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

[halfcab123]

I don't understand how to tell if the reindex worked.. and I'm not sure if uhh.. I'm just stuck on this whole reindex thing.

[cityglut]

I don't see the reasoning behind an Asset Issuance based Currency Peg as opposed to a Feed Bet - The former requires trusting 'Bob' as the asset issuer, the later only a trusted feed.

In order for people to actually buy BOBUSD, Bob will most likely have to be not just be some guy, but, for example, the owner of a well-known BTC centralized exchange.

*If* Bob is trustworthy, then BOBUSD can be passed from user-to-user like a bank note, and hence could act a money replacement.

There are also two contingencies with bets: 1. there has to be someone broadcasting the data you want to bet on; 2. there has to be someone willing to take the other side of your bet; the latter requires that they agree to your odds, your leverage and your deadline.

Moreover with the CFD "currency peg", you are pegged against USD (for example) for, so to speak, a short time: what if the price of XCP dips again after your bet is over? Assuming the issuer is trustworthy, with an asset issuance based currency peg, you can maintain your peg for longer.

Also, the degree to which you can cover your bet is proportional to your leverage, hence a more secure peg means greater risk. With asset issuance based currency pegs, the price you buy at is the price of your peg. Naturally, for the risk taken by the issuer, the latter will probably require a premium.

Asset issuance based currency pegs, will, in my opinion,  probably always be "callable" assets, as the risk is otherwise completely on the side of the issuer.

[halfcab123]

I think the #1 pitfall that will always exist, is there's no way to cancel or fix a change.. or undo sending money to the wrong address and all this stuff.. All this will need be fixed, it has to be more humane, as of right now its SUPER secure, but its also cold (unfriendly,) and this will be a deterrent for mainstream in just about any blockchain implementation. There are ways around it I'm sure.. like multi-factor authentication for sending, or possibly having to send one transaction 2 or 3 times to ensure its accuracy. Thoughts @ 3am.

[cityglut]

A new asset (GLDAEA) appeared, linking to this page: http://bitcointangibletrust.com/

Interesting stuff going on...

That's great! I recommend that whoever issued GLDAEA [em]provide his issuing address on the website[/em], which will give some identity verification, and I recommend that users not purchase GLDAEA until the issuer has done so.

[porqupine]

I don't see the reasoning behind an Asset Issuance based Currency Peg as opposed to a Feed Bet - The former requires trusting 'Bob' as the asset issuer, the later only a trusted feed.

In order for people to actually buy BOBUSD, Bob will most likely have to be not just be some guy, but, for example, the owner of a well-known BTC centralized exchange.

There's something a tad ironic in this suggestion (given recent events).

Of course there has to be a reciprocal betting party, but in the feed case, the bet is trustless and only the broadcast is dependent, where as with BOB (hopefully not Mark) the BTC Exchange owner, there are two components to the trust. On one hand this could lead to larger and more long term commitments (since betting amounts are escrowed, a large capital would be idle during the bet, whereas in the later case both BOB and the buyer are free to utilize the respective assets exchanged freely). As for callable/non-callable assets, still the risk on the non-callable is only in so far as an issuer is solvent for sum total value of all the assets/obligations.

[cityglut]

I don't see the reasoning behind an Asset Issuance based Currency Peg as opposed to a Feed Bet - The former requires trusting 'Bob' as the asset issuer, the later only a trusted feed.

In order for people to actually buy BOBUSD, Bob will most likely have to be not just be some guy, but, for example, the owner of a well-known BTC centralized exchange.

There's something a tad ironic in this suggestion (given recent events).

Of course there has to be a reciprocal betting party, but in the feed case, the bet is trustless and only the broadcast is dependent, where as with BOB (hopefully not Mark) the BTC Exchange owner, there are two components to the trust. On one hand this could lead to larger and more long term commitments (since betting amounts are escrowed, a large capital would be idle during the bet, whereas in the later case both BOB and the buyer are free to utilize the respective assets exchanged freely). As for callable/non-callable assets, still the risk on the non-callable is only in so far as an issuer is solvent for sum total value of all the assets/obligations.

