good
[font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt][color=#606060]I am New to Counterwallet- I paid for (105) XCP with .4725 BTC from my balance in Counterwallet when I received a ‘match found’ notice. Some time later, I receive a notice to 'Pay now". The BTC was removed from my balance when I originally paid the address on the ‘Match’ notice, but I never received any XCP. Now it says my chance to ‘Pay’ has expired, and I’m just out 300 bucks?[/color][/size]
[color=#606060]I do not know where else to post or where else to go. So far, VERY disappointed in the whole bitpay thing.[/color]
[color=#606060]MY address: [/color]1MSkqMaWxrpUqTh8X8siGYVduxsJcYbXPe[/font]
[font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt]Address I sent funds to: 1xXCPxBC7kRkkYnTeS4ARk3YYwLF5Y5QT[/size][/font]
[font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt]Link to Blockchain: https://blockchain.info/address/1MSkqMaWxrpUqTh8X8siGYVduxsJcYbXPe[/size][/font]
[font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt]I have screen shots of all pull-down windows verifying everything I mentioned, but cannot figure out how to attach them here. I want the shares of XCP I PAID for or my (BTC) back.[/size][/font][font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt]Funds sent transaction completed around 5:00am US Central Time on 06/07/2014[/size][/font][font=adobe gothic std b, sans-serif][size=10pt]Please help.[/size][/font]
I don’t think it matters, but you can’t use just any BTC wallet.
Try Counterwallet (Web-based), Bitcoin-Qt and CLI (counterpartyd).
Hi Im a newbie and i cant seem to make this sell transaction process.
i just wanted to buy some xrp so i could buy some swarm.
then i come to find out swarm has already received money ?
segway i know 
please help
HI everyone, just trying to get my head around Swarm.
Followed the instructions here: http://swarmcorp.com/ for adding BTC to get Swarm
Made my first deposit and after many hours no Swarm Pre, what am I doing wrong?
https://blockchain.info/address/17E6sNdtHqEifK82hTMnuA4BXenmwf6jfp
Thanks
*edited to add
So I sent it to the XCP address (newb move). I guess this was bound to happen by someone, what happens when the BTC is sent to the XCP address instead of the BTC address?
Hi, I’m new. Found counterparty after finding swarm.
Interested in Bitcoin, Ripple and now Counterparty and Swarm.
Not too technical, mostly a trader interested in new markets.
Hi All,
I was wondering whether anyone is running Counterparty on Mac OS X? In particular, it would be great to know where to place the counterpartyd.conf file.
I’ve got Counterparty running correctly on Ubuntu, but have yet to crack OS X.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
S
[quote author=sdouglas link=topic=51.msg2807#msg2807 date=1404770013]
I was wondering whether anyone is running Counterparty on Mac OS X? In particular, it would be great to know where to place the counterpartyd.conf file.
[/quote]
You can put it wherever you want.
Since it contains your passwords you probably wouldn’t want to put it under /var/www/html/ or some place like that.
The fine manual implies that the config file should be located in the data directory.
http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/AdditionalTopics.html#editing-the-config
On Linux that’s by default something like this (I appended the config file name).
$HOME/.config/counterpartyd/counterpartyd.conf
If during installation you choose to run it automatically as service during OS start-up, then the location would be different (/etc/…). However that most likely doesn’t work on OS X.
If you’re having problems get a VM with Ubuntu 14.04, install from source as per Counterparty docs and understand the way it works there before you move to OS X. If you get it to work feel free to post tips & instructions here!
Many thanks SOMETHING. I placed the config file in:
~/Library/Application Support/counterpartyd/
and I have been able to start scanning on testnet. Unfortunately this scanning is occurring very slowly which is quite odd. If anyone could suggest a fix that would be great. There’s a chance that Bitcoin-Qt is the bottleneck but I’m not sure.
I have actually already created a VM with Ubuntu 14.04 and installed Counterpartd, both fully from source and using counterpartyd_build. Happy to help if people are facing difficulty. The process was quite straightforward, particularly using counterpartyd_build. However, if possible I’d recommend buildling fully from source as it seems there are still a lot of updates occurring, which don’t appear to be immediately available to counterpartyd_build.
