Jump to content
trebormag

About Counterparty transactions

Recommended Posts

Hi!

I want to share some facts, thoughts and questions about Counterparty transactions.

 

A Counterparty transaction (e.g. sending Bitcrystals, SoG Cards) is a Bitcoin transaction with 3 outputs.

1. a small amount of BTC to the receivers address (0.00005430 BTC),

2. “OP_RETURN” where the Counterparty data is encoded and

3. the BTC-change to the senders address.

Additionally there is the mining fee.

Such transactions have a size of 265 bytes.

59082c4609097_Screenshotfrom2017-05-0111-43-16.thumb.png.0784e935bdd9339b4b1540fed445dcd9.png

I think the current mining fee set for swap-bots is 0.0003 BTC/transaction, which equals 113 Satoshis/byte.

That’s quite OK if you look at bitcoinfees.21.co. At the moment of writing such a transaction will be confirmed within 0 to 120 min.

59082c4774758_Screenshotfrom2017-05-0208-49-09.png.a8293b422730cd46596ca6756dc82fa3.png

But the problem is if you deal with many Counterparty transactions, like Swap-bots which receive a lot of BCY transactions or users receiving a lot of cards, the address has a lot of small 0.00005430 BTC unspent transaction outputs as mentioned in (1.) above.

So it happens (I think especially if the BTC balance gets close to 0) that 7 ((0.00005430 + 0.0003)/0.00005430) of them are combined as an input for a new transaction.

This results in a bigger transaction size of about 1148 bytes with equals 26 Satoshis/byte for a fixed 0.0003 BTC fee at the Swap-bots. (BTW BoOs fee settings is also in BTC/transaction).

Looking again at bitcoinfees.21.co at the time of writing this results in 55 to Infinity min confirmation time, so its possible that it never confirm or probably takes until the following weekend, where usually less BTC transactions happen.

Further raising the fixed fee per transaction is not a good solution for this problem because then there even more inputs needed to compensate the higher fee and the 55-Inf min still apply and it results just in paying more fee for all the transactions.

 

The solution to permanently fix this and avoid any more user frustration is to use a Satoshis/byte or even better a dynamic Satoshis/byte (as provided via api https://bitcoinfees.21.co/api/v1/fees/recommended ) transaction fee!

With that, independent from BTC Blockchain congestion, every card will be delivered in reasonable time :-)

Does anybody know if that feature is already in development at Swap-bots and BoO @Kojisan? Maybe EDS @Shaban could push that?

 

 

BTW I am also a bit concerned what will happen when the blockchainisation is going live.

I am wondering if there will be a limitation that e.g. only legendary or epic cards are eligible for that. Assuming there are tens of thousand active users who then already have a lot of quad-fused common ore rare cards and want to try this feature out at the first day, there would be tens of thousand transactions which would costs tens of thousand $ in BTC in transactions fees for EDS and/or thousands of frustrated users waiting days or weeks for delivery. Causing negative PR for SoG :-(

Does anybody know the development status of “CIP9: Enhanced send“ and „CIP9 multi-destination support“? https://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-on-scalability-and-the-future/

That would solve this problem and no limitation would be needed.

@Shaban do you plan limitations at the start of blockchainisation? If so, it would be good to post a statement soon to prevent frustration afterwards. There is already a twitter post of someone waiting for his rare card to be blockchainized!

There could also be an attack vector for “earning” BTC dust by blockchainisation cards by bots if common cards are eligible.

BTW will blockchainisation of a maxed out quad fused ingame card give you the blockchain card at level 0 (loose elemental crystals) like any other new blockchain card or will it be at maximum level? If the latter is the case I think there will be a lot more blockchainisations.

Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerns are legit. Specially interessted to know if all rarity types can be blockchainized?

 

I think noone (except if you dump 1000$ in gems and buys epics with it) will have 4 of the same legendary at this point. I just pulled my first one out of a booster. Got a second one once for a quest or level.

 

I think the player base estimation is off. The leaderboard consists of approx. 2000 entries. Every player who can be considered "player base" should at least have 1000 xp. 1400 fit this criterion at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BenRPG said:

I think the player base estimation is off. The leaderboard consists of approx. 2000 entries. Every player who can be considered "player base" should at least have 1000 xp. 1400 fit this criterion at this point.

