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

[belmonty]

Sweet Jesus!! We are In the Game!!


http://cointelegraph.com/news/112908/counterparty-adds-ethereum-smart-contract-features?utm_content=buffera178f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Official announcement is here: http://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-recreates-ethereums-smart-contract-platform-on-bitcoin/

 

Does anyone have a rough idea of when the smart contract features will be transferred from the test net to the main net?

[1713549185]

1713549185

[1713549185]

1713549185

[1713549185]

1713549185

[1713549185]

1713549185

[nakaone]

And here comes the dump  

I normally do not comment on stuff like that - but maybe this helps a little to understand xcp economics:

1.) xcp was created during a burn phase - everyone who burned at that point had until now the possibility to sell his initial investment with a win of 400% - 2500%. I think a lot of people did that for at least refinancing their initial investment - probably additionally making quite a nice sum of winnings.

2.) I estimate with the exception of maybe 2 days or maybe 150btc, xcp was always traded for lower prices than the one you see now.

3.) xcp does not have miners who need to refinance

I assume and maybe I am horribly wrong here: we do not have bagholders 100% of the trading was below current prices, and I guess not a lot of people need to refinance.

So if you are new here I would not panic, simply keep your xcp and be fine with them. I saw some original burners refinancing today - I think it is good timing, but I would keep as many xcp as possible .

[PhantomPhreak]

Wall Street Journal: BitBeat: Bitcoin 2.0 Firm Counterparty Adopts Ethereum’s Software

[GeminiSimba]

so in other words- will the system automatically distribute fees to addresses? trying to understand the envisioned mechanism

He fees will be burned (destroyed), thereby reducing the supply.

How quickly will the supply be reduced?

This is taken from the main article-
"The simplest and most robust way to make this payment will be just to destroy the fees, and to thereby reduce the money supply, as this is equivalent to paying the fee out to all holders of XCP in proportion to the size of their holdings. Unlike with Ethereum, the fees will not be constant values, but rather fractions of the total extant supply of XCP, so that no amount of computation will deplete the supply of XCP and drive it into negative territory: the divisibility of XCP ensures that there will always be enough XCP."

[baddw]

so in other words- will the system automatically distribute fees to addresses? trying to understand the envisioned mechanism

He fees will be burned (destroyed), thereby reducing the supply.

How quickly will the supply be reduced?

This is taken from the main article-
"The simplest and most robust way to make this payment will be just to destroy the fees, and to thereby reduce the money supply, as this is equivalent to paying the fee out to all holders of XCP in proportion to the size of their holdings. Unlike with Ethereum, the fees will not be constant values, but rather fractions of the total extant supply of XCP, so that no amount of computation will deplete the supply of XCP and drive it into negative territory: the divisibility of XCP ensures that there will always be enough XCP."

So to expand on that, maybe the initial fee is set at .1 XCP, which comes to 1/26,470,780 of the XCP supply.  This fraction is kept constant.  This .1 XCP is burned.  This reduces the supply by .1 XCP.  The next fee will be very slightly less than .1 XCP.  The fees will get smaller (in XCP) as time goes on, but they will remain the same proportion of the existing XCP supply.  I would hope that over time as the money supply gets smaller, a re-denomination will take place, so ".1 XCP" becomes "1 NewXCP" so that we're not chasing decimal points all over the place.

To answer the question, the supply will be reduced as quickly as people make these contracts.

Potential problem with the 'burn the fees' model: If the fees are all burnt to a given address (like the 1Counterparty address used for the original burn), which is surely the easiest solution, then these transactions will be easily blocked by hostile miners.

[belmonty]

so in other words- will the system automatically distribute fees to addresses? trying to understand the envisioned mechanism

He fees will be burned (destroyed), thereby reducing the supply.

How quickly will the supply be reduced?

This is taken from the main article-
"The simplest and most robust way to make this payment will be just to destroy the fees, and to thereby reduce the money supply, as this is equivalent to paying the fee out to all holders of XCP in proportion to the size of their holdings. Unlike with Ethereum, the fees will not be constant values, but rather fractions of the total extant supply of XCP, so that no amount of computation will deplete the supply of XCP and drive it into negative territory: the divisibility of XCP ensures that there will always be enough XCP."

So to expand on that, maybe the initial fee is set at .1 XCP, which comes to 1/26,470,780 of the XCP supply.  This fraction is kept constant.  This .1 XCP is burned.  This reduces the supply by .1 XCP.  The next fee will be very slightly less than .1 XCP.  The fees will get smaller (in XCP) as time goes on, but they will remain the same proportion of the existing XCP supply.  I would hope that over time as the money supply gets smaller, a re-denomination will take place, so ".1 XCP" becomes "1 NewXCP" so that we're not chasing decimal points all over the place.

To answer the question, the supply will be reduced as quickly as people make these contracts.

Potential problem with the 'burn the fees' model: If the fees are all burnt to a given address (like the 1Counterparty address used for the original burn), which is surely the easiest solution, then these transactions will be easily blocked by hostile miners.

I heard that XCP are destroyed each time an asset is created, although I have not noticed the supply going massively down. Is there a chart somewhere showing the rate coins are being destroyed at?

[BldSwtTrs]

Wow I just saw the price  
Now I need to read the thread to see what have happened

[ElTomeko27]

Wow I just saw the price  
Now I need to read the thread to see what have happened

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/12/bitbeat-bitcoin-2-0-firm-counterparty-adopts-ethereums-software/

[cAPSLOCK]

Long overdue given the considerable investment from Patrick Byrne and the sheer intelligence and initiative of the core developers.

Could easily become another bitcoin in terms of return over time. I'm holding.

I think this is a sort of misunderstanding.  

Counterparty really *IS* Bitcoin as it is made entirely of bitcoin's blockchain.

