 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
I use Chrome also. I did pull Counterwallet up with Safari quickly and it appeared to work properly, but I did not try to execute a trade or anything.
Thanks Matt, Chrome is working great! |
|
|
|
|
I am trying to access Counterwallet from my Mac. I have updated my Safari browser to the latest version, but I am getting an error message "Your Browser is not supported with Counterwallet." Is anyone else using Counterwallet via Safari? Any pointers?
|
|
|
|
I read the last couple of pages here and I really have to say: Be FRIENDLY to each other. The obvious was pointed out before: Bitcoin and Counterparty benefit from each other and are not competitors. So with the mutual benefit in mind please be constructive and differentiated. If someone is personally attacked it is less easy for him to move without the LOSS OF FACE. This is not the place to lift up your EGO by blaming others personally!
+1, agree |
|
|
|
PM each other for communication is more suitable for this stage.
+1 This seems to be the best option right now, for the Counterparty devs and Bitcoin devs to engage via private channels. The back and forth on the threads will not contribute to a productive dialog. +1, Yes, in terms of process, perhaps best if core devs take this discussion offline and then present options to the community incl. merits and demerits once they've had a chance to consider all available options. |
|
|
|
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.
The BitcoinTangibleTrust team supported this approach on the official forums, as well. Global_trade_repo's suggestion was genius. We like it for more extensive naming degrees of freedom. +1, BTT agreeing here too |
|
|
|
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. +1 |
|
|
|
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. BTT thanks for your post, I think I understand a bit better what you are proposing to do. Can I just clarify your business model a little bit out of curiosity? It sounds like you will essentially be a middle man listing assets on behalf of others, for which you will charge a fee. In this case the requirement to issue several assets is understandable and I can appreciate your desire to keep costs down. However, I still think that asset squatting is an issue for usability, although I think that this can probably be addressed on the client side by filtering assets somehow. Don't get me wrong, I like that you are helping the system develop, my only issue is that, under a low issuance fee scenario, I can see the whole thing degenerating to a free for all where we have a million assets that have been squatted on or don't really represent or mean anything. If I was a new user I would take one look at that, think that there was nothing in CP I was interested in, and go elsewhere. I don't know if this is practical from a protocol perspective, but one idea that I think was mentioned before would be to charge a reasonably large fee for a top level asset name (E.g. BTT-Coin or BTT) and then have no or minimal fees for sub assets (BTT-Coin.gold; BTT-Coin.silver; BTT-Coin.1gold.5silver; Etc). I also wondered if we should make a distinction between hard assets and financial assets at the protocol level or at least on the client side to allow people to find the assets they are interested in. I have always envisaged CP as a crowd funding vehicle or a way to raise money for new businesses. Obviously that is not the only application but it is the one that for me personally is most compelling to the value of the whole protocol and infrastructure. Anyway just some thugs I've been thinking about. I'll be watching the development of BTT with interest! EDIT: sorry for this redundant post, I wrote it yesterday but was only able to access the site now to post, and in the meantime caught up on all the other posts addressing this. Fully supportive of these suggestions! I like the idea of a hierarchical fee structure. Maybe GLDBTTXXXXX Where, GLD = Gold BTT = Bitcoin Tangible Trust (i.e. Issuer of assets) XXXXX = Asset ID (i.e. individual assets in the catalog, fully redeemable thru the BTT redemption procedure, eg. silver coins) Maybe top level names such as GLD are not even available for purchase -- they would common property of all users of the protocol -- and then BTT could pay, say, 5 XCP for the GLDBTT name, and then for each unique asset created under that name, ie. GLDBTTXXXX1, GLDBTTXXXX5, then BTT could pay, say, 0.01 XCP, or something de minimus, so as not to create a competitive disadvantage for the business model. EDIT: I posted this prior to reading the thread from GLaDOS referencing the idea posted earlier on the official forums. EDIT 2: I actually like the "dots" as proposed by GLaDOS, eg. GLD.BTT.XXXX1, makes it easier on my eyes! =) EDIT3: A question for everyone, should it be "GLD.BTT.XXXX1" or "BTT.GLD.XXXX1" - does it matter? |
