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

[PhantomPhreak]

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

[1715093312]

1715093312

[1715093312]

1715093312

[PhantomPhreak]

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

+1

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

[kdrop22]

BitcoinTangibleTrust
Will you be selling Silver on your site as well. The reason I ask is because the spot price of one ounce gold coins is > 1400$.  
Beta testers/Early adopters of the service are not going to be spending large amounts. You need to get a few users on board for a smaller amount(possibly using smaller coins or sliver), then have them provide reviews and build trust in the community. Once trust is established larger orders will start to come in.  

[jimhsu]

Latest Counterwallet development update (with new screenshots):

https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,79.msg1235.html#msg1235

This looks awesome, great work.

Can confirm that it works as good as it looks. We flattened out a ton of bugs this week (more to go though).

[grandpa_seth]

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

+1

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

I like #625, except maybe get rid of the gray XCP underneath Counterparty. The logo with just Counterparty all in the same blue looks good.

[porqupine]

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

[BitcoinTangibleTrust]

Can you explain in which way the Private keys correspond to the ownership of the physical gold stored? Is the gold only redeemable by private key and in no way by your request without being provided that key on behalf of an owner to make the redemption?

Great question and I will add this question and answer to the FAQ, as well.
We have one custodian partner with whom this is currently working and for which we are still testing, but our approach is as follows:
Step 1: Customer who purchase gold through our platform will supply us a bitcoin address to send their Counterparty Goldcoin. We will assume that they are the owner of the address and they have the private key for that public address.
Step 2: We track the public address of each Goldcoin we issue on Counterparty and update our custody database which we share with our custody partner.
Step 3: We have provided our custody partner a digital signing application that requires the owner of the public address to digitally sign our redemption verification message with their private key. Only successful signature will allow for the release of the gold and they still need to provide contact information at redemption, as well.
Given that we don't have the private key, we cannot sign for the gold ourselves.

What do you think? Does this sound reasonable?

It sounds promising. How is this going to work if someone sells their Goldcoin on the DEX to another person? It will now be associated with a new Pub/Priv key. Will the application in question use an active Node to verify the Blockchain?

I've added your first question to our FAQ. I will add this one as well. Here's our answer to the follow-up and I'll update the FAQ (without code) if you consider this response acceptable.

The Counterparty API allows us to query the bitcoin public address for each asset we issue. Therefore, we are always able to tell which address has the asset. We don't even need to hunt through the blockchain. Counterpartyd api command get_asset_info: http://counterpartyd.readthedocs.org/en/latest/API.html#get-asset-info tells us which bitcoin address owns the asset and that address will need to use its private key to successfully sign for redemption.

Thoughts?

[PhantomPhreak]

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

The vast majority of those assets were created before the fee was put in place.

[porqupine]

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

The vast majority of those assets were created before the fee was put in place.

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

[Bountyful]

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

I believe that I brought this idea of subscription fees for the asset in discussion previously here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,150.0.html

I am not sure what the devs have decided, but the recommendation by Global_trade_Repo and by GLaDOS were very helpful.

It's my view that asset issuance will be hobbled by this 5XCP price and this will also depress the value of XCP as companies cannot build quickly enough on the platform.

[freedomfighter]

I have a question with regards to XCP's use within the ECOsystem:

1) burning 5xcp's per asset: even if overtime this goes down to 2 or 3xcps- I imagine that if 300,000 assets are created overtime (not much if you think of it as many will not last etc.)- you would end up taking about 1M XCPs from "circulation". Since XCPs are finite- what happens then? or is the intention to always create XCPs for burning purposes after buying them with BTCs? please clarify

2) Is there an intention to increase the 2.6M XCPs or is this prohibited by the protocol (and will not be right in my opinion)?

3) I'm trying to understand the use of XCPs: 1) asset creation 2) betting will require XCPs? or can they use any coin created on top of counterparty? 3) same with DACs: will they be required to use XCPs aside from the initial issuance of stocks?

I am asking because: if one can use BTCs or XBTCs on top of the system so there is no use for XCPs realy aside from the issuance, so wht can drive the value of the XCP as currency (even within the ecosystem- I know I will not buy a flight ticket with it but with BTC)

Thanks

[PhantomPhreak]

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

I believe that I brought this idea of subscription fees for the asset in discussion previously here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,150.0.html

I am not sure what the devs have decided, but the recommendation by Global_trade_Repo and by GLaDOS were very helpful.

It's my view that asset issuance will be hobbled by this 5XCP price and this will also depress the value of XCP as companies cannot build quickly enough on the platform.

This is a fine idea, but with such things the devil is realyl in the details. It's very important to keep the Counterparty protocol as simple as possible... especially at this stage, when people are not using the existing functionality anywhere near as much as they could. The network has a great potential to scale, and we have to avoid hard-coded values, fees, etc. wherever possible. Worse is better.

[cityglut]

I have a question with regards to XCP's use within the ECOsystem:

1) burning 5xcp's per asset: even if overtime this goes down to 2 or 3xcps- I imagine that if 300,000 assets are created overtime (not much if you think of it as many will not last etc.)- you would end up taking about 1M XCPs from "circulation". Since XCPs are finite- what happens then? or is the intention to always create XCPs for burning purposes after buying them with BTCs? please clarify

2) Is there an intention to increase the 2.6M XCPs or is this prohibited by the protocol (and will not be right in my opinion)?