[Patel]

One of the main reasons for sidechains is to get rid of altcoins, and keep the altchains. Basically, it's so that bitcoin can be the main crypto currency. In my opinion, the one thing holding Counterparty back, is that it's native currency is a altcoin with very low liquidity. If Counterparty was a sidechain, it's native currency would be bitcoin.

Question: If Counterparty gets forked to a Bitcoin sidechain, is there a way to move XCP balances to the sidechain?

Sidechains is still in development, but it's something to consider. If Counterparty did get forked to a sidechain, the fork may have stronger network effect due to bitcoin being able to be used for all the features, rather than just some. If a Counterparty sidechain does happen, then all the new development would move to the sidechain since it uses BTC entirely.

The only drawback would be possibly losing amazing devs.

[GeminiSimba]

One of the main reasons for sidechains is to get rid of altcoins, and keep the altchains. Basically, it's so that bitcoin can be the main crypto currency. In my opinion, the one thing holding Counterparty back, is that it's native currency is a altcoin with very low liquidity. If Counterparty was a sidechain, it's native currency would be bitcoin.

Question: If Counterparty gets forked to a Bitcoin sidechain, is there a way to move XCP balances to the sidechain?

Sidechains is still in development, but it's something to consider.

I appreciate your opinion but it's not really proven yet if the side chain concept is that necessary (Tree-Chain proposal seems better to me) and certainly it's a pretty huge jump to say that we are being "held back" due to having an altcoin with low liquidity. XCP is a stake in a protocol for the tools that will be built upon it. It's not about the xcp precisely it's more about what platforms get built on top of counterparty that will give XCP the value that it will have. I think people should stop thinking of XCP as a currency and think of it more as a building block which in my personal opinion makes it FAR more valuable than a liquid currency.

**When I think of XCP I imagine an Island the middle of an ocean that is full of sharks. On this Island is built a wonderland of things that any shipwrecked adventurer only dreams of arriving at to experience. XCP is the physical land itself on which these wonders are built but since it's an island the amount of things which can be built on it are finite, and if you want to build something wonderful on this isolated island you will need to purchase some of the land itself (XCP). **

[spacerman]

Huge 66 BTC sell wall at .025
I'm seeing a serious retrace with XCP

[deliciousowl]

**When I think of XCP I imagine an Island the middle of an ocean that is full of sharks. On this Island is built a wonderland of things that any shipwrecked adventurer only dreams of arriving at to experience. XCP is the physical land itself on which these wonders are built but since it's an island the amount of things which can be built on it are finite, and if you want to build something wonderful on this isolated island you will need to purchase some of the land itself (XCP). **

Yes, I fully agree. Bitcoin and Counterparty as a protocol are essentially an anti-fragile substrate on which black swan events occur. I think the intesting price behavior of XCP adds a lot of credibility to this perspective.

[Matt Y]

Phantom has mentioned a couple times that sidechains currently have security issues.

[Patel]

Phantom has mentioned a couple times that sidechains currently have security issues.

I believe the security issue Phantom mentioned is of merge mining. Namecheap is also merge mined, and it has not been successfully attacked afaik. Due to all the features Counterparty provides, it would be one of the first thing to get forked, and everyone would have an incentive to secure it's chain vs attack it. Also, it would add value to btc vs an alt, which aligns well with most peoples interests.

I am speculating, but it's a very big possibility. This is XCP's (Counterparty's native currency) biggest threat.

[funnynews]

Huge 66 BTC sell wall at .025
I'm seeing a serious retrace with XCP

Sell in .023 Dump at .016 again is my bet.

[romerun]

did I read the chart upside down or we just broke the ath

[jrmg]

Thanks to waiting with news i get my coins yesterday to Bter, just right time to buy 

[weex]

Potential problem with the 'burn the fees' model: If the fees are all burnt to a given address (like the 1Counterparty address used for the original burn), which is surely the easiest solution, then these transactions will be easily blocked by hostile miners.

The way fees are burnt for other things doesn't require they be sent anywhere. Burning to an address is a hack for when you can't modify the protocol itself. In this case, the actual calculations done by the software remove the fees from a spending address and put them nowhere. The most recent change that did something like this in Counterparty was the change that charged fees to make dividends.

[BitThink]

so in other words- will the system automatically distribute fees to addresses? trying to understand the envisioned mechanism

He fees will be burned (destroyed), thereby reducing the supply.

How quickly will the supply be reduced?

This is taken from the main article-
"The simplest and most robust way to make this payment will be just to destroy the fees, and to thereby reduce the money supply, as this is equivalent to paying the fee out to all holders of XCP in proportion to the size of their holdings. Unlike with Ethereum, the fees will not be constant values, but rather fractions of the total extant supply of XCP, so that no amount of computation will deplete the supply of XCP and drive it into negative territory: the divisibility of XCP ensures that there will always be enough XCP."

So to expand on that, maybe the initial fee is set at .1 XCP, which comes to 1/26,470,780 of the XCP supply.  This fraction is kept constant.  This .1 XCP is burned.  This reduces the supply by .1 XCP.  The next fee will be very slightly less than .1 XCP.  The fees will get smaller (in XCP) as time goes on, but they will remain the same proportion of the existing XCP supply.  I would hope that over time as the money supply gets smaller, a re-denomination will take place, so ".1 XCP" becomes "1 NewXCP" so that we're not chasing decimal points all over the place.

To answer the question, the supply will be reduced as quickly as people make these contracts.

Potential problem with the 'burn the fees' model: If the fees are all burnt to a given address (like the 1Counterparty address used for the original burn), which is surely the easiest solution, then these transactions will be easily blocked by hostile miners.

What you described is the way to burn BTC, not XCP. Burning XCP is just to reduce it from the original address and make it disappeared.