Robby and I just wanted to say thank you for all of your support. We are very excited to create the first cryptofinance platform, with Overstock, directly on Counterparty. As to the details of the platform, I cannot say anything at this time, but as this project develops, we should have some great announcements.  Evan Wagner |
|
|
|
That's not correct. BTC can be traded with any Counterparty asset, and any Counterparty asset can be traded for any other Counterparty asset. XBTC is a BTC proxy token created by a community member that merely expedites the process of DEx trading. |
|
|
|
Isn't Porqupine the person behind XCPfeeds.info?
Yes. Wow unless I'm missing something isn't it extremely arrogant of the XCP team to dismiss an intelligent senior member of Bitcointalk like this, He's clearly invested a lot of time and thought into this project and you seem to be deleting all his posts and branding him a troll. The way PhantomPhreak dealt with porcupine's criticisms was inappropriate. However, I do recommend that you read further about the issue and try to understand where the disagreements lie. I did try before posting, however Porqupine's post history and linking off the reddit thread only link to one interaction between the two. "There is no security vulnerability. There is a bug in the current CFD implementation (open for discussion as GitHub Issue #191), which we are working on fixing now. User porcupine does not understand how the protocol works, and he is spamming and trolling, that's all. Please just ignore him." As in Porqupine's post history he lays down logical and mathematical reasoning to why he believes theirs fault with the CFD implementation, I'm confused why that isn't tackled on head on to explain why he's mistaken. If I'm missing something please can you link me to where I can read further about the issue and try to understand where the disagreements lie. The bug *is* acknowledged by PhantomPhreak; it's a disagreement in terminology: PhantomPhreak's point is that it is not a "security vulnerability" in the sense that the multi-sig bug in February was. Beyond that, there is disagreement as to how it can be fixed. Please see: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd/pull/190 and https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd/issues/191. |
|
|
|
Isn't Porqupine the person behind XCPfeeds.info?
Yes. Wow unless I'm missing something isn't it extremely arrogant of the XCP team to dismiss an intelligent senior member of Bitcointalk like this, He's clearly invested a lot of time and thought into this project and you seem to be deleting all his posts and branding him a troll. The way PhantomPhreak dealt with porcupine's criticisms was inappropriate. However, I do recommend that you read further about the issue and try to understand where the disagreements lie. |
|
|
|
Isn't Porqupine the person behind XCPfeeds.info?
Yes. |
|
|
|
@DEV, a guy named porqupine found a vulnerability, it can be used to attack XCP and cause our money lost, could you fix this issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=708879.0His post in reddit: Please don't feed the troll: Please respond to the fact that I'm well known in this community, that there is working source code, and you've both refused my offer to make a CFD so I could demonstrate the vulnerability, and blocked all my posts from the bitcointalk thread. Why would I spend months designing a website for CFD's and than try to discredit them? And further if there is no exploit, why wouldn't you make a CFD and prove me wrong, rather than trying to censor me? http://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty/comments/2bmlg6/ann_counterparty_exploit_public_disclosure/Please see PhantomPhreak's post directly above yours. The feature is being disabled in order to deal with the bug. EDIT: to be perfectly clear, the bug is such that by making small CFDs against a large one, you can effectively increase the latter's exposure. This is an implementation issue, and is being fixed. |
|
|
|
Announcement: We have implemented completely trustless gaming in Counterparty. Read more here!
|
|
|
|
|
Announcement: Peter Todd has begun his security audit on the Counterparty protocol and reference client.
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: leave enough BTC to cover at least 1 set of fees when a user gets a new asset. It's a pretty poor experience to get an asset and find out that it can't really be transferred immediately. Fees for 1 transfer will improve usability, and after it is used, a message could be displayed that further transfers will require depositing more BTC.
Whom are you suggesting should leave the fee when a user gets a new asset? Or are you suggesting that a user should need to have twice the BTC dust at his address in order to create an asset, so that he'll also be able to send it in another transaction? |
|
|
|
Yes, if you try to buy an asset with BTC, it takes about an hour to complete
I'm still not quite get why it should take one hour to complete. Let's say a block takes 10 mins. Matching takes 1 block, Btcpay 1 block, so 20 mins, what do I miss. The reason is blockchain reorganizations, which basically rewrite the recent history of transactions, and Bitcoin payments are irreversible. So a blockchain reorganization can invalidate a BTCpay, because it can remove a previously valid order match from the ledger. |
|
|
|
Really? Satoshi didn't create BTC to get rich? Have you asked him why he hasn't distributed to charity the 1 million or so btc he mined? I will have to speak to mastercoin dev's about that bitcoin part, i don't recall a discussion where that should have been the case regarding issuances. regarding the exodus fee they just havent had time to take that out... the mastercoin foundation is there to develop the master protocol and ensure that mastercoins have some value through uses. that is not a pump and dump, that is called being a rational economic actor. you probably don't get that and that is why xcp will continue to devalue relative to btc. (hey if i am wrong i have a shit ton of xcp  ) currently the only inherent value is attached to the issuance fee... oh those greedy developers making people pay a fee. anyway anyone investing money into people that have some pie in the sky idea should ask VC Matt Ocko of what he thinks of investing in dreamers. He also invested many millions into a digital encrypted virtual economy way back in the 1990s, he can tell you all about how that worked out. I am very confident time will prove me right on this point, and like I said if I am wrong I will be laughing looking at my balance sheet. The debate as to the value of XCP has been run through over and over: the market for binary options and derivatives with no counterparty risk is huge, and so the potential market cap of XCP does not explain its current market cap. We will continue to add features that require the use of XCP for technical reasons, which will further increase its potential market cap. Having spoken with a number of people, Counterparty's non-prohibitive economic ecosystem is one of its most well-liked features, and partly explains why many projects will be crowdfunding with Counterparty over the next few weeks and months. |
|
|
|
Everyone that wants the price of XCP to go up is just waiting for the betting feature of Counterparty to be more widely adopted. That will be the main price driver for XCP.
The adoption of the Counterparty protocol and adoption of betting related businesses which use the Counterparty protocol are two different things and while they both affect the price of XCP, one is clearly more focused and directly related to a rapid increase in the price of XCP.
While Counterparty does do marketing and business development (quite a bit actually...), businesses like xbet.io, my soon-to-come site, and other sites that come later, are all going to market their businesses and Counterparty will benefit from that exposure. In return, those new businesses will benefit from Counterparty's previous marketing efforts and the earlier success of the pioneers in this space like Digital Tangible Trust, Swarm, and so on.
This time period is a very early slice of what will become a full and active Counterparty ecosystem where the promotion of various businesses and the promotion of the Counterparty Protocol has a synergistic effect for both the protocol and new businesses that enter the Counterparty ecosystem.
It's important that as a community, we support various businesses on Counterparty that add value to the ecosystem as well as Counterparty The Protocol. The success of Counterparty based businesses is an important step to the ultimate success of Counterparty, however, the success of Counterparty based businesses cannot be lumped in with the promotion and success of Counterparty The Protocol. Buy some gold, bet on some football, support an artist coin, get in there and mix it up.
Announcement:
I no longer volunteer full-time with Counterparty, although I will still help out informally whenever I can.
My experience at Counterparty was fantastic. I learned a lot and was able to have a positive impact on a project that created the future of finance. Very cool.
My shift in focus will allow me to spend more time on my Counterparty-powered startup which will have an official announcement shortly.
Matt has been an immense help to us, and we really appreciate everything he's done. |
|
|
|
For now, we should point out that proof-of-stake mining has inherent problems, which, to my knowledge, neither BCNext nor anyone else in the Nxt community has addressed. In particular, the well-known "nothing at stake" attack, by which miners can mine on multiple blockchains at no cost to themselves; this is in contrast to proof-of-work, where the resources one uses to mine are depleted in the process of mining. "Transparent forging" doesn't solve this problem, and, in any case, transparent forging has not even been implemented yet.
This is what a Nxt dev had to say about the "nothing-at-stake" problem: If you have a computer that can forge a very large number of accounts in parallel without using any CPU and can also fund these large number of accounts without costing any NXT, then sure nothing is at stake
In my experience though you need to fund each separate acct with NXT (wait long enough) and then even a small amount of CPU time, multiplied by millions of accounts, well that seems to take some CPU power after all.