|
|
|
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). People go through the day speaking an average of maybe 2000 english words - at 1 XCP per asset it is far too little, even 5 is too little. It should be the like of 50 or 100 IMO. And the line about being in the way of legitimate businesses is pure bogus - there is no legitimate business that cannot afford 100 xcp. Bitcoin Tangible Trust, if you want to issue an asset for a fully-redeemable silver coin that costs you, say, $20 to buy and put into custody? How does a 5 XCP asset issuance fee effect the end price that you need to charge a customer to buy this silver coin? EDIT: OK, I just did the math. 5 XCP = $32 @ 0.01 BTC/XCP and $640 BTC/USD. So, basically at 5 XCP issuance fee you would need to charge $52 for a silver coin that otherwise could be purchased from a coin dealer for $20. So, yes, from my basic analysis, this seems like a blockage, at least for BTT's business model anyways. EDIT: Porqupine, maybe you see / understand something that I am missing? Can you please elaborate? Interested to better understand your perspective, as you always have such good postings on this list. |
|
|
|
[Marketing] Regarding the content of the marketing initiative, I suggest a use case. Instead of talking in detail about what Counterparty is, or describing somewhat abstractly the kinds of things Counterparty can do, talk specifically about the things that someone is already using Counterparty for. In this vein, we could talk about the new project from Bitcoin Tangible Trust. Any use case type of explanation for Counterparty's virtues must describe how Counterparty is doing one or more things for the entrepreneur (in my example, BTT): How does CP solve a problem that BTT had (or that companies like it have)? How does CP allow BTT to reach more customers/improve customer experience? How does CP allow BTT to speed up time to market/development time/etc? Why is CP the best choice for companies like BTT? In short, instead of talking so much about what CP is (like many informational videos do), talk about what it does for those who might be interested in using it. People will respond to something that solves some problem for them, or allows them to do something interesting and new. And investors will respond to CP when they see how CP can become a genuine partner with lots of entrepreneurs and adventurous thinkers out there. This is a smart idea, Sparta_cuss. If we could showcase one asset-backed company, say, BTT, one betting game, say, ?, and one derivatives concept, say, ?. And then make the point that Counterparty is an incredibly important open source project, with a potential for 100s of companies to be riding on top of it in a few years. Then this would make for a very compelling story line! |
|
|
|
|
Just want to send a shout out to the Counterparty Devs! Thank you for all of the hard work to date!
Seeing the BitcoinTangibleTrust go live this week as the first business built on top of Counterparty must be incredibly exciting and gratifying for you all!
It is SO inspiring to see all of the effort and collaboration that everyone is investing in this amazing in Counterparty!
It has the potential to become a major open source platform with 100s of businesses riding on top!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
|
|
|
|
IMHO, but I don't perceive an "anti-marketing sentiment". More like being conservative right now to stay behind the noise of Mtgox and Auroracoin and whatever new IPO coin of the week. Once the new website design goes up, a broader community is formed, the web wallet goes up, we get the security review done, and the GUI is improved, then absolutely go all out.
+1, valid point, good to match the PR with progress. |
|
|
|
I would like to thank everyone for their support and understanding. It really means a lot. Having other people's money taken under my watch has made me feel just about as awful as I've ever felt in my life.
I think I should have a poll to determine how to pay the funds back. Here are the options I'm thinking:
1. Pay back over time with exchange fees.
2. Same as #1, but raise fees to expedite.
3. Sell shares of Poloniex to cover the debt; dividends paid regularly.
4. Award such shares to everyone immediately and consider that repayment.
Let me know if I'm forgetting an option here.
About recent deposits--it really wouldn't be fair to deduct deposits made after the BTC was taken. Obviously I should have posted a notice on the Balances page, but it is not difficult to make an exception for recent deposits.
I will be hiring a security programmer after this is dealt with.