[quote author=sdouglas link=topic=51.msg2811#msg2811 date=1404810505]
Many thanks SOMETHING. I placed the config file in:
~/Library/Application Support/counterpartyd/
and I have been able to start scanning on testnet. Unfortunately this scanning is occurring very slowly which is quite odd. If anyone could suggest a fix that would be great. There’s a chance that Bitcoin-Qt is the bottleneck but I’m not sure.
I have actually already created a VM with Ubuntu 14.04 and installed Counterpartd, both fully from source and using counterpartyd_build. Happy to help if people are facing difficulty. The process was quite straightforward, particularly using counterpartyd_build. However, if possible I’d recommend buildling fully from source as it seems there are still a lot of updates occurring, which don’t appear to be immediately available to counterpartyd_build.
[/quote]
Well there’s 2 parts which are slow:
a) The blockchain
A workaround for this is to stop bitcoind and get the torrent from Sourceforge, then download the blockchain faster, then start bitcoind again. But you’d need to run bitcoind at least one full time with -reindex (later you can just run with the normal option required for XCP
Another workaround is if you have a working bitcoind server somewhere on your LAN, point your Counterparty to use it instead, then you don’t need to have multiple copies.
b) The XCP DB
This is slow and there’s no workaround currently. It seems the slowness comes from the latency inherent to queries to bitcoind API or something like that (details are on Github if you’re interested).
The devs are looking at ways to make this faster and I heard in the future they may offer a way to download a recent DB. At the moment this is slow and can take 2-3 days.
Hello, I would ask a few questions:
let’s say Alice preapares 10 cakes and sells 10 cake tokens to costumers. Than she locks the tokens. My first question is: a locked asset cannot, trustlessly, be inflated (in the monetary sense), right?
But if Bob acquires a cake token, can he add ice on it and sell the whole product to Charles? or, perhaps, can he contact Alice and ask her to add the ice to his specific token?
It seems that for now this functionality is not implemented, do you plan to do it? is that feasible?
P.S. can alice lock a periodic issuance, like bitcoin’s 25(and halving) tokens for block until 21mio?
Thank you very much
[quote author=diedicar link=topic=51.msg2866#msg2866 date=1405626446]
Hello, I would ask a few questions:
let's say Alice preapares 10 cakes and sells 10 cake tokens to costumers. Than she locks the tokens. My first question is: a locked asset cannot, trustlessly, be inflated (in the monetary sense), right?
But if Bob acquires a cake token, can he add ice on it and sell the whole product to Charles? or, perhaps, can he contact Alice and ask her to add the ice to his specific token?
It seems that for now this functionality is not implemented, do you plan to do it? is that feasible?
P.S. can alice lock a periodic issuance, like bitcoin's 25(and halving) tokens for block until 21mio?
Thank you very much
[/quote]
Yes, once a token is locked, it cannot be unlocked. This proves to the public that you cannot create more tokens.
In your example, Charles could contact Alice and ask her to send ice or icing as another, different token. Alice could also use the built-in to pay out dividends (in the form of ICE) to all owners of CAKE. But I'm not too sure what exactly you mean. Could you explain further?
Also creating a periodic issuance of an asset may be possible, but has not been implemented. Do you have any examples of uses for these features?
[quote author=niceplum link=topic=51.msg2986#msg2986 date=1407235029]
[quote author=diedicar link=topic=51.msg2866#msg2866 date=1405626446]
Hello, I would ask a few questions:
let's say Alice preapares 10 cakes and sells 10 cake tokens to costumers. Than she locks the tokens. My first question is: a locked asset cannot, trustlessly, be inflated (in the monetary sense), right?
But if Bob acquires a cake token, can he add ice on it and sell the whole product to Charles? or, perhaps, can he contact Alice and ask her to add the ice to his specific token?
It seems that for now this functionality is not implemented, do you plan to do it? is that feasible?
