2100 destroyed BTC were exchanged automatically for XCP on a protocol level. I don't know why you wouldn't like them for that. It increased the scarcity and therefore the value of Bitcoin... Would you prefer if they raised BTC in an illegal crowdfund like 99.9% of all altcoins? How fantastically that worked out for most projects. 

I'm sure many more than 2100 BTC are unspendable due to lost private keys or wallet files...

Well, that's arguable. Statistically 1 in 10 projects are bound to fail anyway. And we don't know for certain who is responsible for the 'disaster'. Needless to say, all projects should be researched with proper due diligence. Many people in the crypto space seem to suffer from immediate excitement which leads them to throw money at anything, or paranoia towards failure (far less common). Emotionality is the downfall of any investor. Reliance on facts and research is always the best course of action, which lead me to XCP in the first place. There wasn't any crazy hype, there wasn't a huge crazy marketing effort, but the facts made sense. Factom should be treated the same way.

Do the facts make sense? Y/N..

Does it have a competitive advantage? Y/N.

Is there constant research and development required? Y/N (especially negative if completely NEW paths have to be researched, and the fundamentals have to be changed).

Does it require a continuous stream of funding? Y/N.

and so on..

(Ironically something I picked up from Warren Buffett, who recently called Bitcoin a 'mirage'.)

Will you guys be using Counterparty for more than just tokenization?

FACTOM? I barely knew 'em!

Finally! Counterparty-based poker was truly a missing link (pun intended) until now.

No. Smart contracts can do anything chancecoin can. For example, here is a lottery: https://github.com/PeterBorah/ethereum-powerball

Although they are currently on testnet using "monopoly" BTC, so it will be a few months before it is on mainnet with real BTC.

Quoting this in case anyone missed it. 

According to recent posts, they are avoiding anything that could get them in trouble with the SEC. So the tokens will be used in a way that do not fall under any existing jurisdiction, making this situation even more confusing.

I'm really confused why he would consider sidechains over Counterparty, since they really are nothing more than theory currently.

What do you mean?

While I know and trust rippler 100%, it would be great to have this as a torrent with some verified hashes.

Yeah, that's been bothering me too! What's up with that?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. It seems so second nature after a while. XCP and assets can be stored on any Bitcoin address, as long as you know its private key.

There is an actual client (and has been since January), but it's command line and requires a little bit of work.
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd
https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd_build
http://counterparty.io/docs/

A GUI for it is in development. 

To send to a multisig address, just put in the destination field a multisig (m of n) address with this format: n_address1_address2_m

In order to set up your own multi-sig address, you do the following:

• Create 2 or 3 addresses in Counterwallet
• Make a regular transaction with each of these addresses, so that the pubkey of each address is visible on the blockchain.

Then you be able to add these as a multi-sig address here (following the same format 2_address1_address2_m or 3_address1_address2_address3_m):



Now you can use your multi-sig address like a normal address to make a (or any type of) transaction. However because it is a multi-sig transaction, you will get an unsigned raw transaction. In order to broadcast it, you will need to sign it with each address (varies based on your chosen m-of-n).

You can use the "sign transaction" action for each corresponding address that is required to make it valid.


Hope that helps!

Just quoting this in case anyone is confused about the whole situation. The issues affecting Blockchain.info have nothing to do with Counterwallet, and everything has been fixed there since ages.

I brought this up on github, and one of the core devs already said they'll add it. It's not a big deal.

Not a dev, but noticed something.

A short while ago some guys from business development over at Cryptonext were asking in Skype chat about how to integrate XCP into their white label cryptocurrency exchange service. https://cryptonext.net/

This will make XCP tradeable against many different kinds of fiat (and other cryptocurrencies) in many different countries around the world.
https://cryptonext.net/?page=aboutUs#clients

So whoever makes a Cryptonext white label exchange, will be able to add XCP to the trading system automatically.

Definitely preferable to send out the winnings without having to redeem them. More convenient.

What Stealthcoin said doesn't even pertain to reality. There are perfectly valid and scathing criticisms of Ethereum, and what he said is none of them. It wasn't even about Ethereum...