I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions. So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)? I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty. Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far). The 40 byte limit is very much arbitrary, and both Bitcoin and Counterparty would benefit if it were raised back to 80 bytes, because then we could store Counterparty transaction data more easily, elegantly and cleanly in the Bitcoin blockchain than we are doing now. 40 bytes is not just enough for our (legitimate!) use case. Of course, 80 bytes, too, is arbitrary, and the best solution is just to scale the fee with the amount of data so that the incentives all line up. Yes, agreed. Increase the transaction fees to account for the data storage and reward the miners. |
|
|
|
|
+1
Nice analysis freedomfigh, especially the part on the incorporating XCP on every transaction for it to have value.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not a just a matter of fees. It is better to have a Plan B, in case something, happens to our current way of encoding data.
(i.e., future Bitcoin protocol changes interfere with our current encoding).
|
|
|
|
Someone said you could use a normal bitcoin wallet address for counterparty, but you must own the wallet, so you cannot use a bitcoin address from an exchange.
Do we still have to download a counterparty client to use it?
Yes, right now you need to download Bitcoin-QT and the Counterparty client to use it. There is a Counterparty webwallet, which is currently on the Testnet right now. By April 5th, we should have the WebWallet on the mainnet. |
|
|
|
One more point: Counterparty can bring immense benefits to Bitcoin, and this will especially become more apparent if/as Ethereum (and other similar non-Bitcoin-meta "2.0" type coins) enter the picture. My personal feeling here at least is that Bitcoin may very well need offerings in the ecosystem with this kind of functionality to effectively compete with Ethereum and (future) crowd's feature list and draws -- or risk becoming obsoleted, at least among investors and financial market operators, which offer the ability to bring billions and even trillions into the Bitcoin ecosystem as it gains more recognition, trust, and mindshare with them. This process is, of course, only beginning, but we feel that the clear benefits that the blockchain can offer to finance (for not only Bitcoin payment operations, but for the more advanced finance operations that the technology can enable) will set off the next great phase of Bitcoin's growth, IF allowed to unfold organically.
+100 To compete with second and third gen coins, Bitcoin will need meta platforms built on top of it. |
|
|
|
what is the outcome for the protocol? explain to me like I am five  The protocol will continue to work. However, the solution we are using currently is not an elegant solution. |
|
|
|
I can't argue how you feel about the core devs. However, no one stood up to the technical merits of why 80 bytes was needed. Jeff and Gavin have simply made claims about 40 byte change being good enough and SPAM being a problem. Unfortunately, I did not have the technical breadth to ask how they came to those conclusions, but disengaging in the technical discourse is not letting others understand the potential.
The open letter was a first step to engage, but it's not good enough. We need to say something on the list.
+1 We need to engage them, in a dialog. |
|
|
|
Hej. I am one of the three guys who developed a trading application/framework called leonardo. At first we just wanted to create a better trading interface for centralized exchanges but with the built-in market abstraction layer it shouldn't be that hard to get it to talk to counterpartyd. What do you think? Do you like the idea? Do you see problems? More info on leonardo at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=506317.0If you have scam concerns, please read our announcement before yelling at us  Looking forward to the integration between Leonardo and counterparty distributed exchange. |
|
|
|
is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?
Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out. http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspxAny considerable risk of the asset getting wiped at some point in the future? can people trade them with each other? I would say it is quite safe, as the assets are stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. I have been using it in the command prompt for quite some time. Yes, people can trade them with each other in the Distributed Exchange. |
|
|
|
Is a multibit wallet OK?
The bitcoin blockchain is a bit too big for me to download.
You can store XCP in any bitcoin wallet. As long as you control the private key. However, to send them you would need to use the Bitcoin-QT+Counterparty client or wait for the web wallet (2 more weeks). |
|
|
|
is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?
Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out. http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspx |
|
|
|
I think I could take a pretty good shot at guessing most of your portfolio allocations just based on comments in this thread @ Mastercoin
You need to create another count down,
such as for
the Metacoin distributed exchange,
or smart property
or distributed e comerce (my favourite)
Yeah, we definitely should do a countdown to the Smart Property launch. That was fun! +1 Let's get another countdown to build the excitement. |
|
|
|
An simple idea that seems to have been ignored on the official forums...
