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

[xnova]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

[1714706605]

1714706605

[1714706605]

1714706605

[bitcoinrocks]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

[xnova]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

In practice, services like Shapeshift can do simple XCP-BTC exchange today, and Shapeshift supports XCP. Shapeshift just doesn't use the Counterparty decentralized exchange functionality, though.

[deliciousowl]

BTC-XCP trading on the decentralized exchange is still supported both in the protocol itself and in the command-line client. The functionality was removed from Counterwallet simply because, based on user feedback, it proved to be rather unwieldy. I.e. it required users to stay logged in to complete the trades, which many users didn't/couldn't do, causing liquidity issues and frustrating users on the XCP side of the trade.

I feel the need to emphasize this further, as it is getting mentioned in rumors rather frequently:

BTC-XCP trading still works if you use the command-line client and counterparty-lib: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-cli

[bitcoinrocks]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC?  Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

[xnova]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC?  Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

[prophetx]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC?  Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

[xnova]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC?  Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

Not that I recall. You're welcome to, though.

[xnova]

Mobile counterparty wallet on the bitcoin reddit front page (currently the second entry down): https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3phfu9/mobile_counterparty_wallet_delivers_1st/

[prophetx]

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting.  So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC?  Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

Not that I recall. You're welcome to, though.

I sent him a msg in skype. 

btw who owns that counterwallet website?

[Praxis]

Mobile counterparty wallet on the bitcoin reddit front page (currently the second entry down): https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3phfu9/mobile_counterparty_wallet_delivers_1st/

Interestingly, price keeps falling even after this news / exposure
I guess price of XCP is not a good measurement of CP popularity

[mmortal03]

Mobile counterparty wallet on the bitcoin reddit front page (currently the second entry down): https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3phfu9/mobile_counterparty_wallet_delivers_1st/

Interestingly, price keeps falling even after this news / exposure
I guess price of XCP is not a good measurement of CP popularity

This is how crypto works. When good news comes out, the price goes lower. But, seriously, everything is going down relative to this current Bitcoin pop.

[Kalkuuuta]

(Found 9999 unique addresses with a total balance of 2634744.87612734 XCP)  

Over 0.00000001 XCP are in #4516 address.        +602 address
Over 1.0 XCP are in #3297                               +336        
Over 10.0 XCP are in #2331                              +94              
Over 100.0 XCP are in #1490                            -38              
Over 500.0 XCP are in #1064                             -49            
Over 1000.0 XCP are in #892                             -68            
Over 1500.0 XCP are in #149                             -11          
Over 2500.0 XCP are in #98                                 -3      
Over 5000.0 XCP are in #67                                +4

Total XCP balance have go down 6079.94 XCP.

6 month changes in addresses balances. Looks like peoples aren't really interested buying and holding XCP. Now it is under $80 what need to become over 100 XCP holder and in last 6 month more >100 XCP holders have sold than come in. Four new over 5000 XCP holders maybe have come when transfer burned coins to other address...

6 month ago 101 address have over 50% of coins and now 82 address have >50%.

If someone sell $3000 worth of XCP price drop to under $0.30 per XCP. It is 2% of richest address balance I think we will see new very low price before anything happen what take price go up.


Blockscan can't show over 9999 address for total address where have been before coins?

[Kalkuuuta]

Also ~842000 XCP are still in burning address. Maybe count few thousand wrong but about 840k.

Because this not have sold or even moved so far we can wait that all own someone/s from 84. biggest owners.

When total balance is 2634744 XCP this means 84 richest+burn address coins is 1317372 XCP+842033 XCP = 2159405 XCP.

2159405/2634744*100= 81.95% of coins own someone from top 84 address... Maybe even more, I am not surprised if over 90% of coins owns someone of this 84 address... What this mean for markets and price in future are interesting IF something big happen...

[BitThink]

Also ~842000 XCP are still in burning address. Maybe count few thousand wrong but about 840k.

Because this not have sold or even moved so far we can wait that all own someone/s from 84. biggest owners.

When total balance is 2634744 XCP this means 84 richest+burn address coins is 1317372 XCP+842033 XCP = 2159405 XCP.

2159405/2634744*100= 81.95% of coins own someone from top 84 address... Maybe even more, I am not surprised if over 90% of coins owns someone of this 84 address... What this mean for markets and price in future are interesting IF something big happen...

The whole bid side on poloniex, which is the main exchange of XCP, is less than 15 BTC, and the daily volume is at single digit. That's the reason why no big player is intested to move coins and sell them, cause they cannot liquidate their holdings without push price to almost 0.

[pankogulo]

For anyone interested in improving the Counterparty protocol, the community is starting the CIP process: https://counterpartytalk.org/t/beginning-the-counterparty-cip-process-cip-0001/1613

[BitThink]

For anyone interested in improving the Counterparty protocol, the community is starting the CIP process: https://counterpartytalk.org/t/beginning-the-counterparty-cip-process-cip-0001/1613

That's great. Thumb up.

[Kalkuuuta]

Also ~842000 XCP are still in burning address. Maybe count few thousand wrong but about 840k.

Because this not have sold or even moved so far we can wait that all own someone/s from 84. biggest owners.

When total balance is 2634744 XCP this means 84 richest+burn address coins is 1317372 XCP+842033 XCP = 2159405 XCP.

2159405/2634744*100= 81.95% of coins own someone from top 84 address... Maybe even more, I am not surprised if over 90% of coins owns someone of this 84 address... What this mean for markets and price in future are interesting IF something big happen...

The whole bid side on poloniex, which is the main exchange of XCP, is less than 15 BTC, and the daily volume is at single digit. That's the reason why no big player is intested to move coins and sell them, cause they cannot liquidate their holdings without push price to almost 0.

My main point was that there are not many small players, only big holders and long time believers

For anyone interested in improving the Counterparty protocol, the community is starting the CIP process: https://counterpartytalk.org/t/beginning-the-counterparty-cip-process-cip-0001/1613

Hope this make Counterparty better

[deliciousowl]

This app is amazing 

https://wallet.indiesquare.me/

[ShapeShift.io]

ShapeShift.io has released our instant exchange app for Android devices! Buy or sell Counterparty with bitcoin and 45+ cryptos instantly on any Android device. Exchange anytime, anywhere: https://shapeshift.io/site/tools/shapeshift-mobile