Kluge
Donator
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
 |
January 02, 2014, 06:41:32 PM |
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
January 02, 2014, 06:50:57 PM |
|
How is the BTC burned? Does that mean I lose the BTC forever? How is this accomplished, technically?
The BTC are given to Bitcoin miners in fees. That makes them impossible to get back. So, if XCP will become popular, any pool, ghash.io for example, easily can create infinite quantity of XCP with such "burning" of BTC. Scheme is very simple: 1)create burning transaction
2)don't distribute it over the network
3)get back our btc as miners
4)get xcp as burners
5)???????
6)PROFIT
Am i right? Hmm. You might be, indeed. I didn't think of that. We may need to switch to destroying coins by sending them to an unspendable address. I'm patching counterpartyd right now to switch over to this new burn method, which, I think, is necessary. Thanks for the tip, bootch. Of course, don't burn on mainnet with the old way yet (the burn period hasn't actually started, though)! |
|
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
January 02, 2014, 07:18:20 PM |
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
The burn period is limited to one month, so the inflation can only last that long. And it looks like we'll have to actually destroy coins to avoid the attack that bootch found above. |
|
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 02, 2014, 07:19:17 PM |
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
Thanks for your balanced and supportive comments. Yes, another user has brought the dangers of our proof-of-burn implementation to our attention and we are fixing it right now. From now on BTC will be burned by being sent to an unspendable address. Our goal was to make the protocol as general and simple as possible; there are only five primary functions within XCP: 'send', 'issuance', 'order', 'broadcast', and 'bet'. For example, I don't think it is obvious that to create both an asset ID and a currency you use the 'issuance' function and that in turn to sell that asset/currency you put up an 'order'. It's things like that that make it hard really to catalog all of the different uses of Counterparty; we may have missed some ourselves! I agree with your that in general burning poses a real threat to BTC in the long term, but I equally agree that XCP as it stands has a symbiotic relationship with BTC. IMHO, as long as protocol layers sit on top of BTC, BTC is safe; you shouldn't saw off the branch you're sitting on, and I don't think users will. If nothing else, there is a lot of vested interest in the success of BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
January 02, 2014, 07:24:45 PM |
|
Isn't this implementation of proof-of-burn exceptionally dangerous? It can be infinitely inflated. You can't really invest in it and have to exchange it very quickly since value will be decreasing with adoption. Very interested in seeing how this plays out. Hard to wrap my head around all the different implications. Good job.
Burning (true burning, that is - not redistribution as in XCP implementation) itself is fascinating as it poses one of the greatest threats to the long-term survival of Bitcoin (with regards to it being the most-used). If people kept burning BTC, it could eventually be the case that a true-burning XCP simply takes over BTC as a more fungible and otherwise-useful alternative. As is, it has a symbiotic relationship with BTC, but this could easily be changed. Very, very interesting stuff you guys've done.
The burn period is limited to one month, so the inflation can only last that long. And it looks like we'll have to actually destroy coins to avoid the attack that bootch found above. Oh - completely misread what you wrote earlier. That makes more sense.  Thought there was a kind of 50% linearly-decreasing bonus to burned BTC and in a month, BTC is exchanged 1:1 for XCP. Will read readme before making more of an ass out of myself.  |
|
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:04:29 PM
Last edit: January 16, 2014, 10:23:42 PM by PhantomPhreak |
|
Update: I just pushed an updated version of counterpartyd to the GitHub repo which implements a new method for burning BTC for XCP: now counterpartyd sends the BTC to the following obviously unspendable addresses: '1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr' (mainnet) and 'mvCounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXW24Hef' (testnet). Obviously this fix hasn't had much testing, but the implementation was simple enough that I feel relatively confident that it will work. If anyone sees a problem with this new method, please let us know  . Warning: You must use counterpartyd to send the BTC or the burn will not be recognized. Follow the instructions on Read the Docs. Thanks for your help, bootch.
|
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:13:40 PM |
|
I am stupid, I have a mac and Bitcoin Qt - how do I invest for dummies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
klee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:23:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:34:45 PM |
|
While it is true that Mastercoin has already been around for several months and has lots of money, it has not yet succeeded in implementing any of the features proposed in the White Paper. Counterparty on the other hand is being released full-featured, though users should expect bugs (and report them!) and for the time being only run counterpartyd on testnet (except to burn real BTC to obtain real XCP, which must be done on mainnet). |
|
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:38:20 PM |
|
I am stupid, I have a mac and Bitcoin Qt - how do I invest for dummies?
There isn't yet an easy way to install counterpartyd on a Mac, sorry. There will be soon, though! |
|
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:41:20 PM |
|
How does XCP compare with MSC?
It is hard to make a true comparison, as MSC has very little code. Conceptually however the two projects have much in common. Can you be more specific as to what you would like to know? |
|
|
|
|
|
reader31
|
|
January 02, 2014, 08:53:14 PM |
|
I have a couple questions, 1) If I want to go ahead and test burning of real btc on the mainnet using, ./counterparty --rpc-password=PASSWORD burn --from=ADDRESS --quantity=QUANTITY can I go ahead and do that now? 2) The Counterparty protocol depends on the OP_RETURN feature of Bitcoin, which will not be widely enabled until the release of Bitcoind 0.9 in a number of weeks. Until then, Counterparty transactions on mainnet need to be mined by the pool Eligius, and so transaction times will be on the order of one hour. This just means that I have to wait a few hours to see any of the burning transactions that I do on the mainnet right? |
|
|
|
PhantomPhreak (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
|
|
January 02, 2014, 09:04:29 PM |
|
I have a couple questions, 1) If I want to go ahead and test burning of real btc on the mainnet using, ./counterparty --rpc-password=PASSWORD burn --from=ADDRESS --quantity=QUANTITY can I go ahead and do that now? 2) The Counterparty protocol depends on the OP_RETURN feature of Bitcoin, which will not be widely enabled until the release of Bitcoind 0.9 in a number of weeks. Until then, Counterparty transactions on mainnet need to be mined by the pool Eligius, and so transaction times will be on the order of one hour. This just means that I have to wait a few hours to see any of the burning transactions that I do on the mainnet right? 1) Yes you can, as long as you have the latest version from GitHub. 2) Correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
reader31
|
|
January 02, 2014, 09:08:39 PM |
|
one more question...
should the burning source address be created on the local bitcoin-qt wallet only or can I use a btc address from an online wallet like blockchain.info?
thx.
|
|
|
|
wizzardTim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000
Reality is stranger than fiction
|
|
January 02, 2014, 09:37:45 PM |
|
Is the bitcoin qt wallet necessary for this?
|
Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.
- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
|
|
|
|
cityglut
|
|
January 02, 2014, 09:39:52 PM |
|
one more question...
should the burning source address be created on the local bitcoin-qt wallet only or can I use a btc address from an online wallet like blockchain.info?
thx.
The burning source address must be created on the local bitcoin-qt wallet. |
|
|
|
|
|
reader31
|
|
January 02, 2014, 09:46:59 PM |
|
cool. thx for the quick response  |
|
|
|
becherovka
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 29
Merit: 0
|
|
January 02, 2014, 10:00:41 PM |
|
Why can't you can have both? Please! Go ahead! Be greedy! Download Counterparty and any others and decide which platform is best for your needs. Opensource here: https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd/ |
|
|
|
|
|
jeroenn13
|
|
January 02, 2014, 10:10:15 PM |
|
Guys, these members are new at Bitcointalk.
Please make sure you won't donate / spend anything before they actually showed something.
It "COULD" be a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
