Counterparty supports Bitcoin/blockchain, Etherium doesn't.
I disagree with this. If Bitcoin invested heavily in sidechains or found out a way to make the blockchain scalable then I would agree with you. With the storage / bandwidth requirements I feel counterparty is just spamming the network for something bitcoin wasn't intended for and creating problems for everyone else.
I wish the bitcoin maximalists would put their weight heavily towards sidechains to improve anonymity & scalability with the same passion that they dislike other initiatives. I actually think trying to create wealth out of thin air via altcoins the way bitcoin did is horrific for adoption but there really isn't any other choice if people want innovation at this point.
I'm confused about your post. It is a fact that CounterParty supports bitcoin, whilst Ethereum natively doesn't (although I'm aware there are eth bridges being worked on that use guarantors)- how can you disagree with that?
Even with CounterParty previously using bare multisig, exceeding 3% of daily bitcoin tx volume, the storage requirements were neglible. However counterparty now uses OP_RETURN which are prunable (and meant for storing extra metadata in an efficient manner!), this does not bloat the blockchain by contributing to unspent UTXO. In addition every counterparty tx, just like colored coins is a specially formatted bitcoin transaction which pays miner fees in order to become represented on the chain. The spam argument is just plain wrong at this point.
Everyone has different view of what bitcoin was intended to do. My personal opinion is that bitcoin purely as a "dumb payments" rail is just one limited early application, whereas there is plenty more potential to be gleaned. Much like the early internet, I believe that Upper layer protocols built on top of the blockchain are the future of Bitcoin. IMO The greatest potential of bitcoin, as a unit of currency, is to be the currency used to pay transaction fees for the world's peer-to-peer digital transactions, and that can only happen if ULPs are built on top of BTC.
1 - 15 min 1mb blockchain limits are not scalable for smart contracts.
I don't think smart contracts on counterparty are a silver bullet for most scenarios. In many cases bitcoins long blocktime would make them far from ideal
I agree nobody wants to wait 10-30 minutes for a decentralized messaging smart contract on bitcoin chain. It's way too long!- but then again nobody wants to wait one minute on ethereum either. both are inappropriate, a non smart contract based solution would be massively more efficient (and cheaper too)
Smart contracts are only a fit for a specific subset of applications; and in some cases those applications can cope comfortably with 1 minute, 10 minutes, or 1 hour. think of things like a land registry, Token controlled access, stock ownership transfer, or final settlement. What people are paying for is to execute logic thats being backed by 400PH of power and recording an immutable entry into a massively distributed, globally replicated ledger with an already established network effect. If it's that level of decentralization that's required you would
