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

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[JahPowerBit]

Also ... I am fed up with the full bitcoind node in the background.
I just started implementing an extention, which will allow the lightweight operation with obelisk nodes like for example electrum.
I hope you guys will be interested in that?

Sure!! It would be great!

[bitcoinrocks]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

[Djinou94]

Huh what BTCD  

BTCD is an alternative implementation of a Bitcoin full node (like Bitcoin Core formerly known as Bitcoind).

These current improvements to Counterparty are purely structural and make the entire implementation more 'modular'. In very simple terms this makes it much more friendly to developers, by breaking up the structure of the code into separate 'compartments'. You might need one part, but not the other. You might to connect one with something, but not something else. Etc. It also makes it clear what part of the code is fragile to change, and what can be changed freely.

This is a direct response to various concerns voiced by the community, as some projects and developers faced challenges. This move towards a 'plug-in' mentality, clarity and expansion is essentially a statement by the developers showing that Counterparty is not a standalone 'program'. Counterparty is an open-source protocol that invites developers to experiment and explore.



As JahPowerBit said, You can make light wallets, GUIs and applications with much less effort now.

For people following the Counterparty project on github (something I really recommend), you may have noticed that documentation is being completely redone as well. https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP

It's easy to deduce that this is a clear effort in speeding up the development of 3rd party applications, reducing the learning curve and risk for new developers, and creating a more stable platform.

Let's get coding, party people

Ah ok i thought Bitcoin Dark i was lost
Thanks for the explanation

[cjanthony]

Join the crew on BTC_XCP Cryptocat for good trading discussion.

[Bitinvestor]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

[delulo]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.

[bassclef]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.

Bitcoin has the most secure and time-tested blockchain. To new businesses, Bitcoin is the only crypto worth using. It is the reason Medici is using Counterparty. One can argue the virtue of other cryptos, but they are all theoretical unless they see actual adoption and move beyond their initial development phase. XCP would not be close to where it is today without Bitcoin. It's a good thing that XCP doesn't use it's own blockchain as I've seen dozens of cryptos fizzle away, and when they do, their mining network follows.

[ninjaboon]

Join the crew on BTC_XCP Cryptocat for good trading discussion.

the room is empty.

[romerun]

Since we use the -addrindex, separated wallet from counterparty-server,  are we there yet,  where we can have public counterparty-servers to respond to thin counterparty-clients?

I think one issue that deters ppl from participating  is it requires quite a dedication to set server up.

If there were a list of servers for a thin client to use, like electrum model,  it would gear up the adoption.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[delulo]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.

Bitcoin has the most secure and time-tested blockchain. To new businesses, Bitcoin is the only crypto worth using. It is the reason Medici is using Counterparty. One can argue the virtue of other cryptos, but they are all theoretical unless they see actual adoption and move beyond their initial development phase. XCP would not be close to where it is today without Bitcoin. It's a good thing that XCP doesn't use it's own blockchain as I've seen dozens of cryptos fizzle away, and when they do, their mining network follows.

I agree that for now Bitcoin is the best option for marketing counterparty. Also agree about the "time tested" factor which is another reason to be on the Bitcoin blockchain. So no doubt that for now Bitcoin is the best option.

I doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain it is the safest option given (delegated) proof of stake (DPOS) alternatives like BitShares. DPOS is more decentralized and cheaper than POW (Bitcoin's funding of security through dilution /issuance of new coins is a real cost; simple calculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg6852307#msg6852307). Whether it is more "safe" depends on your definition of "safe" and security is hard to measure anyway (different attack vectors). To me it is obvious that Bitcoin in it's current form (POW) can not serve the purpose of a global ledger at scale. I guess that the Counterparty team is thinking about alternatives but it would be nice to see that they do.

An Overstock representative here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiyRV99eEI (dont find the exact spot atm) also said that a crypto asset that has the value of a fiat currency is needed to facilitate buying of company shares. Who would want to buy a completely volatile asset in order to buy company stock with it? That volatility is a risk for a non trader. BitShares has solved this too with BitAssets / market pegged assets (http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/).

I am not saying Bitshares is the solution. What I want to say is that I as an investor would be more confident if I saw a publicly visible long term vision to those problems (Bitcoin's POW and volatility risk) by the Counterparty team. I do believe though the Counterparty team is capable of meeting the market's needs.

[Matt Y]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.

Bitcoin has the most secure and time-tested blockchain. To new businesses, Bitcoin is the only crypto worth using. It is the reason Medici is using Counterparty. One can argue the virtue of other cryptos, but they are all theoretical unless they see actual adoption and move beyond their initial development phase. XCP would not be close to where it is today without Bitcoin. It's a good thing that XCP doesn't use it's own blockchain as I've seen dozens of cryptos fizzle away, and when they do, their mining network follows.

I agree that for now Bitcoin is the best option for marketing counterparty. Also agree about the "time tested" factor which is another reason to be on the Bitcoin blockchain. So no doubt that for now Bitcoin is the best option.

I doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain it is the safest option given (delegated) proof of stake (DPOS) alternatives like BitShares. DPOS is more decentralized and cheaper than POW (Bitcoin's funding of security through dilution /issuance of new coins is a real cost; simple calculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg6852307#msg6852307). Whether it is more "safe" depends on your definition of "safe" and security is hard to measure anyway (different attack vectors). To me it is obvious that Bitcoin in it's current form (POW) can not serve the purpose of a global ledger at scale. I guess that the Counterparty team is thinking about alternatives but it would be nice to see that they do.