P.S. can alice lock a periodic issuance, like bitcoin's 25(and halving) tokens for block until 21mio?
Thank you very much
[/quote]
Yes, once a token is locked, it cannot be unlocked. This proves to the public that you cannot create more tokens.
In your example, Charles could contact Alice and ask her to send ice or icing as another, different token. Alice could also use the built-in to pay out dividends (in the form of ICE) to all owners of CAKE. But I'm not too sure what exactly you mean. Could you explain further?
Also creating a periodic issuance of an asset may be possible, but has not been implemented. Do you have any examples of uses for these features?
[/quote]
It's is a simulation of a deflative coin (periodic issuance demonstrably locked, like bitcoins' 25 tokens /10 min until 2140 ) which can be splitted/colored in subcoins, again like bitcoin>colored coins. Do you think it is feasible?
[quote author=diedicar link=topic=51.msg3018#msg3018 date=1407765302]
It's is a simulation of a deflative coin (periodic issuance demonstrably locked, like bitcoins' 25 tokens /10 min until 2140 ) which can be splitted/colored in subcoins, again like bitcoin>colored coins. Do you think it is feasible?
[/quote]
Currently, this is definitely possible outside of the protocol itself. (But there is a necessary element of trust).
I'm guessing the development of protocol features is focused on those that will be used most often. If there is a large interest for this feature, and a lot of examples of how it can be used (practical, real world scenarios), then its possible that it may be added 
Hi All,
One thing I've been struggling with for a while is where in a Bitcoin transaction the additional Counterparty information is stored?
Is there any way to look at a BTC transaction, e.g. https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/aa1ba13b38ae86ce4c68be94029e04e29fc89fb3842a6d104527ae8ef921334f
and see that Counterparty information exists?
Or is this information encoded at a lower level, and can only really be appreciated if we were to look at a serialized stream of bytes?
The only real clue I've read is that "For identification purposes, every Counterparty transaction’s ‘data’ field is prefixed by the string ‘CNTRPRTY’, encoded in UTF‐8." So somewhere in a transaction CNTRPRTY must be encoded. But again, I'm not sure where.
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
[quote author=sdouglas link=topic=51.msg3047#msg3047 date=1407940899]
Hi All,
One thing I've been struggling with for a while is where in a Bitcoin transaction the additional Counterparty information is stored?
Is there any way to look at a BTC transaction, e.g. https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/aa1ba13b38ae86ce4c68be94029e04e29fc89fb3842a6d104527ae8ef921334f
and see that Counterparty information exists?
Or is this information encoded at a lower level, and can only really be appreciated if we were to look at a serialized stream of bytes?
The only real clue I've read is that "For identification purposes, every Counterparty transaction’s ‘data’ field is prefixed by the string ‘CNTRPRTY’, encoded in UTF‐8." So somewhere in a transaction CNTRPRTY must be encoded. But again, I'm not sure where.
[/quote]
Hi Sdouglas, I'm a newbie myself trying to understand xcp as well. I found on that same github wiki page the following
[quote]Counterparty data may be stored in three different types of outputs, or in some mixtures of those formats. Multi‐signature data outputs are one‐of‐two outputs where the first public key is that of the sender, so that the value of the output is redeemable, and the second public key encodes the data, zero‐padded and prefixed with a length byte.[/quote]
The transactions I looked at so far had a second output that had lots of zeros and that's where it is now. If it begins with 1c434e545250525459 I think it is sending xcp. Other than that, it would take more research.
