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

[jtimon]

What possible benefit does it have other than security?

Well, one thing is that it keeps us native to a $6B marketcap currency, enabling people to trade directly with that currency and settle using BTCPay. If we move away, people will need to use BTC tokens backed by an issuer instead, which adds a layer of counterparty risk.

That's exactly the problem 2-way peg tries to solve: having a non-issued interface with bitcoin from an outside chain.
You can also coinswap with other person as a shortcut.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

Link please?
I can give you this one where he proposes merged mining to have multiple chains with different rules and uses:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696

Some more history to learn from:

http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1551

[Matt Y]

So it's better for counterparty to just react, instead of act? Are we really doomed to just follow the current trends? Piggybacking from one solution to the next?

What about actually taking a fucking stance? What about making a decision instead of letter other people make decisions for us.
This is the worst business advice ever. Is it a risk? Sure! But those that never take risks have nothing to gain.

Winning the race of utility but not usage?
I would posit that counterparty has less adopters now than when it started as some early adopters have sold out and moved on.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

Counterparty is very active and is currently leading the second generation space with regards to functionality.

Counterparty is not piggybacking from one solution to the next, it is staying on Bitcoin. You are the one suggesting the project moves to another blockchain, then denouncing that very thing in a later post as you say "are we doomed to have to follow trends" while you pitch a PoS solution that is itself a new and upcoming trend in the digital currency space, while Bitcoin has been around forever and is much harder to consider a "trend".

Do you feel Counterparty has taken no risks? The project has been rife with risks from day one, and those risks are gradually being mitigated and eliminated.

What decentralized exchange is winning the race of "usage"? What decentralized financial market is winning the race of usage? Nobody. Let's check back on that in a few months or so.

So, according to you, early adopters sold some or all of their positions in XCP, and that somehow decreased the number of total XCP holders. How are you able to infer that everyone who has bought XCP over the past few months already held XCP?

[Matt Y]

Counterwallet is the next step in development on the usability side of the project. People that do not want to use a web wallet, should not use Counterwallet. They should continue to wait until a viable alternative which meets their needs is developed and released.

I did not say that Counterparty should move off Bitcoin in the future.

Running on Bitcoin is not strangling the adoption of Counterparty and my view is that both Bitcoin and Counterparty will be better together than they are apart.

see:

I would suggest that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

Premature, as in; there would be a mature time to do it.

Read the rest of the text you quoted.

Will there be a time to possibly consider moving off Bitcoin? Maybe, I have no idea. That time is not now, though, and it would be premature to start having those discussions in my opinion. I hope that clears up my point of view a bit.

[TheMightyX]

So it's better for counterparty to just react, instead of act? Are we really doomed to just follow the current trends? Piggybacking from one solution to the next?

What about actually taking a fucking stance? What about making a decision instead of letter other people make decisions for us.
This is the worst business advice ever. Is it a risk? Sure! But those that never take risks have nothing to gain.

Winning the race of utility but not usage?
I would posit that counterparty has less adopters now than when it started as some early adopters have sold out and moved on.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

Counterparty is very active and is currently leading the second generation space with regards to functionality.

Counterparty is not piggybacking from one solution to the next, it is staying on Bitcoin. You are the one suggesting the project moves to another blockchain, then denouncing that very thing in a later post as you say "are we doomed to have to follow trends" while you pitch a PoS solution that is itself a new and upcoming trend in the digital currency space, while Bitcoin has been around forever and is much harder to consider a "trend".

Do you feel Counterparty has taken no risks? The project has been rife with risks from day one, and those risks are gradually being mitigated and eliminated.

What decentralized exchange is winning the race of "usage"? What decentralized financial market is winning the race of usage? Nobody. Let's check back on that in a few months or so.

So, according to you, early adopters sold some or all of their positions in XCP, and that somehow decreased the number of total XCP holders. How are you able to infer that everyone who has bought XCP over the past few months already held XCP?

I never said Counterparty wasn't leading in terms of functionality.
Nor did I say that Counterparty has taken no risks. But huddling behind bitcoin for protection is obviously an aversion to risk when we know that we have more to gain by leaving then by staying.

What you suggested in your previous post was that at a later time if it becomes necessary CP will move to another or its own blockchain (this would be reacting and piggybacking from one solution to the next).
What I suggested was a proactive decision to move not from one solution to the next, and the next, and the next (which is what will invariably happen should we continue down this road), but to move to a final solution.
Our own blockchain would be the final solution. You admitted it yourself. Why don't we just jump ahead a few years then and save ourselves some wasted time? We are wasting time trying to play nice with bitcoin when we could be growing.