I'd raise the fee to 0.3% or even 0.5% and additionally sell shares. You can then cover the dividends with the extra fee and with the shares you can pay back the 12%. Yes, this is a good proposal. To refine a bit further: 1. 30 day period of selling shares, say at $4M pre-money valuation, which is a fair valuation for a tech start-up with early traction but high-risk security flaws - eg. if you sell $1M worth of shares, you would be selling 20% of your Company at $4M pre- and $5M post-money. - to make this attractive to investors, you may also consider offering a 50% annual preferred return for two years to compensate for the high-risk nature of the operation (which would create a defined path for re-coup of initial capital investment) 2. If you fail to reach the full amount by selling shares, then also raise fees to 0.5% until the full-amount of the debt has been re-paid 3. Under this set-up, the "payment cascade" for incoming fees over the next 2 years would be as follows: - first, to pay account holders to make them whole (if not fully covered by proceeds from sale of shares) - second, to pay the 50% preferred return to equity holders - third, to distribute to equity holders pro rata with their equity share in the business |
|
|
|
I would like to thank everyone for their support and understanding. It really means a lot. Having other people's money taken under my watch has made me feel just about as awful as I've ever felt in my life.
I think I should have a poll to determine how to pay the funds back. Here are the options I'm thinking:
1. Pay back over time with exchange fees.
2. Same as #1, but raise fees to expedite.
3. Sell shares of Poloniex to cover the debt; dividends paid regularly.
4. Award such shares to everyone immediately and consider that repayment.
Let me know if I'm forgetting an option here.
About recent deposits--it really wouldn't be fair to deduct deposits made after the BTC was taken. Obviously I should have posted a notice on the Balances page, but it is not difficult to make an exception for recent deposits.
I will be hiring a security programmer after this is dealt with.
My vote: #2 |
|
|
|
Announcement: On that note, in the first blog post, we announce that the Counterparty team has hired two Bitcoin security experts to audit Counterparty's code! For further information, continue reading here: https://counterparty.co/sergio-lerner-peter-todd. +1 Thumbs up. That is very exciting +1 Awesome to have two of the most experienced crytpo and security devs joining the Counterparty team! Peter and Sergio, thank you! |
|
|
|
Good news, everyone!
The hacker (a bit of a misnomer, as he has pointed out) returned 50 BTC, and I have just distributed it to affected users. Looks like the other 65 will be sent, too.
Hells yes!! WOW! This is fabulous news! |
|
|
|
As a community we need to stick to one centralized exchange until the full costs of the November hack have been recovered. |
|
|
|
+1 for XCP escrow replacing the unwieldy BTC fee system entirely! Glad to see progress is being made on this. +1 Agreed. It's a significant disadvantage to have to own XCP in order to trade XCP/BTC in DEX. We are basically telling all new users to first go and purchase XCP (from others or a centralized exchange) outside DEX before coming and buying some more. It raises the entry barrier for new adopters. The system needs to be made simple for new users, not difficult. I understand the serious issue of trolls. I didn't understand how miners don't have to pay fees to troll the order books and collect the fees but I take PP's word for it. A more dummies explanation would be desirable. It's a significant disadvantage, yes, but I don't see any good alternatives. They can construct the troll tx, wait to find a block themselves, and then include the tx in it. Then they get the fees they paid in the tx. Maybe silly idea, but is there a way to code this so that a user has an option of sending either BTC or XCP into the escrow? |
|
|
|
I suggest everyone put a link to my beginners guide in their signature. As it will help direct new investors and other folks who are dying to start using counterparty to get started easily Counterpartyd Installation for dummies -- http://goo.gl/z5algZ Nice job on the guide halfcab123! Really small thing: personally I find the bright red font at the beginning to be a turn-off; it dissuades me from wanting to read the rest of the guide. Maybe you can find a font that is a little more pleasing to the eyes? |
|
|
|
And get over what ever happened between you and that French girl. I feel sorry for her, you seem heartless.
LOL. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Poloniex 24-hour trading volume: 100 BTC !!
@ 2.5% trading fee we are recovering 5 BTC per day.
At this rate the losses from the hack should be fully recovered in < 1 month!
|
|
|
|
|