The protocol does not allow for any more XCP to be created.

The number XCP destroyed for asset issuance will be changed depending on the price. But since the price of XCP is extremely volatile and the asset issuance feature is rarely right now, it seems premature and misguided to try to pick what an appropriate number would be. In the future, a proof-of-stake voting system regarding fee-sizes is probably the best solution, as it is the most general, but that would not be a trivial thing to implement.

3) I'm trying to understand the use of XCPs: 1) asset creation 2) betting will require XCPs? or can they use any coin created on top of counterparty? 3) same with DACs: will they be required to use XCPs aside from the initial issuance of stocks?

I am asking because: if one can use BTCs or XBTCs on top of the system so there is no use for XCPs realy aside from the issuance, so wht can drive the value of the XCP as currency (even within the ecosystem- I know I will not buy a flight ticket with it but with BTC)

Thanks

XCP are use for callable assets, asset creation, bets and betting fees; neither BTC nor user-created assets can be used for any of these features. BTC cannot be escrowed by the protocol, so it cannot be used for bets, and having Counterparty's native currency will simplify and increase the liquidity of bets. Also, since betting fees are a fraction of a bet, it also ensures that feed-operators get paid in one of the most widely used and stable currencies in the Counterparty ecosystem.

[Bellebite2014]

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

+1

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

Well, seems like the current proposals are not getting much love, for obvious reasons. At least, the current one looks different, and is not like a coin with a random shitty picture of a bird, dog, USD sign... You name it.
Did you only receive those 6 proposals ? Can we see the others ?

[halfcab123]

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

+1

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

Well, seems like the current proposals are not getting much love, for obvious reasons. At least, the current one looks different, and is not like a coin with a random shitty picture of a bird, dog, USD sign... You name it.
Did you only receive those 6 proposals ? Can we see the others ?

I'd like to see a flat rendition of the current, with flat colors

[qtgwith]

Latest Counterwallet development update (with new screenshots):

https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,79.msg1235.html#msg1235

Very very cool! Thanks for great work!

[qtgwith]

New screenshots looking good.  Make it very ready before launch to public, few day or week more time to orginal plan is not bad if its working really good without bugs

Yes. We have enough time to wait.

[baddw]

I have a couple of questions.  I recently purchased some XCP on an exchange.  I have not yet set up an XCP wallet/client, and I will probably just wait until a Mac wallet is released, because I don't want to download yet another full BTC blockchain in a VM on my MacBook.  But I would like to get my XCP off the exchange for security purposes.

So, can I withdraw my coins from the exchange?  Can I just give it one of my BTC addresses, and the XCP will be sent to that address?  (I believe the answer will be yes.)  I understand that I will not be able to send/spend them until I set up an XCP wallet, and that's fine... this is more of a "buy and hold" investment.

Assuming that the answer to the first question is "Yes", is my BTC address now restricted in any way?  I understand that XCP uses BTC as a "transport layer".  Does this mean that my BTC address will receive some amount of BTC, with the XCP encoded on it somehow?  If so, I would have to be careful not to send out those "XCP marked" BTC.  Or is the whole thing handled differently, and I'm free to spend my BTC address down to 0 BTC if I want to, but my XCP will still be tracked separately?

I think I know the answers here, but just wanted to be sure before withdrawing my XCP to a BTC address that I use frequently.

[miscreanity]

You might put James Turk, founder of GoldMoney.com, into the mix. He had been quite skeptical of Bitcoin, but more than a year ago, after doing a lot of his own research, he embraced cryptocurrencies and had been trying to use them at GoldMoney.com. I don't know exactly how, though. He's very critical of the entrenched powers and their abuse of the gold market in order to support fiat currencies. So he not only has a great deal of knowledge and experience about the gold and other precious metals markets, he is very interested in how cryptocurrencies can disrupt the destructive and corrupt politico-economic systems in place now.

I have no idea how to get his attention. I am sure that wealthy, influential people like him are bombarded with "great ideas" all the time by naive entrepreneurs. But if you make a solid business proposal (and it sounds like you have a very solid beginning), he might listen.

Google "James Turk Bitcoin" and you'll find a few links, including this interview (http://bitcoinmoney.com/post/31942156510/james-turk-felix-moreno). He's been trying to integrate Bitcoin into his business, but I'm not sure how successful he's been. (And I haven't done all that much research.) It would be easy-ish to take payments in bitcoin (several companies are already doing it), but what you're proposing is far more advanced and interesting.

Much gratitude from our team. Your referral to James Turk is helpful. We were aware of GoldMoney, but not of their bitcoin trials and struggles. We will reach out to him to connect as I think we might learn from their actions and we may be able to add value to their efforts with bitcoin and Counterparty.

Thank you.

There were several surveys conducted with existing clients and GoldMoney now has a partner company, Netagio.

[BitThink]

Latest Counterwallet development update (with new screenshots):

https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,79.msg1235.html#msg1235

Great work.

One question:
Since the web wallet is based on pass phrases, there's no way to import private keys. Hence, the users have to send their XCP holding to a new address generated by the web wallet, right? In this case, my previous prediction that the web wallet will bring a lot of sellers immediately may be not so correct, hence they still have to install all the dependency before they can send their XCP.