An Overstock representative here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiyRV99eEI (dont find the exact spot atm) also said that a crypto asset that has the value of a fiat currency is needed to facilitate buying of company shares. Who would want to buy a completely volatile asset in order to buy company stock with it? That volatility is a risk for a non trader. BitShares has solved this too with BitAssets / market pegged assets (http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/).

I am not saying Bitshares is the solution. What I want to say is that I as an investor would be more confident if I saw a publicly visible long term vision to those problems (Bitcoin's POW and volatility risk) by the Counterparty team. I do believe though the Counterparty team is capable of meeting the market's needs.

You peg a Counterparty asset to the fiat of your choice so that you have a digital token with a constant value. The process is...

1. Some company makes a Counterparty asset that is always redeemable for $1 per unit. They sell those tokens on their super reputable bank site for $1.00 per unit (or more to build in profit model).
2. Users who want to buy stuff, like a stock on Medici, would buy those crypto dollars with regular fiat, skip all the volatility of Bitcoin, and have digital dollars in the cloud, so to speak.
3. Users could trade away the digital dollars to other people, sell them back to the institution they were created by, or simply buy things with them. They would always be redeemable for $1.00 unless whoever issued it went broke.

This just puts fiat on the blockchain, kind of.

[baddw]

It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?

The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.

The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.

Bitcoin has the most secure and time-tested blockchain. To new businesses, Bitcoin is the only crypto worth using. It is the reason Medici is using Counterparty. One can argue the virtue of other cryptos, but they are all theoretical unless they see actual adoption and move beyond their initial development phase. XCP would not be close to where it is today without Bitcoin. It's a good thing that XCP doesn't use it's own blockchain as I've seen dozens of cryptos fizzle away, and when they do, their mining network follows.

I agree that for now Bitcoin is the best option for marketing counterparty. Also agree about the "time tested" factor which is another reason to be on the Bitcoin blockchain. So no doubt that for now Bitcoin is the best option.

I doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain it is the safest option given (delegated) proof of stake (DPOS) alternatives like BitShares. DPOS is more decentralized and cheaper than POW (Bitcoin's funding of security through dilution /issuance of new coins is a real cost; simple calculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg6852307#msg6852307). Whether it is more "safe" depends on your definition of "safe" and security is hard to measure anyway (different attack vectors). To me it is obvious that Bitcoin in it's current form (POW) can not serve the purpose of a global ledger at scale. I guess that the Counterparty team is thinking about alternatives but it would be nice to see that they do.

An Overstock representative here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiyRV99eEI (dont find the exact spot atm) also said that a crypto asset that has the value of a fiat currency is needed to facilitate buying of company shares. Who would want to buy a completely volatile asset in order to buy company stock with it? That volatility is a risk for a non trader. BitShares has solved this too with BitAssets / market pegged assets (http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/).

I am not saying Bitshares is the solution. What I want to say is that I as an investor would be more confident if I saw a publicly visible long term vision to those problems (Bitcoin's POW and volatility risk) by the Counterparty team. I do believe though the Counterparty team is capable of meeting the market's needs.

You peg a Counterparty asset to the fiat of your choice so that you have a digital token with a constant value. The process is...

1. Some company makes a Counterparty asset that is always redeemable for $1 per unit. They sell those tokens on their super reputable bank site for $1.00 per unit (or more to build in profit model).
2. Users who want to buy stuff, like a stock on Medici, would buy those crypto dollars with regular fiat, skip all the volatility of Bitcoin, and have digital dollars in the cloud, so to speak.
3. Users could trade away the digital dollars to other people, sell them back to the institution they were created by, or simply buy things with them. They would always be redeemable for $1.00 unless whoever issued it went broke.

This just puts fiat on the blockchain, kind of.

Yes, exactly.  A "BitAsset" such as "BitUSD" could just as easily be created in Counterparty as in BitShares (and I am a BitShares owner/supporter).  These can easily be sold and pegged by reputable third parties acting as banks in order to transfer fiat to CounterpartyUSD without having to use Bitcoin or XCP tokens as intermediaries.

I guess the main difference is that BitUSD in BitShares can be created out of thin air, so to speak, by anybody willing to put up $1 worth of BitShares as collateral.  A CounterpartyUSD would require an asset issuer.

[fox19891989]

   What bad news? Why XCP suffers this big dump? I don't have XCP now and I am trying to buy some if the price goes lower.

[ik_do]

request: make the cost for joining the foundation a little cheaper; $50 USD is pretty excessive in my opinion.

I understand the price is an incentive for keeping the process fair and trying to weed out those who would attempt to have 300 accounts, but setting the bar at $50 is a bit ridiculous considering it is a huge amount in many third world countries. And if counterparty's true aim is "to power the decentralization of finance and support the creation of superior, frictionless, decentralized financial tools" then allowing a far larger pool of members

Even as someone who lives in a first world country, I am hesitant to spend $50 on an annual membership. Perhaps making a lottery for those who cannot afford the $50 would be a good way to foster larger community involvement in the foundation.

Another issue is that the bitcoinfoundation itself only charges $25 USD for an annual membership.

[mitache365]

  What bad news? Why XCP suffers this big dump? I don't have XCP now and I am trying to buy some if the price goes lower.

Its enough lower I think.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[ik_do]

BTW, if anyone has some XCP here to sell I am willing to buy XCP for 50 BTC at the price of 0.0052 BTC/XCP. Escrow is welcome.

I would btw immediately join a foundation for 50$  I would even consider taking more, so that not every average joe can enter but the large investors and early adopters. Not sure if this is a good idea though.

But that goes against the idea of producing tools for the entire world; everyone's opinion should be important, not just those with deep pockets.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged