OP_RETURN can be used to store references to external resources, say for example very long meta transactions that don't fit into 40 byte, an asset contract or whatever. The storage pointed to could be a website which lists something like <hash_used_in_op_return_tx><very_long_message> (for the sake of an example), a side chain or a P2P structure like a DHT. To my knowledge this was discussed several times, but never tested on a broader scale.

Instead of pumping resources into getting 40 additional bytes, why don't we actually start to build an overnet instead? I'm extremely thrilled by the idea and I somehow hope this all gets pushed even further in that direction.

One would expect satoshi to be monitoring the XCP/MSC threads closely and may even provide feedbacks as a detached observer.  topynate provided some very insightful posts (in an almost academic-like style), showed us the futility of trying to classify OP_RETURN as carrying non-finanical data, and even quoted satoshi to remind us of the comparable "unstructured simplicity" in an OP_RETURN.  That embodies the ideals of satoshi for many.  Of course, satoshi would need a stealth address since he could not move those unsteathed coins without being noticed now

Let's have some figures, shall we? Tarsnap charges 300 picodollars / byte-month. Assume ten thousand full nodes with their own blockchain, that's 3 microdollars / byte-month, or 3*12*80 microdollars / year = 0.3 cents / year for 80 bytes. But of course the cost of storage falls exponentially, let's say a three year halving time; then the total lifetime cost for storing your 80 byte OP_RETURN on every full node in the Bitcoin network is given by the sum of a geometric series with first term 0.3 cents and common ratio 2^(-1/3).

That's a total cost of 1.5 cents. At current prices, and with the above generous assumptions made on behalf of miners and other full node operators, the correct maximum additional charge for a filled 80 byte OP_RETURN is 0.025 mBTC (it can be argued that the additional demand for Bitcoin created by permitting new uses is a driver of increased Bitcoin prices and thus should lead to a discount, but that's harder to quantify). So just set that as the default until floating mining fees are introduced in (hopefully) 0.10. Bitcoin users who don't want to "provide" that storage can go ahead and not run a full node.

The idea Luke-Jr raises occasionally of a social contract existing between Bitcoin node operators to store and process only financial transactions needs dealing with. Bear in mind that in his maximalist interpretation, absolute consensus between all node operators is morally required to change that contract. It falls through on several grounds, principally vagueness and lack of historical support. Vagueness we've seen in this thread: no-one is quite clear on what makes a transaction financial. Is a transaction transferring a currency other than Bitcoin part of the social contract? Is a transaction containing what is effectively routing data (c.f. stealth addresses) fully financial, or is the additional stuff an anonymity functionality not part of the social contract? And so on. As to historical support, allow me to quote from someone who would know:


The thing is, Luke, that like it or not, Satoshi is/was a libertarian, and his creation embodied the 'take it or leave it' aspect of that political philosophy. Consensus means a consensus of mining power. Coordination means passing around proofs of work. If you feel that the amount of storage space the blockchain needs is too onerous to justify running your huge mining network, then by all means take your ball and go home, or for that matter start playing a different game - you have every right to reject whatever blocks you wish. Bitcoin will be just as pure as the majority of mining power wishes it to be.

Then contact more than a couple of pools. This statement sounds like you wish to force miners to include your transactions; surely you didn't mean it that way?
If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057.
This is with the understanding that Counterparty will seek to migrate to a more acceptable solution long-term.

We'll be issuing a statement on these new proposals, other radical protocol changes that were previously made, and an explanation for recent stakeholder flight in a few hours.

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

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...

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

Hey guys,

is there currently a more updated version of The Counterparty Protocol on GitHub available or is it all in the code, so to speak? Quite impressive to see what's going on here.

mastercoin omiwallet is looking to support alts (lite/peer/etc)

http://mastercointalk.org/index.php?topic=185.0

They probably not going to support XCP, but what's the strategy behind this ?

Hi, when issuance an asset  I find a error:  

 raise exceptions.RPCError('{}'.format(response_json['error']))lib.exceptions.RPCError: {'message': 'Server error', 'code': -32000, 'data': {'message': "'address'", 'args': ['address'], 'type': 'KeyError'}}

what happened to my address???my command is "counterpartyd issuance --source=1Ej2******b --asset=****--quantity=10000000 --divisible --description=""

need help. thanks

Hi, when issuance an asset  I find a error:  

 raise exceptions.RPCError('{}'.format(response_json['error']))lib.exceptions.RPCError: {'message': 'Server error', 'code': -32000, 'data': {'message': "'address'", 'args': ['address'], 'type': 'KeyError'}}

what happened to my address???my command is "counterpartyd issuance --source=1Ej2******b --asset=****--quantity=10000000 --divisible --description=""

need help. thanks

You tell me.

I think that all the *content* that is needed is there, but in terms of presentation I am very interested in hearing what the community has to say.

Phantom is working on the spec. right now,  and I have posted a wiki on assets (which includes information on issuing assets, trading on the DEX, paying dividends, etc.): https://wiki.counterparty.co/w/Assets.

The wiki on broadcasts and bets is undergoing another revision right now and will be up shortly. Between these two wikis, Counterparty's basic functionality ought to be covered.

The wikis have had to undergo several revisions in order to become more user-friendly, and any criticisms/suggestions are greatly appreciated, and, for the assets wiki, can be posted here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,142.0.html.

EDIT: Note that the section on trades involving BTC is quite short right now because we are currently considering whether and how to revise it. For those who are interested in the discussion, please see the thread on the official forums: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,132.0.html.

All coins trading has been stopped due to the security of poloniex platform. Not related to XCP.