From the documentation:
[quote]Every Counterparty message has …
A fee, in bitcoins, paid to the bitcoin miners who include the transaction in a block.[/quote]
I get this. But, why, would I have been “charged” twice, once for 0.0001086 BTC and once for 0.0002086 BTC, when all I’ve done is issue a single, unmatched/unfilled, order? I get that I should maybe charged once for sending the order in the first place. But, what’s the second charge for?
This is a current problem with the protocol that it just charges all these fees without any confirmation from the user.
It charges 0.0001086 BTC for each multisig message used and the default 0.0001 BTC miner fee for being quickly accepted in a block.
Improvement is needed to reduce these fees and address/fix the other flaws that moneypaktrader pointed out in the bitcointalk thread.
I’ll cross post the major issues to this forum.
To clarify:
[list]
[li]The 0.0001086 BTC still belongs to you (as part of a 1 of 2 multisig transaction)[/li]
[li]No official client currently offers the ability to spend multisig transactions, although some may implement it in the future[/li]
[li]You can currently spend these coins via a raw transaction (this transaction is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/779936e5278f492e64529824a77f9b4c3ed6718760c97f28f9c44dedecdfe3d6 )[/li]
[li]When OP_RETURN is implemented in Bitcoin 0.9 (which is 99.9% likely at this point), multisig transaction can be phased out. Until then, nothing can be done about this issue.[/li]
[/list]The only "real" fee is the default 0.0001 BTC, which can technically (though not advised) be changed by editing a single line in the python file.
I am not the proper person to ask for help when creating a raw transaction. Other much more qualified people have written a lot on this topic.
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355]
To clarify:[list]
[li]No official client currently offers the ability to spend multisig transactions, although some may implement it in the future[/li]
[/list][/quote]
Agreed, it’s definitely annoying to lose so much value on each step of each transaction when the bitcoin protocol is designed to be so frictionless in comparison.
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355]
[list]
[li]You can currently spend these coins via a raw transaction (this transaction is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/779936e5278f492e64529824a77f9b4c3ed6718760c97f28f9c44dedecdfe3d6 )[/li]
[/list][/quote]
I disagree, None of those inputs were from a multisig, but rather they came from a previously divided out input presumably to allow future XCP transactions to be paid more easily.
Here that is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/1dec7cbd7ef7e6ad80182ff3f3ea19cdfdbacdd21e9d9b24227a98ea6cf20703
Notice how the amounts are 0.0003172 each? it would be either 0.0002172, 0.0001086, or 0.0003258 depending on the multisigs produced by counterpartyd.
Hopefully one day we will be able to reclaim these losses (fingers crossed).
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355][list]
[li]When OP_RETURN is implemented in Bitcoin 0.9 (which is 99.9% likely at this point), multisig transaction can be phased out. Until then, nothing can be done about this issue[/li]
[/list][/quote]
Is there any hope of allowing the comment section of the bitcoin transactions to be used by counterpartyd for putting in our own messages? How large is that space? Would be an easy way to advertise counterparty to people looking at blockchain.info with a default message if user doesn’t change it.
[quote author=jeremy link=topic=44.msg325#msg325 date=1391905850]
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355]
To clarify:[list]
[li]No official client currently offers the ability to spend multisig transactions, although some may implement it in the future[/li]
[/list][/quote]
Agreed, it’s definitely annoying to lose so much value on each step of each transaction when the bitcoin protocol is designed to be so frictionless in comparison.
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355]
[list]
[li]You can currently spend these coins via a raw transaction (this transaction is an example: https://blockchain.info/tx/779936e5278f492e64529824a77f9b4c3ed6718760c97f28f9c44dedecdfe3d6 )[/li]
[/list][/quote]
I disagree, None of those inputs were from a multisig, but rather they came from a previously divided out input presumably to allow future XCP transactions to be paid more easily.
Here that is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/1dec7cbd7ef7e6ad80182ff3f3ea19cdfdbacdd21e9d9b24227a98ea6cf20703
Notice how the amounts are 0.0003172 each? it would be either 0.0002172, 0.0001086, or 0.0003258 depending on the multisigs produced by counterpartyd.
Hopefully one day we will be able to reclaim these losses (fingers crossed).
[quote author=jimhsu link=topic=44.msg322#msg322 date=1391902355][list]
[li]When OP_RETURN is implemented in Bitcoin 0.9 (which is 99.9% likely at this point), multisig transaction can be phased out. Until then, nothing can be done about this issue[/li]
[/list][/quote]
Is there any hope of allowing the comment section of the bitcoin transactions to be used by counterpartyd for putting in our own messages? How large is that space? Would be an easy way to advertise counterparty to people looking at blockchain.info with a default message if user doesn’t change it.
[/quote]
Yes, my bad, that wasn’t actually a raw transaction spend. I think I’ve got it down how to create such a transaction, but am having problems getting it signed with “signrawtransaction”.
As for the comments, that won’t work because those are stored in the blockchain.info database and so are exactly the opposite from a decentralized system.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4707/what-method-does-my-wallet-use-to-encode-messages-in-the-blockchain/4709#4709
Because of blockchain bloat, this feature was eventually abandoned. Multisig doesn’t fix the bloat problem, but at least offers the possibility in the future of reclaiming those outputs allowing the blockchain to be pruned, unlike sending to an unspendable pubkey, unless we transition to a better solution in the future.
OP_RETURN is intended for exactly this sort of thing (trying to piggyback small amounts of arbitrary data on the bitcoin blockchain.) That’s a proper solution waiting just around the corner. They have a release candidate for 0.9 out already, so hopefully it won’t be too long before it’s useable in production. Until then, let’s all chill out about the 0.00001086 “fees” 
The counterparty devs appear to have done the best they can in the absence of OP_RETURN, so that us people who like to play with bleeding edge stuff don’t have to wait…
Thanks folks.
[quote author=gacrux link=topic=44.msg336#msg336 date=1391948300]
let’s all chill out about the 0.00001086 “fees”
[/quote]
I’m cool. You cool? We’re cool. We’re cool. 8)