Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup #97

marv-engine · 2014-03-26T23:16:32Z

Reviewers (you know who you are) - please examine changes closely and let me know about any corrections.

dexX7 · 2014-03-26T23:23:34Z

README.md

@@ -1009,7 +1006,7 @@ The Master Protocol is at its core a layer of functionality on top of Bitcoin, u

 In addition to transaction fees however there are costs associated with the outputs used to store transaction data for the various classes of transaction and these must be considered to reach a total cost to the end user for broadcasting a given Master Protocol message.  

-Each output must carry a value higher than the dust threshold (0.00005430 as of 6/2/14) in order for the transaction to be considered for inclusion within a block.  Class B multisig outputs are significantly larger and thus command a higher minimum output value.  For the purposes of this appendix default minimum values of 0.00006 and 0.00012 respectively will be used.
+Each output must carry a value higher than the dust threshold (0.00005430 as of 6 Feb 2014) in order for the transaction to be considered for inclusion within a block.  Class B multisig outputs are significantly larger and thus command a higher minimum output value.  For the purposes of this appendix default minimum values of 0.00006 and 0.00012 respectively will be used.


Dust threshold is and was at that moment 5460 (see #50), but I think a loose phrasing is advised because there are transactions which used 5430.

Yeah, I changed that on my version, but then my laptop died before I could do the pull request. This laptop can't do it.

There are a couple other changes I made. You can see all of them here: https://github.com/dacoinminster/spec/commits/master

None of them very important, but if you grab them, I won't complain :)

I overlooked that when I changed the format of the date in the text.

ghost · 2014-03-27T21:08:15Z

Hm, LGTM, was there something specific that was controversial to change?

dacoinminster · 2014-03-27T21:22:48Z

Oops! "Smart property features are unlocked as of block #290630"

That block number was for dEX, not smart property :)

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T21:26:38Z

Yeah was just going to say that - Marv when we were talking about block start yesterday that was for DEx :)

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T21:29:29Z

+The Ecosystem for the property must be the same as for the "Currency identifier desired", i.e. both must be in the Mastercoin ecosystem or both must be in the Test Mastercoin ecosystem.

Wording needs clarification. Implies that if currency ID desired is 4, then ecosystem value must also be 4 (ecosystem must be same as currency ID).

Assume intention is that currency ID must be within the ecosystem selected, but on first read without prior knowledge that doesn't convey that point.

marv-engine · 2014-03-27T21:31:19Z

That's exactly why I need proof readers. The block number insertion was a
typo. I meant to put it on DEx.

Marv Schneider
VP, User Experience/Product Usability
Engine, Inc.
marv@engine.co
240-462-6123 cell

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:26 PM, zathras-crypto notifications@github.comwrote:

Yeah was just going to say that - Marv when we were talking about block
start yesterday that was for DEx :)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/97#issuecomment-38862877
.

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T21:34:04Z

Also reasoning behind changing "Property Name" to "Property Tokens"?
The UI I've been building uses the property name so I'd like to understand if there is some issue here I'm unaware of?

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T21:35:53Z

The sending address will receive the number of tokens calculated as the "Number Properties per unit invested" value multiplied by the number of coins (units) specified in the Simple Send message, to eight decimal places.

Does that not assume divisible shares?

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T21:37:35Z

And that's it - sorry for all the comments :)

marv-engine · 2014-03-27T22:09:44Z

Faiz,
I'm looking for a detailed reading to find typos, errors, things that need
clarification, etc.

Taariq,
This is for #97

Zathras,

+The Ecosystem for the property must be the same as for the "Currency
identifier desired", i.e. both must be in the Mastercoin ecosystem or both
must be in the Test Mastercoin ecosystem.

Wording needs clarification. Implies that if currency ID desired is 4,
then ecosystem value must also be 4 (ecosystem must be same as currency ID).

How about:

The Ecosystem for the property must be the same as the ecosystem for the
"Currency identifier desired", i.e. both must be in the Mastercoin
ecosystem or both must be in the Test Mastercoin ecosystem.