Hm, maybe I should change "Bob" to "Mark" so people are more aware of the risk involved...

My point was not to downplay the trust issue, but rather to say that *if* the trust issue can be gotten over, then asset based currency pegs have some features that CFD currency pegs lack, and avoid some of the dependencies as well.

[halfcab123]

In bets the feed has to be trusted. So there could be feed exploits where 2 people agree on a feed, where 1 is controlling the feed to benefit himself and thereby steals XCP (or any asset) in the trustless bet. So feed trust could be an issue I guess.

[GLaDOS]

If anyone wants to help test asset/dividend, give the Counterparty CAKE a try here:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,118.0.html

It'd be nice if you can pass the cake around too.

[qwertyqwerty]

If anyone wants to help test asset/dividend, give the Counterparty CAKE a try here:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,118.0.html

It'd be nice if you can pass the cake around too.

waiting for download and re-index but will try and pinch a slice if there's any left later  

to devs, or any expert user who know about Counterparty, I understand we cannot use SPV client, but is it possible to implement some 'lightweight' Server-Trusting Client, connecting to remote node(s)?

[halfcab123]

If anyone wants to help test asset/dividend, give the Counterparty CAKE a try here:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,118.0.html

It'd be nice if you can pass the cake around too.

Don't do it! The cake is a lie!

[romerun]

In bets the feed has to be trusted. So there could be feed exploits where 2 people agree on a feed, where 1 is controlling the feed to benefit himself and thereby steals XCP (or any asset) in the trustless bet. So feed trust could be an issue I guess.

not sure if it's currently possible but system should allow to have the odd number of feed broadcasters, and count the majority

[halfcab123]

If anyone wants to help test asset/dividend, give the Counterparty CAKE a try here:
https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,118.0.html

It'd be nice if you can pass the cake around too.

Don't do it! The cake is a lie!

[helloge]

hi,guys, when will the GUI version release ? what's the ETA?
thanks

[cityglut]

Can someone make a flowchart or a diagram of how this works?

Mastercoin has made a good diagram which, I believe, fits how XCP interacts with BTC and user-created assets well:

https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec/blob/master/images/layers.png

I have drawn one simple diagram of how counterparty protocol works.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474188.msg5231652#msg5231652

That is a good, succinct representation of the protocol! Thank you!

[uma97081]

XCP should overtake that greedy XRP

[led_lcd]

All,

I've been discussing with busoni who operates Poloniex the possibility of Poloniex basically issuing and underwriting the value of 1 XBTC = 1 BTC.

I have already issued 21M XBTC (divisible, non callable). It isn't locked because I'm getting an error locking it but this will be done prior to any sale of XBTC.

The idea is that Poloniex will create an service which will buy and sell XBTC to BTC at a fixed value of 1:1. The fee will be kept low + tx fees.

Pros
* Frictionless trading against XBTC
* More choice in the way the DEX is utilized

Cons
* Further centralized risk on Poloniex

If the idea goes forward, I'll transfer the asset to himself so there will be no more XBTC in circulation than what he sells.

How does everyone feel about this?

I'm going to attempt to instigate more feedback on this.

I'll explain one big advantage of the above. If Poloniex proves to be trustworthy, then a XBTC will have and maintain the same buying power as a BTC.

This means you can trade XCP for XBTC without using btcpay. You can totally avoid the troll orders because XCP and XBTC can be both held in escrow.

This will hold true for any Counterparty asset vs BTC.

[cityglut]

All,

I've been discussing with busoni who operates Poloniex the possibility of Poloniex basically issuing and underwriting the value of 1 XBTC = 1 BTC.

I have already issued 21M XBTC (divisible, non callable). It isn't locked because I'm getting an error locking it but this will be done prior to any sale of XBTC.

The idea is that Poloniex will create an service which will buy and sell XBTC to BTC at a fixed value of 1:1. The fee will be kept low + tx fees.

Pros
* Frictionless trading against XBTC
* More choice in the way the DEX is utilized

Cons
* Further centralized risk on Poloniex

If the idea goes forward, I'll transfer the asset to himself so there will be no more XBTC in circulation than what he sells.

How does everyone feel about this?

