 (3)
- 03 May 2025 (2)
- 10 May 2025 (6)
- 11 May 2025 (5)
- 12 May 2025 (3)
- 13 May 2025 (13)
- 14 May 2025 (37)
- 15 May 2025 (50)
- 16 May 2025 (3)
- 19 May 2025 (1)
- 20 May 2025 (6)
- 21 May 2025 (75)
- 22 May 2025 (26)
- 23 May 2025 (7)
- 24 May 2025 (5)
- 26 May 2025 (1)
- 27 May 2025 (27)
- 28 May 2025 (23)
- 29 May 2025 (38)
- 30 May 2025 (7)
- 31 May 2025 (26)