Also reasoning behind changing "Property Name" to "Property Tokens"?

That's unintentional - likely overzealous find/replace. I'll undo that
change.

The sending address will receive the number of tokens calculated as the

"Number Properties per unit invested" value multiplied by the number of
coins (units) specified in the Simple Send message, to eight decimal places.

Does that not assume divisible shares?

Right you are!

How about:

For divisible properties, the sending address will receive the number of
tokens calculated as the "Number Properties per unit invested" value
multiplied by the number of coins (units) specified in the Simple Send
message, to eight decimal places. For indivisible properties, the sending
address will receive the number of tokens calculated as the "Number
Properties per unit invested" value multiplied by the number of coins
(units) specified in the Simple Send message, rounded down to an integer
number of tokens (with no fractional portion).

Thanks all! I expect there are more "gems" waiting to be found.

Marv Schneider
VP, User Experience/Product Usability
Engine, Inc.
marv@engine.co
240-462-6123 cell

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:37 PM, zathras-crypto notifications@github.comwrote:

And that's it - sorry for all the comments :)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/97#issuecomment-38863971
.

zathras-crypto · 2014-03-27T22:47:59Z

@marv Yep, all looks good :)

dexX7 · 2014-03-27T23:27:13Z

Wording needs clarification. Implies that if currency ID desired is 4, then ecosystem value must also be 4 (ecosystem must be same as currency ID).

Somewhat related: #88. I asked yesterday, if there could be a GoldCoin ecosystem which was denied, so I assume there won't be an ecosystem with currency id 4?

Still some questions pending, see issues OmniLayer#102, OmniLayer#103, OmniLayer#104.

marv-engine · 2014-03-28T14:31:51Z

I've committed more changes to the PR to fix/clarify the items that @zathras-crypto and @dexX7 reported. As I noted in the commit, I also created issues #102 #103 #104 today that will likely result in additional detail and clarifications.

dexX7 · 2014-03-28T16:42:46Z

README.md

-+ Valid values: 1 to 4,294,967,295  (1 = Mastercoin, 2 = Test Mastercoin, Test MSC currencies and properties have the most significant bit set)
+ Valid values: 1 to 2,147,483,647
+    * 1 = Mastercoin
+    * 2 = Test Mastercoin (Test MSC currencies and properties have the most significant bit set, so internally they have values starting with 0x80000003)


I'm not sure, if I get this right. This is a hack to get an ecosystem flag encoded inside the currency identifier field with the idea of "starting with 0 => real, starting with 1 => test"?

00000000000000000000000000000000b <> 0x00000000 <> Bitcoin (well, if we'd count it here) 00000000000000000000000000000001b <> 0x00000001 <> Mastercoin 00000000000000000000000000000010b <> 0x00000002 <> Test Mastercoin 10000000000000000000000000000000b <> 0x80000000 <> ?? 10000000000000000000000000000001b <> 0x80000001 <> Test ecosystem, Mastercoin? 10000000000000000000000000000010b <> 0x80000002 <> Test ecosystem, Test Mastercoin? 10000000000000000000000000000011b <> 0x80000003 <> ??

The description seems to be in conflict with the valid values. 0x80000000 is 2,147,483,647 + 1 which would be outside of the allowed range.

Yeah, 0x80000000, 80000001, 80000002 are undefined. I don't think we'd ever
need to use them. If I did anything with them, I'd probably just map them
to 0,1,2, but I don't want to worry about that for this release.

0x80000003 would be the first property issued in the TMSC ecosystem
0x80000004 would be the second property issued in the TMSC ecosystem
3 would be the first property issued in the MSC ecosystem
4 would be the second property issued in the TMSC ecosystem

We should probably keep "1 to 4,294,967,295" as the allowable range. I
don't think implementations should drop the most significant bit for
display, because that would allow someone to create a test coin which
looked identical to a real coin (same apparent name and ID).