What does the number in the leaderboard actually stand for? Total experience gained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mizar said:

What does the number in the leaderboard actually stand for? Total experience gained?

I think XP is the number of gold grinded. However, I don't know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BenRPG said:

Concerns are legit. Specially interessted to know if all rarity types can be blockchainized?

 

I think noone (except if you dump 1000$ in gems and buys epics with it) will have 4 of the same legendary at this point. I just pulled my first one out of a booster. Got a second one once for a quest or level.

 

I think the player base estimation is off. The leaderboard consists of approx. 2000 entries. Every player who can be considered "player base" should at least have 1000 xp. 1400 fit this criterion at this point.

Thank you for your feedback @BenRPG!
Sure you are right with the actual numbers. And if blockchainisation is released soon, I think just excluding common cards would work fine. And probably everyone will be OK with that if just rare, epic and legendary ones are eligible and not common ones.

I don't know the progress of blockchainisation. But my feeling is, that with proper testing, it could take several weeks maybe. And hopefully the "player base" is growing exponentially until then ;-)

It would be really interesting to have an insight into SoGs database how many quad-fused cards of each rarity already exist at the moment :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

Here are some details of an actual transaction from the public merchant where the problem of combining many "dust" inputs occurs like I tried to describe in my first post above.

Fixed 0.0002 fee which results in 20 satoshis/byte (0.00019960 BTC Fee/KB) and probably will never confirm :-(

5909b2ca35df5_Screenshotfrom2017-05-0310-51-17.thumb.png.7471d917b4c574e687e28b08e34d6cdc.png

 

BTW it looks like the fixed fees are different between the swap-bots (0.0003 at partner and 0.0002 at public)

Edited by trebormag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They increased the public merchant fee from 0.0001 to 0.0002 last week. Even at 0.0001 fee I received my blockchain card in a little over 24 hours, but perhaps I was lucky there. I'm guessing the bot automatically puts the transaction through the viabtc transaction accelerator, which offers to speed up transactions with fees of 0.0001 and higher.

Edited by Mizar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@trebormag

Yes there are going to be limitation to blockchainization. In order to prevent fraud, explosion of cost and oversupply of the market.
I did not decided what are those limitations but for sure common cards won't be blockchainizable. There will be probably limitation on how many cards a user can blockchainize per timeframe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BenRPG said:

I think XP is the number of gold grinded. However, I don't know for sure.

 

I just did a few experiments and I found out that your leaderboard score is the total amount of gold grinded. XP is separate from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shaban said:

@trebormag

Yes there are going to be limitation to blockchainization. In order to prevent fraud, explosion of cost and oversupply of the market.
I did not decided what are those limitations but for sure common cards won't be blockchainizable. There will be probably limitation on how many cards a user can blockchainize per timeframe.

 

OK, time to crystalize my quad fused commons then. I think rares and above should be blockchainizable. Maybe consider an amount of crystals or gold needed to pay for the process.

 

Any ETA for this feature? It sound like you are not that close since the concept isn't even clear yet. Or is there already a technical implementation but you are still wondering about how to exactly include it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be probably limitation on how many cards a user can blockchainize per timeframe.

This sounds like a bad concept. I mean why? If you want to limit oversupply on the market for a card, just put a capacity limit that say how many cards could be blockchainalized of that specific card. First-come, first-served. You can even make the droprate go down over time for that specific card when nearing the capacity limit. Something like the programmed inflation of bitcoin.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bjoorn said:

There will be probably limitation on how many cards a user can blockchainize per timeframe.

This sounds like a bad concept. I mean why? If you want to limit oversupply on the market for a card, just put a capacity limit that say how many cards could be blockchainalized of that specific card. First-come, first-served. You can even make the droprate go down over time for that specific card when nearing the capacity limit. Something like the programmed inflation of bitcoin.
 