Wouldn't it be easier to just allow dots in the asset names (hint: Global_trade_repo's hierarchy idea)?
That way BTT.UNIQUESILVER and BTT.RARECOIN would not collide with someone else's UNIQUESILVER and RARECOIN?
As suggested by Global_trade_repo, the asset names with dots in them could cost less to issue.
Not only that, but the buyers could be more confident that the assets were issued from BTT without rechecking/verifying the description/catalog. An impostor could issue a VERYRARECOIN with a description poiting to BTT's catalog for example. But the impostor cannot fake a BTT.VERYRARECOIN asset if it's required to own the BTT asset first.
We should also allow other characters such as #, $, %, and digits after the dot in the asset names. So BTT can issue BTT.SILVER$100 or BTT.GOLD#1906 for example.
Otherwise, assuming a business can issue 100000+ assets, how does it go about organizing/tracking assets efficiently? It much easier to match BTT.GOLD#1906 or BTT.RAREGOLD#18394 from a catalog than to search for BTT.GOLDXFR and BTT.RAREGOLDSXR to identify the asset.
If Counterparty is a protocol like TCP/IP, then we will need a flexible asset naming scheme that works almost like the domain naming system.
Upon first glance this seems pretty damn genius. It's genius because its so simple its almost obviously the way it should be. I hope the developers strongly consider implementing this or something quite like this, as soon as robot/human-hybridally possible.
Edit: That being said this may be something left to other developers to build on top of Counterparty, but I think its fundamental enough to be included in the protocol layer itself.Think: Issuer.Issuance.Sub-Issuance
And so once an issuer name is chosen, that issuer can create other issuer names of course but they will be the only ones who are permitted to create issuances and sub-issuances relative hierarchically to their issuer name.
And then perhaps blockscan can implement a nice new GUI feature which will allow for collapsing and expanding assets based on this hierarchy of issuance. This will make searching for assets and trusting assets that are issued much much easier and much cleaner of an experience. Good idea GLaDos.
Edit 2: In addition, fees can be adjusted, say... maybe 5 - 10 XCP more or less to register an issuer name, but the issuance might be half that and then the sub-issuances might be even half of half etc., This makes sense to me, but I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm an idiot or that its not feasible as is common round these parts. -___-+1 Agreed, this is a good suggestion. |
|
|
|
For example, there are thousands of types of silvercoins with different make, quality, size, and ownership histories. We use generic catalog names to make these assets easy to identify in our catalog and easy for our customers to discretely digitize and trade. We respect this diversity and don't aim to constrain it as we didn't create it ourselves.
It makes sense now. |
|
|
|
|
Informative thread, following.
|
|
|
|
I don't think the fee should be destroyed. It would be a much better idea to pay it to Bitcoin miners or XCP holders. No? Maybe I don't understand it well enough.
But yeah 5 xcp seems a bit much.
Destroying the fee is paying it to XCP holders. "Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." PS: I'd say 1 XCP for new assets. I like round & prime numbers. I'm afraid to see a wave a spam issuances like COKE/CRACK/METH/DILDO/FRENCHGIRL coming from the same guy if you lower it too much... I am of the same view as well. We need to reduce the fees to encourage businesses, however at the same time not lower it too much that there will be spam issuances and asset squatting. Which will stand in the way of legitimate businesses and users. 1 XCP seems about right (Nxt has an issuance fee of 1000 Nxt). |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me the significance of this. Can you directly deposit/withdraw CNY into BTER? Atleast on the english version of the site, this does not appear to be available. So, the user would need to convert back to BTC to withdraw/deposit. Which in turn is the same as a BTC/XCP pair. Perhaps someone in China can explain this better. |
|
|
|
|
Can we also create an unofficial wiki, that any one of us can edit. That way we would be able to add how to's and other instructions without waiting for the developers.
This will really help in easing newbies into the product.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
