BTW, anyone an idea what could be the motivation behind putting > 500 BTC into a buy order wall on a single exchange trading that coin (according to coinmarketcap poloniex has 99.92 % of the volume)? And the sell side of the orderbook is basically empty.
I kept track of this for a week or so, and the wall is moved to higher prices by about 0.5 USD per day. Even if it's a pump'n'dump, this person might have difficulties to re-sell his gained coins. I really do not get, why people do such a thing o_o. Any ideas?

> 1 000 000 USD market capitalization according to coinmarketcap  

Anyone have an idea what went wrong here?

I have 0.10243500 BTC on address 1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU. This is confirmed by

- my bitcoin-qt (using -rescan)
- http://blockexplorer.com/address/1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU
- http://blockr.io/address/info/1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU
- https://www.biteasy.com/blockchain/addresses/1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU

However, blockchain.info shows a higher balance of 0.102735 BTC:
https://blockchain.info/address/1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU

The discrepancy obviously lies in these two escrowed transactions:
https://blockchain.info/tx/05fabac31f487cbc352cda9d20e22fa5378b831deb32d7aeccb011d34907284a
https://blockchain.info/tx/3ea2ae423f60e5ccf58ee0eadc8999816b34d97d9684b330fca4430b0412e33c

Apparently, this is a problem, since I use the mastercoin protocol using the masterchest wallet. It seems like masterchest gets wrong data from blockchain.info, see
https://masterchest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU

On this page, the BTC balance is displayed wrong as well. Since the masterchest wallet communicates with bitcoin-qt, the discrepancy results in a wrong mastercoin balance (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=484025.140).

Does anyone have a solution? Contact blockchain.info?

Thanks

There seems to be another problem with the wallet:

My actual balance is
7.999 MSC
10 TMSC
0.10268 BTC, see
https://masterchest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU

Furthermore, I should have received a few thousand maidsafecoins, see
https://blockchain.info/address/1CHoqNqBmYgxFX3wuoJYfGw4rVAbeRWPcU

Instead, the masterchest wallet (version Alpha 0.3C Build 0025) shows:
9.37205714 MSC
11.37305714 TMSC
0.10238 BTC

So, 1.37305714 MSC / TMSC more than I actually own.
What could be the reason for this error? And why are no maidsafecoins displayed?

Thanks!

Something is wrong with the total BTC amount in the sell book of the dex...

Why are there entries like:

SELL AMOUNT: 0.00000002
UNIT PRICE: 0.0799998
TOTAL: 1.999995

0.00000002 * 0.0799998 = 1.999995

Or do I get something wrong? Thanks

I'm not sure whether anyone is still reading here, but I'll give it a try. I ran the above code in python 2.7.6 - using wss instead of ws - and get the following response:


Does anyone know whether this is what I should get? How do I interpret this response? How do I get the ticker / depth / etc. updates?
Thanks

more questions:

- Is there only a fee for pre-funded orders?

- Why can't I make a pre-funded MSC buy-order?

Hi maxmint,

that's great news! Great description about how to sign a message - this worked fine for me.
Some critics: Right now, there is somebody selling pre-funded MSC. If I click "Buy now", a window appears into which I can enter my MSC receiving address and optionally an email address. A few things I don't understand:

- Why is a contact address optional? If I don't enter anything, how do you contact me?

- It is a pre-funded order. Isn't it the easiest, if the receiving BTC address of the seller is already displayed? I could just send the BTC to this address immediately. To prove that it was me sending the BTC, you could also here add a field for verifying that I owned the sending BTC address.

- As it is now, it seems like I have to buy ALL the MSC the seller offers. Can't I buy only a few?

edit: Or do these things appear later after I would have pressed the "Buy Now" butten? I didn't dare to press it :/

I think it is a bad idea to trade MSC at a big exchange like cryptsy - as long as there is no foolproof client out there.
I estimate that 90% of traders are just aiming for a good profit and do not even know anything about what they are trading. Many of them would lose their money when trying to withdraw them to their gox account or whatever. Many complaints will be spread that could ruin the reputation of MSC.

Sure, makes totally sense
Here are some plots:

no change in msc price:
http://imageshack.us/a/img706/4323/qpcj.jpg

linear increase of msc price:
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/1430/ucbq.jpg

exponential increase of msc price:
http://imageshack.us/a/img593/158/2t1u.jpg

exponential decrease of msc price:
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/4566/q6ix.jpg

In each case, I used the values
T = 182.5 days (1/2 year)
c = 7.5 BTC/day (daily expenses, chosen to be constant in BTC, but paid in MSC according to daily price)
r = 0.5

Each plot displays the dependence over the next 500 days (x-axis).

I like the idea of having the remaining asset partly in msc. But I would rather aim a msc ratio of 50% instead of 80%.
Also, if the foundation buys msc over the next months and then abruptly stops, the msc value will then suddenly drop, because of a sudden drop in demand. That's why I propose a 'smooth' way to get msc into the foundation wallet - to reach the desired ratio asymptotically over a long time. I worked out a formula that could be used for that purpose:

http://imageshack.com/a/img543/7554/xry2.png

m_buy(t): number of mastercoins to be bought on that day from the distributed exchange, by selling bitcoins.
m(t): number of owned mastercoins on that day
b(t): number of owned bitcoins on that day
x(t): price of one mastercoin in bitcoins on that day
c(t): average number of mastercoins spent per day (bounties, etc.)
T: Time in days, when the desired ratio should be reached (1/e)
r: Desired mastercoin ratio of the total value.

