Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

OP_RETURN covered by Coin Desk

http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/

I hope you can appreciate that this is a bit if a chicken and egg situation. It's not like Counterparty intended to use multisig in perpetuity. Much older responses in the thread will show how eagerly we waited for 0.9 so that OP_RETURN can be used. So you can understand the disappointment when we come to know that it does not provide enough space for our needs. It also means that our current implementation will have to continue for the foreseeable future.

More disturbing is Peter Todd's identification of a problem with CHECKMULTISIG, if the proposal is indeed accepted, a more viable solution needs to be found not just for Counterparty but for all other such projects that depend on the blockchain as a transport layer.

To this end, I think the Bitcoin core developers must decide if these innovations are of any benefit to bitcoin itself and if the answer is yes then help us find a way for make this work while addressing all your concerns.

I also know that your response to this perhaps will be that Counterparty store transactions off the blockchain and only store the reference hash in OP_RETURN. It helps keep the size of the blockchain to the absolute minimum.

The alternate proposal is that the size of data stored in OP_RETURN should result in increased mining fees. The more space you use the more pay for that transaction. (At least that's what I understood from the thread). Can you please give the thread your opinion on such a solution?

https://www.counterparty.co/sergio-lerner-peter-todd/

I want to ask the Counterparty dev team about Sergio's audit. It was to concluded on 19th March, can someone from the team give an update on the status of the audit.

Thanks

If OP_RETURN can go from 80 to 40, then it can very well go from 40 to 32 bytes if it catches their fancy. I understand why the word cabal was used in conjunction with the bitcoin core dev.

Since that particular decision is arbitrarily in the hands of people not associated with 2.0 projects I would argue that it should not be relied on even if it is possible. Our current solution works a 100% and will continue to work in future. Using OP_RETURN puts us at the mercy of people who seem to have a very rigid outlook of the future. The supposed free rides are the projects that will enrich bitcoin and make it competitive against the next generation of cryptocurrecies. Relying on the Bitcoin ecosystem to carry the day is incredibly shortsighted.

A reliable hackish solution trumps an unreliable elegant solution any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If I understand correctly, since Litecoin is a fork of bitcoin its a few versions behind and does not support OP_RETURN yet.

Yes you will be able to

The protocol sits on top of the bitcoin blockchain, As I understand XCP transaction details are embedded inside the bitcoin transaction, piggyback style. What this means is that you need XCP to purchase any user defined asset at least at the protocol level. As this system matures I am guessing more sophisticated clients will come out that might do what you say. It is however not possible with the protocol itself.


If the value of XCP goes up, you can expect the cost of issuance to go down proportionally. 5 XCP is set only as a deterrence so that only people serious about issuing assets will do so.

Err..not really. Counterparty has its own forum here https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php.

I know you have got a bit of a negetive/discouraging feedback here and I am not trying to add on to that but I couldn't ignore the glaring gap in what you are saying.

The value of a bitcoin or any other alt-coin is determined by the market. Bitcoin was not even worth a penny when it started out. It's growth and price are determined by the market. VBCOIN however is not market determined. It is pegged to 0.001 without anyway to validate its worth and being backed by nothing in the real world.

Other IPOs also predetermine a price and many of them have turned out to be scams. Others like XCP have had to prove a PoB in order for the creators to show bona fide intentions and a source code repository to show progress without which there would be no real value or need for it.

If VBCOIN were to be fully subscribed by the community you would have 2500 BTC with you (presuming that 50% would not be available for purchase since its going to be given away) How do you resolve the issue of trusting you with 2500 BTC ($1,625,000 @ 650) of which you have broadly set up a marketing budget of 500, what happens to the other 2000? Do you not see why it is reasonable for someone to point out that you are getting rich with it even if you are giving away 50% to the public.

I believe for your coin to have any success it must have some trust factor. You cannot raise that much money on purely good intentions. Perhaps you need to involve more prominent members from your local community, transfer 50% of your issue to someone who is independent of yourself. Give more details on who receives the 2000 BTC raised in the IPO and if it is you when why do you deserve to be given 1.3 million dollars.

While adding coins forked from bitcoin might be easy - and there are so very many of them around - the future is with the new generation of crypto currencies, the likes of XCP, NXT, MSC and so on will gain more traction this year.

An exchange that takes the pains of adding these currencies will benefit greatly IMO because while 2.0 currencies can be purchased there is not a single exchange where you can buy or sell all of them. That in itself will be a significant advantage for the exchange.

Hope to see all 3 implemented.

Excellent news

Hope the community adopts this whole hardheartedly. Any ETA on when the automatic service can start?

This will enable us to buy and sell XCP/BTC on the DEX with escrow services provided by the protocol. I am very optimistic about this. Finally a way for us to not use centralized exchanges. If this works, more alt currency tokens can be added.

Well done to everyone involved.

I get Rejected Share is above target, what am I doing wrong?

It's certainly a hack although unrelated to XCP. The hack was done exploiting a weakness in BTC withdrawal implemented by Poloniex. I don't know the extent of the loss but it has been reported that it is 12% of all Poloniex had. Busoni has done two things
1. Reduced everyone's balance by 12% because he does not have the funds to cover the theft.
2. Raised trading fees to 1.5%

This will result in the volumes running away from Poloniex to other exchanges. Why would you want to pay 1.5% when you could pay 8 times less elsewhere?
Unfortunately this means that XCP trades will slowdown as its the one and only exchange.

I know this sentiment has been raised a number of times before, but the counterwallet cannot come sooner along with XCP backed DEx trades.
 

I thought Sergio sounded very familiar and then I remembered. Sergio was one of the first to point flaws on Ethereum's Dagger PoW function. I remember this being a talking point during the huge Ethereum focus and hype in January.

Great to see Sergio's involvement. Khudos to the dev team.

Presumably 4 Assets have been created and 4x5 XCP burnt in the process of creating these assets.

Thanks Busoni for the update. Will wait for your inventory to complete.

Looks like the biggest loss sustained now is by the dev team to the tune of 12 btc given to lower losses at the exchange and busoni who will figure out the extent of his loss after his inventory is done. The biggest gainers are the chaps who withdrew XCP bought at highly subsidized rates to the tune of 6100 XCP. I once again appeal them to return back the XCP to Busoni.

A hacker - white hat now - voluntarily returned back 115 BTC, a fairly substantial amount, that he did not have to. This raises the bar IMO for the cheap XCP buyers from our community. Show some heart and return them. Any returns will only bolster the bounties program that much more. You will now also be able to get back the BTC with which you made these cheap purchases since the full amount is now returned to Busoni so it is no loss to you.

Hope to see the old rates back @ Poloniex swiftly now so that new members of our growing community are not disincentivised.

They were meant for the hacker but because of lack of response from the hacker it was given to Busoni. I thought I read something along those lines.

Busoni

Once you get back all 115 BTC and you have distributed them to the affected account holders, the situation will hopefully be completely remedied. I understand that the withdrawn 7000 XCP have been mitigated by the 12 BTC you received from the developers.

The commission of 2.5% that you have levied to raise 115 btc should ideally go to the bugs and security bounties now. You should have had a volume of at least 200 BTC since you raised the commission so I am guessing approximately 10 btc raised so far. Will you please consider donating these to the bounty?

I thank the person returning all the coins back to you and I hope the devs are able to involve him as an external security auditor as originally intended by them before he went AWOL