[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread

[PhantomPhreak]

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.

[1715235764]

1715235764

[1715235764]

1715235764

[1715235764]

1715235764

[1715235764]

1715235764

[halfcab123]

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.

Yes deflation

[IamNotSure]

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...

[Bellebite2014]

Proposal to temporarily lower hard-coded asset issuance fee to 0.5 XCP: cross-post from Counterparty forums

Do you mean that it will temporarily be lowered to 0.5 XCP and be raised back up, or that it may again be lowered later?

It may be changed again later, and it will be switched to being determined by proof-of-stake voting.

As of 99% of what you do PP, it makes sense.

[Bellebite2014]

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...

FRENCHGIRL ? We have plenty on this thread already, no need to issue more. Or the fee should be 10000 XCP for people with real mental disorder that would really consider it.

[dayude]

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.

Destroying the fee is paying it to XCP holders.

destroying the fee is good for XCP holders! totaly agree!

[BitcoinTangibleTrust]

Proposal to temporarily lower hard-coded asset issuance fee to 0.5 XCP: cross-post from Counterparty forums

The team at BitcoinTangibleTrust would find this immensely of benefit to helping get new customers onto our Digital Gold Coin Offerings powered by XCP!

We have a special promotion for Counterparty members we'd like to launch this week and a 0.5 XCP fee would lower our marketing costs immensely.

Thank you PhantomPhreak and the Counterparty Dev Team!

[Bountyful]

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...

Fear stifles our thinking and actions. It creates indecisiveness that results in stagnation. I have known talented people who procrastinate indefinitely rather than risk failure. Lost opportunities cause erosion of confidence, and the downward spiral begins. Charles Stanley

Let's keep it at 0.5 and agree to monitor the risk of SPAM issuances going forward. This platform is iterating quickly. Let's not let our fears hold others back from building and increasing our XCP value. Also, Phantom did say we will have Proof of Stake voting in the near future so I am optimistic SPAM won't stop serious companies from launching successful assets.

Let there be more Bountyful Counterparty Assets!
Bountyful

[bitexch]

Now you can trade XCP for CNY: https://bter.com/trade/xcp_cny

To the moon!

[jimhsu]

Proposal to temporarily lower hard-coded asset issuance fee to 0.5 XCP: cross-post from Counterparty forums

Approve.

[kdrop22]

Now you can trade XCP for CNY: https://bter.com/trade/xcp_cny

To the moon!

Can someone explain to me the significance of this.
Can you directly deposit/withdraw CNY into BTER?
Atleast on the english version of the site, this does not appear to be available. So, the user would need to convert back to BTC to withdraw/deposit. Which in turn is the same as a BTC/XCP pair.
Perhaps someone in China can explain this better.

[kdrop22]

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).

[porqupine]

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.

[ginko-B]

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.

[LightedLamp]

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.

The asset issuance fee is a one time fee - you can issue Silvercoin quantity=100 or =1000 or however many you like.

[PhantomPhreak]

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.

Think of asset names like domain names: squatting isn't too big of a deal.

[PhantomPhreak]

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.

The asset issuance fee is a one time fee - you can issue Silvercoin quantity=100 or =1000 or however many you like.

Correct. You should definitely not issue a new asset for each silver coin.

[BitcoinTangibleTrust]

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.

The asset issuance fee is a one time fee - you can issue Silvercoin quantity=100 or =1000 or however many you like.

Correct. You should definitely not issue a new asset for each silver coin.

Actually Phantom a small correction:

We need full flexibility to issue 1 new Asset name for each Silver/Gold/Whatever physical asset if needs arise from our customers either at issuance or redemption.

At BitcoinTangible Trust, we have absolutely ZERO interest in vanity names as our business model intends to globally scale to millions of coins. If you check our asset listing you can view them here: http://bitcointangibletrust.com/assets/ you will notice we have a naming convention that allows us to create catalog-driven names that are unique to our business.  Name squatting is of little worry for us as our namespace is large. However, we are grateful to receive relief from asset issuance costs.

[halfcab123]

200% markup?  That's going to leave alot of room for competition. . . Gold and silver online sells the physical item for half price in dollars. Do you plan on syncing the fiat equivalent in your bitcoin pricing?  If this has already been answered, I apologize.

[PhantomPhreak]

Actually Phantom a small correction:

We need full flexibility to issue 1 new Asset name for each Silver/Gold/Whatever physical asset if needs arise from our customers either at issuance or redemption.

Of course you'll have the ability to do that. But I think that there will be downsides in usability. (For instance, it will be harder to trade them on the distributed exchange if a price cannot be established. If all of the silver coins are the same, then they should be priced the same.)