I this way, the desired ratio will be reached exponentially.

To get a feeling of how many msc would have to be bought per day: If we choose m(today) = 0, b(today) = 5000, x(today) = 0.15, c(today) = 50, T = 365 days, r = 0.5,

m_buy(today) = 95.7

So, the foundation would have to buy back about 96 mastercoins from the distributed exchange today. Of course this number will change, as soon as the msc asset goes up, or if the prices change significantly. Everything would be transparent, and bounties etc. could be paid in mastercoins.

What do you think?

I would like to sell 25 msc for total 6.725 btc using an escrow.

You can go to 'Send' then press 'Add Recipient' two times and insert all the addresses and amounts of 0.00006 btc. That's how I did it and it always worked.

Hi Willett,

there seems to be a small glitch in the mastercoin-adviser. When trying to send e.g. 1.23456789 mastercoins, the result is only 1.23456788, due to a rounding error.

Replace line 8
amount = long(float(sys.stdin.readline())*100000000)

with
amount = long(round(float(sys.stdin.readline())*100000000))

It might not be so relevant, but it can be, for example if you want to send all the funds of one address to another.

Can you please remove all my offers from the order book? I'll keep my mastercoins for now Thanks!

Hi maxmint,

I would like to sell some Mastercoins:

25 MSC for 3.2 BTC (0.128 BTC each)
16 MSC for 3.04 BTC (0.19 BTC each)
13 MSC for 3.744 BTC (0.288 BTC each)

Thanks for your efforts!

Seems like what I wrote in the main mastercoin discussion thread fits better into this thread:

There was a lot of critics about the Mastercoin network, in particular due to the many generated un-prunable transactions that are necessary to transmit the data between Mastercoin users.

I have an idea how to solve this problem, but this would require some changes to the protocol. Basically, instead of sending Bitoins to a data address without known private key (which is the current Mastercoin implementation), data can also be transmitted by sending Bitcoins to addresses that other Bicoin users own. To do so, a 'directory' of addresses has to be generated first. Each address can store a few bytes of data - and by sending tiny amounts of Bitcoins to these addresses, the pieces of data can be connected (similar to the current Mastercoin implementation). In this presented implementation, each address can store about 3 bytes. Therefore, to have enough data for a Mastercoin transaction, about 6 - 12 Bitcoin transactions have to be sent.

However, there is an important advantage in this implementation: Users that 'own' these addresses can later send all their earned Bitcoins to a single address. As a result, the millions of addresses are fully spent, and the whole system becomes prunable.

In contrast, in the current Mastercoin system, all the data addresses will remain with 0.00006 BTC stored and have to be saved in the blockchain forever.


Here's the implementation:

First, a global list of length 58^4 = 11316496 and width = 30 is created, and each cell can contain a Bitcoin-address. Let us index these cells with (n,#). The size of the list is a few GB, which is well managable to keep in lots of copies among all Mastercoin users.

Now to the actual idea: The cells (1,#) must contain addresses with the last four characters being -1111. The cells (2,#) must contain addresses -1112, and so on. Finally, the cells (11316496,#) must contain addresses with the last 4 characters -zzzz.

Now, every Bitcoin user that finds a key pair can publish the corresponding address in this list. To this end, he has to prove that he owns the private key of this address, to prevent people 'scamming' the list. Assumed, he found an address ending with -1113, he publishes it and it will be written into cell (3,1). Now let's assume > 29 other users also find addresses ending with -1113 and publish them. Then, all these addresses are alphabetically ordered and written into cells (3,1), (3,2), ... (3,30). Addresses with index > 30 are discarded. Obviously, with time, it becomes harder and harder to 'win' a cell in the list, because an address with low alphabetical index has to be found to kick out another one.

Since it is attractive for users to 'own' cells in the list, the time will come the list is complete, meaning that every cell has an address written in it. Of course, after completing the list, new addresses with lower index can still be published, and the list will be continuously updated.

Last, how can a string of data be transmitted?
First, the data is converted into base58 and chopped into pieces with length 4. Example: 3HZ28xpWUhq4... -> 3HZ2, 8xpW, Uhq4... The addresses (taken from the global directory) to send bitcoins to must have the following properties:

1.) They have to end with -3HZ2, -8xpW, -Uhq4...
2.) The addresses have to be in alphabetic order: (...-3HZ2) < (...-8xpW) < (...-Uhq4) < ...

Point 2 is important to connect the data pieces in the right order. It should be possible to find such an alphabetic order, since there are 30 different available addresses for each piece of data.


So, what you think... Assumed that Bitcoin miners feel threatened by the current Mastercoin implementation and stop to confirm transactions that have an Exodus recipient, this implementation could be a solution, since it harms the Bitcoin network less.


edit: follow-up here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=284178.msg3166749#msg3166749

But test mastercoins were released together with real mastercoins simultaneously. As far as I understand, you can do the same thing with test coins as with real coins. So, if there will be an exchange trading them in the future, they WILL be useful, and you can trade them back to bitcoins or whatever and buy something with it.
There are so many other cryptocurrencies with hardly any innovation in them, but still they have some value, because you can exchange them with other currencies.

I just wanted to mention this possibility, because ultimately, test coins might lower the value of real coins because of more supply. So it might be good to destroy them at some point, before it's too late. And of course let people know early enough about that action. I think this helps, because people can actually treat them as test coins and therefore also 'waste' them for testing purpuses.