[font=verdana][size=x-small]Thanks weex.[/size][/font]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]I've been doing digging and found similar information to you, in particular this:[/size][/font]
[quote]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]Counterparty currently supports two methods for encoding data in Bitcoin transactions. The first method puts the data in OP_RETURN outputs directly. The second method puts the data in the second public key in multiple one-of-two multisig outputs, where the first public key corresponds to the address of the sender, so that these outputs are all redeemable and, eventually, prunable. [/size][/font]
[/quote]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]However, the first method is not currently used as the data field after OP_RETURN is limited to 40 bytes, which is insufficient for the Counterparty protocol to use. The debate around this has been quite contentious, see: http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/[/size][/font]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]Here is a transaction which is consistent with what you said about 1c434e545250525459:[/size][/font]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]https://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/a61f5fd3af3a45fb8e5dfcd98e11ce762d560f6805b9c78aa42c2c7b59ac89b4[/size][/font]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]From more experienced members of the community, it would be great to understand where 1c434e545250525459 comes from and the meaning of the rest of the information in the second address of the multisig UTXO.[/size][/font]
[quote author=sdouglas link=topic=51.msg3049#msg3049 date=1407949643]
[font=verdana][size=x-small]From more experienced members of the community, it would be great to understand where 1c434e545250525459 comes from and the meaning of the rest of the information in the second address of the multisig UTXO.[/size][/font]
[/quote]
This is good to continue but rather than clutter up the newbie thread, I've created the thread Dissecting Counterparty Transactions in Bitcoin and added what I've learned since my previous post.
Experienced with Bitcoin, not so familiar with the details of 2.0 platforms like this.
Possible newb question: Let's say I want to start a company and manage to sell off 100 BTC worth of shares using your platform, what is there to guarantee in terms of smart contracts that the investors (and now part owners) have a proportionate voice in the actions of the company? Can the funds made from this crowdsourcing (if that's what you call it) be allocated to a multi-sig wallet where at least 51% of equity holders have to approve of transactions?
In this way the acting CEO can propose budget allotments which are approved by the stake holders, and moved into other wallets he directly controls in order to more easily use for operations. It would also follow that there would be a system where the stake holders could vote to allow things such as a transaction ceiling, where there would be a max amount the CEO could transfer on his own without 51% consent. They could also decide by vote dividends and other such things. If faith was lost in the CEO a majority of stake holders would simply have to choose to cut off access from the money. Eventually via smart contracts it's easy to see how this could apply to also property and assets owned by the collective corporation.
If not, what approach does Counterparty take in ensuring that recipients of crypto-equity actually have a voice in the project/company?
[quote author=ArielD link=topic=51.msg3057#msg3057 date=1408161337]
Experienced with Bitcoin, not so familiar with the details of 2.0 platforms like this.
Possible newb question: Let's say I want to start a company and manage to sell off 100 BTC worth of shares using your platform, what is there to guarantee in terms of smart contracts that the investors (and now part owners) have a proportionate voice in the actions of the company? Can the funds made from this crowdsourcing (if that's what you call it) be allocated to a multi-sig wallet where at least 51% of equity holders have to approve of transactions?
In this way the acting CEO can propose budget allotments which are approved by the stake holders, and moved into other wallets he directly controls in order to more easily use for operations. It would also follow that there would be a system where the stake holders could vote to allow things such as a transaction ceiling, where there would be a max amount the CEO could transfer on his own without 51% consent. They could also decide by vote dividends and other such things. If faith was lost in the CEO a majority of stake holders would simply have to choose to cut off access from the money. Eventually via smart contracts it's easy to see how this could apply to also property and assets owned by the collective corporation.
If not, what approach does Counterparty take in ensuring that recipients of crypto-equity actually have a voice in the project/company?
[/quote]
Hi ArielD,
There isn't anything especially built into Counterparty that would enforce the kind of controls you mention. What is implemented so far is the issuance of tokens which can be locked at the end of your crowdsale. There is a project called Vendd that can or will automate the sales process so tokens are automatically sent to addresses that paid you in BTC.
Once you know who your shareholders are, you can send the received funds in a multisig output that would require m-of-n of your shareholders to participate. If you wanted to reserve some amount for management to be able to spend without multisig approval, you would simply send that portion to addresses management has full control over. It's not what you describe but it's what would work if you had to do this today. This does require trust in you the issuer.
You bring up an interesting use case and I can see this being further developed in the future but frankly none of these smart contract systems are there yet. In my research, I have found Counterparty is the one that is furthest along at least as usable features go (and it even has a quite active fork in Dogeparty). Hope that helped.