I don't like that idea at all, at some point new players won't be able to blockchain any card anymore with your idea because the capacity limit has been reached for all the cards. I think everyone should have the ability to blockchain their card if they want. Oversupply on the market of a card is not the problem, the problem here is that the Bitcoin blockchain can only store 1MB of data every 10 mins. Personally I think we should also be able to blockchain our cards on the Litecoin blockchain, that would save us all a lot of fees. Bitcoin will eventually scale as well but this could take some time, and if the userbase of this game keeps growing we don't have that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mizar said:

I don't like that idea at all, at some point new players won't be able to blockchain any card anymore with your idea because the capacity limit has been reached for all the cards. I think everyone should have the ability to blockchain their card if they want. Oversupply on the market of a card is not the problem, the problem here is that the Bitcoin blockchain can only store 1MB of data every 10 mins. Personally I think we should also be able to blockchain our cards on the Litecoin blockchain, that would save us all a lot of fees. Bitcoin will eventually scale as well but this could take some time, and if the userbase of this game keeps growing we don't have that time.

I agree there should be no limit. However, I think similar to MTG the cards that you open from the boosters should rotate from time to time (maybe once year with enough prior notice) so the cards will stay limited after that. I think EDS should not put a limt on how many you can do per time frame either. If somebody does never buy any gems, they will not get too far in generating a lot of quad fused rares or higher. People that do buy gems have already payed for the service and the TX fee should be covered by EDS. As I mentioned before maybe some gold or a few elemental crystals could be charged. I don't think there is anything to exploit or farm really as the stamina constraints are just too big currently. My guess would be that among the approx. 1500 active players only about a third or less of these even have one quad fused rare or higher. I am 2nd in the leaderboard and e.g. have not yet collected 4 epics of the same kind which I could quad fuse. Legendaries will be even harder. For real, I think there is no issue with people that could abuse this feature as a lot of grinding is required to even get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't like that idea at all, at some point new players won't be able to blockchain any card anymore with your idea because the capacity limit has been reached for all the cards. 

EDS could always make a new card, new design, new stats and start the cycle over again with that card.

Unhindered inflation of cards should be avoided at all cost. It will drive down prices and interest as it devalues peoples time spent in game. 

An ad hoc limit to how many card you could blockchainize is as sexy as standing  a whole day in line to buy a loaf of bread. 

Edited by bjoorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 8:12 AM, trebormag said:

Hi!

I want to share some facts, thoughts and questions about Counterparty transactions.

 

A Counterparty transaction (e.g. sending Bitcrystals, SoG Cards) is a Bitcoin transaction with 3 outputs.

1. a small amount of BTC to the receivers address (0.00005430 BTC),

2. “OP_RETURN” where the Counterparty data is encoded and

3. the BTC-change to the senders address.

Additionally there is the mining fee.

Such transactions have a size of 265 bytes.

59082c4609097_Screenshotfrom2017-05-0111-43-16.thumb.png.0784e935bdd9339b4b1540fed445dcd9.png

I think the current mining fee set for swap-bots is 0.0003 BTC/transaction, which equals 113 Satoshis/byte.

That’s quite OK if you look at bitcoinfees.21.co. At the moment of writing such a transaction will be confirmed within 0 to 120 min.

59082c4774758_Screenshotfrom2017-05-0208-49-09.png.a8293b422730cd46596ca6756dc82fa3.png

But the problem is if you deal with many Counterparty transactions, like Swap-bots which receive a lot of BCY transactions or users receiving a lot of cards, the address has a lot of small 0.00005430 BTC unspent transaction outputs as mentioned in (1.) above.

So it happens (I think especially if the BTC balance gets close to 0) that 7 ((0.00005430 + 0.0003)/0.00005430) of them are combined as an input for a new transaction.

This results in a bigger transaction size of about 1148 bytes with equals 26 Satoshis/byte for a fixed 0.0003 BTC fee at the Swap-bots. (BTW BoOs fee settings is also in BTC/transaction).

Looking again at bitcoinfees.21.co at the time of writing this results in 55 to Infinity min confirmation time, so its possible that it never confirm or probably takes until the following weekend, where usually less BTC transactions happen.

Further raising the fixed fee per transaction is not a good solution for this problem because then there even more inputs needed to compensate the higher fee and the 55-Inf min still apply and it results just in paying more fee for all the transactions.