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, dexX7 notifications@github.com wrote:

In README.md:

@@ -156,7 +157,9 @@ This section defines the fields that are used to construct transaction messages.

Field: Currency identifier

Description: the currency used in the transaction

Size: 32-bit unsigned integer, 4 bytes
-+ Valid values: 1 to 4,294,967,295 (1 = Mastercoin, 2 = Test Mastercoin, Test MSC currencies and properties have the most significant bit set)
++ Valid values: 1 to 2,147,483,647

* 1 = Mastercoin

* 2 = Test Mastercoin (Test MSC currencies and properties have the most significant bit set, so internally they have values starting with 0x80000003)

I'm not sure, if I get this right. This is a hack to get an ecosystem flag
encoded inside the currency identifier field with the idea of "starting
with 0 => real, starting with 1 => test"?

00000000000000000000000000000000b <> 0x00000000 <> Bitcoin (well, if we'd count it here)
00000000000000000000000000000001b <> 0x00000001 <> Mastercoin
00000000000000000000000000000010b <> 0x00000002 <> Test Mastercoin
10000000000000000000000000000000b <> 0x80000000 <> ??
10000000000000000000000000000001b <> 0x80000001 <> Test ecosystem, Mastercoin?
10000000000000000000000000000010b <> 0x80000002 <> Test ecosystem, Test Mastercoin?
10000000000000000000000000000011b <> 0x80000003 <> ??

The description seems to be in conflict with the valid values. 0x80000000
is 2,147,483,647 + 1 which would be outside of the allowed range.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/97/files#r11074120
.

marv-engine · 2014-03-28T20:50:59Z

Yet another commit for PR #97 to provide more specificity and clarity. Maybe more to come.

marv-engine · 2014-04-02T15:28:04Z

It needs to be clear that multiple replaces/appends of any sort are allowed.

marv-engine · 2014-04-02T18:27:51Z

What needs to be done so we can merge this PR?

Merge now, cleanup more later if needed :)

Marv Schneider added 2 commits March 26, 2014 19:06

Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup

2705ce9

added "go live" block number for DEx

1c94f5d

dexX7 reviewed Mar 26, 2014
View reviewed changes

Fix issuer share calculation error, clarify tx 22 behavior

e2ec806

Fixed typos, errors; clarified ecosystem & replace/append

329bd81

Still some questions pending, see issues OmniLayer#102, OmniLayer#103, OmniLayer#104.

dexX7 reviewed Mar 28, 2014
View reviewed changes

more clarity on replacing/appending SPs, currency id values

831a463

marv-engine mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2014

String length upper bound #108

Closed

dacoinminster pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2014

Merge pull request #97 from marv-engine/smart_prop_fixes

cb1d47f

Merge now, cleanup more later if needed :)

dacoinminster merged commit cb1d47f into OmniLayer:master Apr 2, 2014

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup #97

Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup #97

marv-engine commented Mar 26, 2014

dexX7 Mar 26, 2014

dacoinminster Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine Mar 27, 2014

ghost commented Mar 27, 2014

dacoinminster commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

dexX7 commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 28, 2014

dexX7 Mar 28, 2014

dacoinminster Mar 28, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 28, 2014

marv-engine commented Apr 2, 2014

marv-engine commented Apr 2, 2014

Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup #97

Clarified aspects of smart property creation; other cleanup #97

Conversation

marv-engine commented Mar 26, 2014

dexX7 Mar 26, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dacoinminster Mar 27, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marv-engine Mar 27, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ghost commented Mar 27, 2014

dacoinminster commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 27, 2014

zathras-crypto commented Mar 27, 2014

dexX7 commented Mar 27, 2014

marv-engine commented Mar 28, 2014

dexX7 Mar 28, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dacoinminster Mar 28, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Field: Currency identifier

marv-engine commented Mar 28, 2014

marv-engine commented Apr 2, 2014

marv-engine commented Apr 2, 2014