According to you "PoS" is a trend and bitcoin has been around "forever". You know they thought email was just a trend? They said it was pointless and stupid and we would never have a need for it. But some people, they saw it for what it was. It wasn't a trend, it was a solution.

You calling PoS a trend shows where your mindset is.
To anyone outside our community bitcoin itself is a trend, or a scheme, or a fraud. You are equating what you and I know to what the world thinks it knows.

My comment regarding counterparty having less adopters was and is evident by the list of trading over the past two months on the exchanges. Any new adopters would have had to buy XCP from poloniex. We can see there has been very little trading on poloniex. So very little XCP was bought. I would also assume the majority of XCP bought on poloniex was from XCP holders. Obviously that is just a theory and is inconsequential anyway.

[sparta_cuss]

Regarding the dust-up over whether to stay on Bitcoin and PoW or move to something else/create something else that is PoS... etc.

Right now XCP is in the "proof of concept" stage. An incredible amount has been done, but much is still under development, not only in terms of code, but in terms of gaining traction in any markets for which XCP can potentially be a solution. Until the concept is "proven," it has much to lose and little to gain by creating its own blockchain, or hitching a ride on a less secure and less trusted blockchain. When creating a new product or service, you don't want too many variables in play at a time; you need something stable, and Bitcoin provides that stability. I agree with Matt Y; if XCP needs to migrate to another chain for whatever reason, there will be a time to do so. But moving now just adds another element of "unproven-ness" to this proof of concept.

[TheMightyX]

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

Link please?
I can give you this one where he proposes merged mining to have multiple chains with different rules and uses:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696

Some more history to learn from:

http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1551

Sorry I've done some googling and I can't find any reference. I've heard it mentioned many times that satoshi thought mining was the inherent weakness of bitcoin. This quote seems likely because control of mining (which is what we see today with the large mining cartels) would lead to control of the network but I can't for the life of me find any reference to it...

Am I crazy?

[zero3112]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin. I would argue that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe a 6 hour process if you are lucky)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

I'd like to see a future where Bitcoin is a neutral medium on which other protocols pay to get secured by the world's largest hashing network. All projects are made less secure by splitting off into their own blockchains; it might be worth the compromise of having to carry unwanted data if it means getting significantly more security for the desirable data.

We shouldn't be supporting the worlds largest energy wasting scheme in the future.
And this doesn't address the difference between PoW and PoS security.
We don't need that hashing power with a PoS blockchain.

Are ppcoin and primecoin the energy efficient ones alternative to PoW.

[zero3112]

Whats the eta on the counterwallet going live on mainnet?

Also

http://blog.mastercoin.org/2014/04/01/masterdoge-mastercoin-moving-to-dogecoin/  

It can't be true or is it ?

Much suprise!

what's going on? 

Is mastercoin really moving to dogecoin?

[porqupine]

Primecoin isn't any more energy efficient, it just produces prime number strings of possible scientific value (instead of useless leading 0 hashes); PPC is, but it's only 1 PoS block per 4 PoW blocks, which I don't think is very noticeable when PoW mining returns are much higher than PoS returns; someone can correct me on this though.

[TheMightyX]

Are ppcoin and primecoin the energy efficient ones alternative to PoW.

Primecoin no, it is simple PoW.
PPcoin is PoS/PoW.

Obviously we don't need PoW because we already completed our distribution phase so we would have an entirely PoS currency. NXT is an example of pure PoS albeit a crappy one.

[zero3112]

Are ppcoin and primecoin the energy efficient ones alternative to PoW.

Primecoin no, it is simple PoW.
PPcoin is PoS/PoW.

Obviously we don't need PoW because we already completed our distribution phase so we would have an entirely PoS currency. NXT is an example of pure PoS albeit a crappy one.

NXT is pure PoS but why does the wallet suck? The bitcoin wallet looks better why not use that never understood it.  And the bitcoin 2.0 coins are even worse with there wallets and they work on top of bitcoin so Mastercoin, Protoshares, and CounterParty.

[TheMightyX]

Primecoin isn't any more energy efficient, it just produces prime number strings of possible scientific value (instead of useless leading 0 hashes); PPC is, but it's only 1 PoS block per 4 PoW blocks, which I don't think is very noticeable when PoW mining returns are much higher than PoS returns; someone can correct me on this though.