I'm going to attempt to instigate more feedback on this.

I'll explain one big advantage of the above. If Poloniex proves to be trustworthy, then a XBTC will have and maintain the same buying power as a BTC.

This means you can trade XCP for XBTC without using btcpay. You can totally avoid the troll orders because XCP and XBTC can be both held in escrow.

This will hold true for any Counterparty asset vs BTC.

This is a great idea! It's great to see such an excellent use of the protocol.

Just so Poloniex can prepare for the worst: Even if he underwrites XBTC with BTC, it is possible that he could end up taking a loss (e.g. the price of XBTC plummets and it will be in his best interest to buy back XBTC below parity). I would strongly suggest that he make a CFD and short the price of XBTC to hedge against the devaluation of XBTC. In this case, if BTC/XBTC < 1, he can make up for it with profits from his CFD.

led_lcd, I will PM you with some more details.

[uma97081]

All,

I've been discussing with busoni who operates Poloniex the possibility of Poloniex basically issuing and underwriting the value of 1 XBTC = 1 BTC.

I have already issued 21M XBTC (divisible, non callable). It isn't locked because I'm getting an error locking it but this will be done prior to any sale of XBTC.

The idea is that Poloniex will create an service which will buy and sell XBTC to BTC at a fixed value of 1:1. The fee will be kept low + tx fees.

Pros
* Frictionless trading against XBTC
* More choice in the way the DEX is utilized

Cons
* Further centralized risk on Poloniex

If the idea goes forward, I'll transfer the asset to himself so there will be no more XBTC in circulation than what he sells.

How does everyone feel about this?

I'm going to attempt to instigate more feedback on this.

I'll explain one big advantage of the above. If Poloniex proves to be trustworthy, then a XBTC will have and maintain the same buying power as a BTC.

This means you can trade XCP for XBTC without using btcpay. You can totally avoid the troll orders because XCP and XBTC can be both held in escrow.

This will hold true for any Counterparty asset vs BTC.

This is a great idea! It's great to see such an excellent use of the protocol.

Just so Poloniex can prepare for the worst: Even if he underwrites XBTC with BTC, it is possible that he could end up taking a loss (e.g. the price of XBTC plummets and it will be in his best interest to buy back XBTC below parity). I would strongly suggest that he make a CFD and short the price of XBTC to hedge against the devaluation of XBTC. In this case, if BTC/XBTC < 1, he can make up for it with profits from his CFD.

led_lcd, I will PM you with some more details.

There is a possibility Poloniex will go bankrupt or its software fails, like MtGox. What will happen if such thing occur?

[Alias]

All,

I've been discussing with busoni who operates Poloniex the possibility of Poloniex basically issuing and underwriting the value of 1 XBTC = 1 BTC.

I have already issued 21M XBTC (divisible, non callable). It isn't locked because I'm getting an error locking it but this will be done prior to any sale of XBTC.

The idea is that Poloniex will create an service which will buy and sell XBTC to BTC at a fixed value of 1:1. The fee will be kept low + tx fees.

Pros
* Frictionless trading against XBTC
* More choice in the way the DEX is utilized

Cons
* Further centralized risk on Poloniex

If the idea goes forward, I'll transfer the asset to himself so there will be no more XBTC in circulation than what he sells.

How does everyone feel about this?

I'm going to attempt to instigate more feedback on this.

I'll explain one big advantage of the above. If Poloniex proves to be trustworthy, then a XBTC will have and maintain the same buying power as a BTC.

This means you can trade XCP for XBTC without using btcpay. You can totally avoid the troll orders because XCP and XBTC can be both held in escrow.

This will hold true for any Counterparty asset vs BTC.

While this is a good idea overall, I don't think that Poloniex should be the only backer. This should be decentralised as much as possible. And Poloniex should be 100% transparent about their balances and reserves of XBTC and BTC for their own sake.

Is there not an issue with the fact that there are 21 Million XBTC and just over 12.4 Million BTC (including all the burned and lost coins!)?

[BitThink]

1) trolls could attack XBTC/BTC like they did to XCP/BTC.
2) x BTC needs to be put in a public address for x XBTC to circulate in counterparty.