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.