Yea Primecoins number strings are pretty much useless. Something to do with them being too short. Can't remember, it's been awhile since I mined primecoin. I remember Sunny all but admitting that primecoin doesn't look for the larger chains as the requirements would be too large.

You can read tons of propaganda on this "amazing new currency with actual scientific value" but then not a single article backing it up or showing it being used. They used to read "potential scientific value" then everyone just cut off the "potential" and ran with it, like it was saving lives or something.

[Matt Y]

TheMightyX,

I don't agree with your arguments or even consider many of them to be valid, but you are welcome to them, just as I will continue to hold my own, which you free to disagree with as well. While we were unable to sway each other, it was an interesting discussion.

[halfcab123]

I'm quite surprised that this dialogue has not ventured to IRC. Having these apparent deep and fruit-bearing arguments on a forum seems to be slower than our transaction times *drum roll* Blockchain joke. But really though, @MattY, have you considered leading the way to an open forum podcast or regularly scheduled broadcast/chat ? With the speed of progress it seems quite sophomoric to remain pegged to forum communication which in many ways can be considered slower than email in practice. Just thoughts.

[jtimon]

Sorry I've done some googling and I can't find any reference. I've heard it mentioned many times that satoshi thought mining was the inherent weakness of bitcoin. This quote seems likely because control of mining (which is what we see today with the large mining cartels) would lead to control of the network but I can't for the life of me find any reference to it...

Am I crazy?

I don't know. Maybe he admitted proof of work was somewhat wasteful somewhere (tell me if you find that) and you read it out of context or something. About "mining cartels" remember the hashing algorithm could be changed very easily o SHA3 or something else.

PoS has lots of potential for things like voting, just not for p2p consensus.
A hybrid system is less secure in the proportion in which it uses PoS instead of PoW and the savings in resources are arguable: miners today want to mine more by taking future PoS interest into account.
Pure PoS is just not secure due to the "nothing at stake" problem (basically you can vote 2 different chains as valid at the same time without losing anything).
NeST will be attacked one day.

I think the best option for counterparty would be a merged mined chain like namecoin, but certainly a PoS chain would be worse than its current parasitic form.
And again I do not mean to offend anyone, Peter Todd himself describes systems like Counterparty in these terms:

https://github.com/petertodd/decentralized-consensus-systems/blob/master/paper.tex#L252

[Matt Y]

@MattY, have you considered leading the way to an open forum podcast or regularly scheduled broadcast/chat ? With the speed of progress it seems quite sophomoric to remain pegged to forum communication which in many ways can be considered slower than email in practice. Just thoughts.

It is not something I have considered, but I'm happy to consider it, and I'm sure the developers will as well.

I do think forums work quite nicely for communicating as that is specifically what they were designed for, and they have enjoyed use all across the entire internet because of their ability to assist decentralized groups with communications. If some of these discussions were happening on a podcast, my fear would be that a much smaller audience would see them or be able to participate before the discussion was over. Ideally, I'd like to see much of these conversations move to the Counterparty forums, but people love them some Bitcointalk, so here we are.

[Flare]

Why should I buy 1 BTC of this coin instead of Mastercoin or Ethereum?

[halfcab123]

@MattY, have you considered leading the way to an open forum podcast or regularly scheduled broadcast/chat ? With the speed of progress it seems quite sophomoric to remain pegged to forum communication which in many ways can be considered slower than email in practice. Just thoughts.

It is not something I have considered, but I'm happy to consider it, and I'm sure the developers will as well.

I do think forums work quite nicely for communicating as that is specifically what they were designed for, and they have enjoyed use all across the entire internet because of their ability to assist decentralized groups with communications. If some of these discussions were happening on a podcast, my fear would be that a much smaller audience would see them, or be able to participate before the discussion was over. Ideally, I'd like to see much of these conversations move to the Counterparty forums, but people love them some Bitcointalk, so here we are.

Counterparty forums needs a chat like counterwallet, and people will definitely hang out i'd assume

[Matt Y]

Why should I buy 1 BTC of this coin instead of Mastercoin or Ethereum?

Because you researched all three projects extensively and found Counterparty to be the best option given your requirements for investing.

[TheMightyX]

Why should I buy 1 BTC of this coin instead of Mastercoin or Ethereum?

You should buy 1 BTC of all three.