 

The solution to permanently fix this and avoid any more user frustration is to use a Satoshis/byte or even better a dynamic Satoshis/byte (as provided via api https://bitcoinfees.21.co/api/v1/fees/recommended ) transaction fee!

With that, independent from BTC Blockchain congestion, every card will be delivered in reasonable time :-)

Does anybody know if that feature is already in development at Swap-bots and BoO @Kojisan? Maybe EDS @Shaban could push that?

 

 

BTW I am also a bit concerned what will happen when the blockchainisation is going live.

I am wondering if there will be a limitation that e.g. only legendary or epic cards are eligible for that. Assuming there are tens of thousand active users who then already have a lot of quad-fused common ore rare cards and want to try this feature out at the first day, there would be tens of thousand transactions which would costs tens of thousand $ in BTC in transactions fees for EDS and/or thousands of frustrated users waiting days or weeks for delivery. Causing negative PR for SoG :-(

Does anybody know the development status of “CIP9: Enhanced send“ and „CIP9 multi-destination support“? https://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-on-scalability-and-the-future/

That would solve this problem and no limitation would be needed.

@Shaban do you plan limitations at the start of blockchainisation? If so, it would be good to post a statement soon to prevent frustration afterwards. There is already a twitter post of someone waiting for his rare card to be blockchainized!

There could also be an attack vector for “earning” BTC dust by blockchainisation cards by bots if common cards are eligible.

BTW will blockchainisation of a maxed out quad fused ingame card give you the blockchain card at level 0 (loose elemental crystals) like any other new blockchain card or will it be at maximum level? If the latter is the case I think there will be a lot more blockchainisations.

Cheers!

 

The waiting times/ transaction fee are too high for this game to succeed on a bigger scale in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yeps said:

The waiting times/ transaction fee are too high for this game to succeed on a bigger scale in my opinion.

There are apparently protocol updates in the works for Computerparty. In theory something like Factom could also be used and would be much more economical.

Currently you pay about 50c per Transaction (too high in my opinion too). However, if you compare this with e.g. how much you spend on trading MTGO cards or MTG paper cards, it's not a lot. In MTGO there is no decentralized exchange so there is always merchants who profit. If you compare ask and bid you will see a big spread. Paper magic card market is huge and there are shipping fees, marketplace fees etc. So basically you spend the fee for not having to to pay merchant fees. Plus you can be much more economical if you do send-many transactions which BoO currently doesn't feature (Look at e.g. CounterTool). At this time we are not ready for mass adoption but not only because of the fees, also because the game itself just doen't provide enough content to keep everyone engaged. I hope multiplayer and more levels will get engagement up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Shaban! What do you think of this fast solution for all old incoming and outgoing transactions, which are stuck at the public merchant:

Just create one transaction from the swapbot to itself, including the whole balance as input (all UTXOs, also the unconfirmed ones!) and add a really high mining fee, compensating the lower ones. This is known as "Child pays for Parent" transaction. This would immediately confirm all stuck incoming and outgoing transactions at the merchant and make users happy again :-) This could also be done periodically if necessary in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 11:16 AM, BenRPG said:

Concerns are legit. Specially interessted to know if all rarity types can be blockchainized?

 

I think noone (except if you dump 1000$ in gems and buys epics with it) will have 4 of the same legendary at this point. I just pulled my first one out of a booster. Got a second one once for a quest or level.

 

I think the player base estimation is off. The leaderboard consists of approx. 2000 entries. Every player who can be considered "player base" should at least have 1000 xp. 1400 fit this criterion at this point.

I have pulled over 4 or 5 legendaries at this point.  One was a double which when fused gave me this guy:

IMG_0054.thumb.PNG.d7a6ad5aa1831106b16060999ea6a99e.PNG

Also waiting on one more card merchant south (epic) so I can get my first quad fused epic from:IMG_0055.thumb.PNG.081a272ddfd1e8e88413fc5e0cece8fa.PNG

I seem to have my best luck with pulls when I save up and pull either 100 cards or 200 cards at a time, which is what I've been doing for a while now.  Having the discipline to not pull till you have 20k gold is a bit tough, but I think it's worth it, it's a nice little buzz 🤓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×