So, if you ignore the millions in NXT fees to create the accounts and the CPU power needed to forge on those millions of accounts, then you can try to monkey around with grabbing all the forging fees.
economically it doesnt make sense as there is NXT at stake. I think the premise of "nothing at stake" is that it rhymes with "proof of stake" so it has to make sense. It seems the assumption is that they can buy an arbitrary amount of NXT for free, so maybe much closer to genesis this would have been an issue, but now it is nonsensical.
That has nothing to do with mining on multiple chains at once. |
|
|
|
In my opinion there is one reason and one reason only MarketingAdvertisingI have seen NXT advertisements on youtube and on website banners, they are using google adwords and are paying a good marketing team they have a futuristic video, with some robotic voice telling people that it is the future of currency, relating it to a digital dna strand, COunterparty marketing video is a joke (the bat man themed one) i am surprised that there isn;t a huge XCP stake holder who isn;t trying to organise this IF everyone contributes funds to counterparty, so we have a total of around $10,000 + in marketing and advertising budget, we might stand a chance otherwise XCP will never make it to the top 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PLANRaise funds -
Contact video marketing agency - http://www.visionreel.comor http://www.smarteyeproductions.comor http://www.aspectfilmandvideo.co.uk/about.htmlor http://www.digitalsnowball.comor Any video marketing agency which could work Then, Upload Video on counterparty website Advertise on Youtube,
Use google adwordsTIme frame - 1 - 2 months Result - Success (hopefully) We have created a donation address for marketing: 1BzusS7hJ4ZwoioG1rcnCVo8331TryCkhP. These funds will be used towards making a promotional video. We have put contacts out to create a video and will continue to do so. If anyone has suggestions, PM me. |
|
|
|
Mark my words every currency that is merged mined like (Namecoin) or build on top of Bitcoin (Counterparty) will never have any large marketcap. They will be naturally suppressed by Bitcoin. You should have made Counterparty not attached to Bitcoin. Just my personal opinion!
Counterparty isn't merge-mined. I agree that merge-mined coins are problematic (incidentally for analogous reasons to PoS). |
|
|
|
The creator of Nxt is still anonymous and, indeed, has not posted on Bitcointalk since early November.
Just as BTC creator is anonymous Pointing out that someone is anonymous isn't a criticism, it was to show that we have taken initiative (by revealing our identities) in response to someone saying that Nxt has a central lead, whereas Counterparty does not. The fact that fewer than 80 addresses initially controlled all the Nxt is not some minor "detail" that will be forgotten in the future, Just as one person owns 10% of BTC? Or 50% of peercoin are owned by top 60 addresses? Or just top 2 Litecoin addresses own 20% of all litecoin? what's the big difference between 80 and 8000 when the population of the word is 7 billion? Unless you can show a crypto that is distributed equally to all 7 billion, nothing about any distribution is "fair". All early adapters have large percentages. [/quote] The comparison you're making is unreasonable: Nxt fundraising was cut off early, with no warning. |
|
|
|
These posts, although unpleasant, are also necessary to learn and grow. If we don't understand what we are doing wrong we will continue to do so. One of the main differences between Nxt and XCP is that NXT has a central lead, someone who is directly responsible and invested in the success of the currency. With XCP no one person is any more invested than the next. We all stand to gain and lose just as much as we invested. NXT has someone to say "hey, this is a problem, so we are going to do this". Where as XCP doesn't have that central lead or authority. This was the decision of the developers to create a grass-roots free-growing enterprise and only the future will tell how it all turns out. I don't support this model and in the past I have voiced my opinions on the subject so I wont rehash them. It's also important to understand that NXT isn't limited by outside factors (BTC). NXT lives and dies by its own decisions. It is not arbitrarily limited or denied (OP return anyone?) by external forces (BTC developers). The initial XCP developers chose to attach this project to BTC for certain reasons and it was their right to choose so. I would like to point out a very interesting comment though:
2) I'm not sure about 'everything', but XCP is a much more powerful currency than BTC, and all of the more interesting functionality of Counterparty requires its extra capabilities.
