Sounds like you have not set up your config files which probably means you have not yet reindexed the bitcoin block chain either

http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ Follow instructions from here

Why do we need a centralized exchange? Once the gui client for counterparty is released should we not be able to trade BTC/XCP directly there? If we can put out a user friendly working decentralized exchange out there that, ahead of the likes of nxt and mastercoin, it will be a huge incentive for people to use our system and we should benefit from the price as well.

Secondly, central exchanges like cryptsy will be able to added bitcoin forked projects quickly but setting up  2.0 coins will be harder because they will have the write more code for it.

I was thinking about this and I couldn't figure out any trustless way to accomplish this. The issuer's reputation on and/or off the platform will be a factor.

The plus side of someone with a reputation issuing an asset like this is that it will do its bit to increase adoption of the platform among actual users as opposed to hoarders and speculators. Any type of co-operative venture both virtual and physical can easily be managed and distributed if a targeted GUI software is built for it.

This is very useful, my thanks

Thanks

I did not know about asia and useast

Hopefully this information will show up on the homepage once beta phase is complete.

Also eu has been running for weeks now, why is it still in beta?

In the future.

Can someone advice me on the servers currently available? I know of the us and the eu servers. I heard that amsderdam.middlecoin.com was added and more beta servers are being deployed. Is there anyother than I am missing? Is there any in Asia.

I generally connect to eu and us as failover but the last 2 days has been poor. Failover has not worked as desired for some reason because I seem to be losing connection to both servers. I am not sure if its my rig, or my config or the issues H20 is having with the setup this weekend.

LeoC = Fox and the 10 sour Bitcoins.

Even if you have a valid concern you have been exposed as an extortionist, one will always have to question your motive and bias.  

They deliberately chose to develop multiple clients in multiple languages reasoning that a single client could be a point of failure i.e. if only one client was used and it faced problems/bugs in future it would effect everybody. In this scenario its impact would not be so utterly complete.

By using the counterparty client

This will help you set it up.  - http://counterpartyd-build.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

If you are looking for a more user friendly client then you will have to wait until it is released.

I may be completely wrong here but I believe that the issuance model will be further tweaked and balanced before the IPO's new date is announced. Eventually no matter what the model is, it is not going to satisfy each and everyone of us. That I am pretty sure of. For sure as potential investors we would like more clarity and hopefully more balanced terms. Only time will tell but we must give them that opportunity before we start questioning their honesty. That's how I feel about it anyway.

I also feel that a lot of us look at this purely as profit and as commodity like much of the crypto currency universe and I think Ethereum has the potential to be more than that. Whether or not that potential is fulfilled is another debate. I am really excited about the possibility to incentivize p2p activities - whatever than might be - entirely up to the imagination of the independent developer who will built an application to leverage this platform. Since the advent of internet p2p has been a purely altruistic endevour which as has been pointed out serves the needs of the mainstream very well. Here is an opportunity and an incentive to do something beyond the mainstream in a truly decentralized fashion, a platform to leverage something other than a financial instrument. Its a really remarkable thought and if it is realized (lots of ifs and buts at this stage) it represents the next evolution of internet. Given such a lofty aim I am not sure how I can measure the worth the currency that will play an instrumental part of it. Maybe I am being too optimistic but I rather see this project succeed in its aims notwithstanding its inflationary tendencies and its effects on my investments. That's why I must invest only as much as I am prepared to risk and not a single satoshi more. Should you decide to invest I will give you the same advice.

I joined and decided to mine alt-coins in Dec 2013 by which time it was too late for me to use my modest rigs for BTC. Now I simply alt-mine and convert it to BTC.

Before I set up my rig I researched my best options and I found that people were community mining BTC by pooling their monies and buying shares of ASIC rigs that produced terra hashes.

I think for something as simple as this
1. Asset can be created in Counter Party
2. No of shares issued with a set price in XCP
3. Dividend paid out once the rig is set up by the asset creator.
4. Shares of the asset can be transferred at market rate (potentially higher than original sale) without involving the guy running the rig.

You are mixing two different things here
 
Firstly with regards to dilution and speculation, its a valid concern but if you want to purely speculate then in the medium term you have time. Day 1 after the IPO only X is available, Day 2 is X + 0.4/365 * X (for the sake of simplicity) and a large portion of inflation happens on Day 366 when X + 0.4X + 30% of 0.5X is in circulation and available - assuming there are no hoarders and no long term view investors. You have at the very least months before you decide your exit strategy if you are in it only for speculation.

Secondly, no one ever said it is not a risk. I do not understand you plugging for Mastercoin at every given opportunity, its smacks of bias. Worse is to call this a model designed to rip off people. If you don't agree with the model that's perfectly fine, but to question the honesty of people associated with this project based on your dislike of issuance model without anything concrete is not cool.

The fact that he might get it cheaper on the exchange than mining is actually pure speculation on your part. After having spent 1/1000 for an ether why would I want to sell it for lower.

He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term view which may not match the view of speculative investment.

Surely if we are raising X ether in IPO the starting mining difficulty will correspondingly have to be adjusted. Whatever the number of hashes your rig produce, if you can mine the basic minimum of 1000 ether faster than you can scrypt mine alt-coins worth 1 BTC this will be unfair to IPO investors. I don't think I have read anything about this but I also think that mining 1000-2000 ethers will not be that quick. If that happens than ether will fall below its starting price because of P&D tactics. The only logical conclusion the project developers will not be unfair to the IPO investors (with their 0.5X vested interest) ergo inflation created by mining will not have as large an impact as we think.

If you read Vitalik's original post on Ethereum (I think on the unofficial thread) he talks about empowering all different categories of people involved in cryptocurrencies, the miners, investors and the development community. I think in terms of fairness it allows everyone to access piece of the pie. If IPO is too risky for instance you can either mine or participate in the project or simply buy once the IPO is over. I actually like this issuance model.

0.5X going to founders, early stakeholders and developers along with the BTC raised is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by a large number of people and I hope before or by the next announcement for the IPO this is revised and explained in greater detail.

I think for the sake of transparency if they open up and say how they plan to spend the minimum 500 BTC they want to raise it might put to rest some of the concerns. Does it automatically scale if the IPO raises 5000 BTC? Is there a reserve fund for excess money raised beyond what is required? Do the original stakeholders (i.e. the founders) also get remunerated?

I don't think some of the answers will be forthcoming immediately because it looks like these points are being debated behind the scene and are evolving. As long as I know these answers before the IPO I can make an informed decision.

Indeed, that is your prerogative

That's going to take sometime judging by the timelines we have seen already. Previously it was a 2 months IPO (between 1st Feb and March end) after which mining could be done and coins could be exchanged etc. Now that the IPO has been delayed we will have the see the new terms of the IPO when it is announced.

This really cracks me up


What don't you believe? Charles telling in the video that a couple of guys working on the project used to work for GS in the past or Charles categorically stating on the thread that GS has nothing to do with Ethereum or both?

What this proves is that there is a little bit of trust deficit especially as you are evaluating whether or not to invest your hard earned money. Ultimately nothing anyone is going to say to you is going to make any difference because there will always be a lingering doubt. You have had explicit clarifications from the man in the video himself. There is no real way to solve this other than accepting that the man is telling the truth. If you don't believe and GS bothers you so much then there is only one recourse - don't risk it man.