If XCP is so much more powerful and amazing than BTC, why are we arbitrarily limiting ourselves to the shackles of bitcoins blockchain? 10 minute blocks? In the future we will be saying "30 second blocks are you serious? I'm not waiting 30s to pay for my coffee!". If it can't be used to pay for everything and anything, then its not a true currency. If its not a true currency, then why are we using it. Bitcoins first-mover advantage is not going to last forever. And when it does start showing the signs of its age (which in my position it already is), we are going to be in an uncomfortable position. The promise of bitcoin will live on, regardless of whether we are using Bitcoin, or blackcoin, or darkcoin, etc, so to arbitrarily pick one of these and say "this is the one" and attach ourselves to it seems foolish. Regardless of whether bitcoin fails and another takes its place, NXT will continue on. I hate NXT mainly because of its distribution. But we are a large unwieldy and uncoordinated beast competing against a well-oiled machine. They have the budget, the focus and the drive to pick goals and accomplish them. Not only that but we are self-limiting ourselves. With this in mind its obvious why the price hasn't moved. Technological Anarchy (thats what this is, people coming together and working together by choice, not by law) sounds nice on paper. "Hey we'll all contribute together and it will be egalitarian and no one will control anything and it will be great!". But in reality doesn't help get things done in a efficient and timely manner. Theres a reason why we've always had central authority in the form of a monarchy or president. It gets shit done. That reminds me of a picture. Hard to argue with that. The creator of Nxt is still anonymous and, indeed, has not posted on Bitcointalk since early November. We three, on the other hand, have revealed our identities, in spite of having had no intentions of doing so in the beginning, for the specific purpose of going to conferences and doing business development, ourselves. If we don't mention everything happens internally, that is because we don't want to count our chickens before they are hatched, and are aware that making growing business relationships overly-public does more harm than good. The fact that fewer than 80 addresses initially controlled all the Nxt is not some minor "detail" that will be forgotten in the future, nor is the fact that they cut off the Kickstarter period before planned and without warning. That aside, we are writing a document listing Counterparty's "competitive advantages" over some of the other "2.0" projects, in which we address Nxt in particular pretty extensively. This document will be available in the next week, hopefully. For now, we should point out that proof-of-stake mining has inherent problems, which, to my knowledge, neither BCNext nor anyone else in the Nxt community has addressed. In particular, the well-known "nothing at stake" attack, by which miners can mine on multiple blockchains at no cost to themselves; this is in contrast to proof-of-work, where the resources one uses to mine are depleted in the process of mining. "Transparent forging" doesn't solve this problem, and, in any case, transparent forging has not even been implemented yet. With regards to proof-of-work, shorter block times aren't magic: shorter blocks means less security. EDIT: wording. |
|
|
|
If the Counterparty protocol has great value (as I'm sure that it does), then so does XCP.
I like your mantra to do everything which can be done in bitcoin with bitcoin - but until now your conclusion given above does not work. I think there is a consensus that the counterparty protocol is helpful and has a lot of value, but you'll not find within the altcoin space a project where the disparity between the protocols "value" differs so much from the coins value. I know that you guys are doing a wonderful job and I have absolutely no doubt that it will work in the end, but to give the project value you need to find a good solution for the currency. At the risk of misinterpreting Adam, I think his point is that Counterparty is not just an amalgamation of features, but a financial ecosystem, in itself. The features are supposed to tie in with and complement each other, though admittedly it is also possible for features to succeed alone (such as crowdfunding and speculation). The point is that when the entire Counterparty ecosystem is more developed and adopted, the value and use-cases for XCP are more obvious and its utility. It is short-sighted to give undue priority to XCP over Bitcoin: many people (including serious investors) are just getting used to Bitcoin, and, indeed, the investors that I know point to Bitcoin's illiquidity as a point of failure, and a deterrent from investing. If, now, you tell them that your new protocol requires an entirely new, (currently) extremely illiquid asset in order to use its features, you are much more likely to alienate them, Moreover, the argument that forcing people to use the native currency unnecessarily will solve the liquidity problem of that currency is probably not true: you will rather just encourage people to move to a platform whose native currency is not unnecessarily required. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
