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

[Anon136]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

[kdrop22]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out.
http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspx

[Bountyful]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

You can even get started with the wiki examples, as well here https://www.counterparty.co/wiki/assets/

[Anon136]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out.
http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspx

Any considerable risk of the asset getting wiped at some point in the future? can people trade them with each other?

[kdrop22]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out.
http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspx

Any considerable risk of the asset getting wiped at some point in the future? can people trade them with each other?

I would say it is quite safe, as the assets are stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. I have been using it in the command prompt for quite some time.
Yes, people can trade them with each other in the Distributed Exchange.

[led_lcd]

is counterparty ready for the issuance of basic assets? something simple like claim checks?

Yes, you can issue assets in counterparty. The functionality has been in place for a month, you are welcome to check it out.
http://www.blockscan.com/asset.aspx

Any considerable risk of the asset getting wiped at some point in the future? can people trade them with each other?

I don't forsee a reason for any asset being wiped out. They are being used for 'real' purposes now.

There are some real user issued assets that are in circulation and yes they can be traded in the DEX.

cf
MPTSTOCK http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=MPTSTOCK
CAKE http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=CAKE
XBTC http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=XBTC (this was issued by myself)

[halfcab123]

I don't see why xcp and msc can't coexist, I think there are some frightened investors over there :/

[deliciousowl]

I don't see why xcp and msc can't coexist, I think there are some frightened investors over there :/

hate to reiterate this, because the phrase is so worn out, but

first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[pikuchato]

Noob question, please explain

Does NXT, XCP and etherium try to accomplish the same thing?
The only difference is that XCP runs on the bitcoin chain?

[Fernandez]

I don't see why xcp and msc can't coexist, I think there are some frightened investors over there :/

They will end up with similar feature set, so unlikely both will be successes.

The main problem for XCP seems to be the lack of funds. Even though XCP has shown more competent developers, competing over a long time against MSC with lots of funds is difficult.

[Fernandez]

Noob question, please explain

Does NXT, XCP and etherium try to accomplish the same thing?
The only difference is that XCP runs on the bitcoin chain?

XCP and NXT along with MSC seem to be trying the same thing. XCP runs on the BTC blockchain but they can decide anytime to shift to a different coin or even run its own blockchain.

Ethereum is different, and at this point just a lot of hot air and in my opinion will be a flop. Think of it as an Operating System on which other apps will be built.

[pikuchato]

Noob question, please explain

Does NXT, XCP and etherium try to accomplish the same thing?
The only difference is that XCP runs on the bitcoin chain?

XCP and NXT along with MSC seem to be trying the same thing. XCP runs on the BTC blockchain but they can decide anytime to shift to a different coin or even run its own blockchain.

Ethereum is different, and at this point just a lot of hot air and in my opinion will be a flop. Think of it as an Operating System on which other apps will be built.

thank you

[nakaone]

I don't see why xcp and msc can't coexist, I think there are some frightened investors over there :/

They will end up with similar feature set, so unlikely both will be successes.

The main problem for XCP seems to be the lack of funds. Even though XCP has shown more competent developers, competing over a long time against MSC with lots of funds is difficult.

there are at least a few hundred early adopters and burners who have interest in xcp succeeding

additionally the developers say to be self-sufficient and had until now no problems even to fund premium auditing - I assume they did not create counterparty protocol to become rich 

no doubt msc has more money (even though we do not know, but it is highly likely), but why does it need >1000 btc to develop and run a protocol on top of bitcoin?

[Fernandez]

I don't see why xcp and msc can't coexist, I think there are some frightened investors over there :/

They will end up with similar feature set, so unlikely both will be successes.

The main problem for XCP seems to be the lack of funds. Even though XCP has shown more competent developers, competing over a long time against MSC with lots of funds is difficult.

there are at least a few hundred early adopters and burners who have interest in xcp succeeding

additionally the developers say to be self-sufficient and had until now no problems even to fund premium auditing - I assume they did not create counterparty protocol to become rich  

no doubt msc has more money (even though we do not know, but it is highly likely), but why does it need >1000 btc to develop and run a protocol on top of bitcoin?

It helps when you have to hire a lot of additional developers to make several features in parallel.

A few hundred early adopters and burners doesn't translate to funds for bounties.

I am not saying MSC will be a definite success and XCP a failure. If it was I would have sold XCP now and bought more MSC. Just what I think may be a likely outcome.

[halfcab123]

Considering what's been done so far, I have unbiased confidence in xcp surpassing it's goals.

[Fernandez]

Considering what's been done so far, I have unbiased confidence in xcp surpassing it's goals.

It can't be unbiased if if you have already staked a lot in XCP and none in MSC.

[halfcab123]

Considering what's been done so far, I have unbiased confidence in xcp surpassing it's goals.

It can't be unbiased if if you have already staked a lot in XCP and none in MSC.

That's actually not true of a mature investor. Needless to say, whether or not xcp meets it's goals is impartial to mastercoin. That being said I have a diversified portfolio which includes nearly all bitcoin 2.0 style meta protocols.

[Fernandez]

Needless to say, whether or not xcp meets it's goals is impartial to mastercoin.

I believe the fortunes are linked.

That being said I have a diversified portfolio which includes nearly all bitcoin 2.0 style meta protocols.

That is the smartest thing to do.

[TheMightyX]

An simple idea that seems to have been ignored on the official forums...

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow dots in the asset names (hint:  Global_trade_repo's hierarchy idea)?

That way BTT.UNIQUESILVER and BTT.RARECOIN would not collide with someone else's UNIQUESILVER and RARECOIN?
As suggested by Global_trade_repo, the asset names with dots in them could cost less to issue.

Not only that, but the buyers could be more confident that the assets were issued from BTT without rechecking/verifying the description/catalog.  An impostor could issue a VERYRARECOIN with a description poiting to BTT's catalog for example.  But the impostor cannot fake a BTT.VERYRARECOIN asset if it's required to own the BTT asset first.

We should also allow other characters such as #, $, %, and digits after the dot in the asset names.  So BTT can issue BTT.SILVER$100  or BTT.GOLD#1906 for example.


Otherwise, assuming a business can issue 100000+ assets, how does it go about organizing/tracking assets efficiently?  It much easier to match BTT.GOLD#1906 or BTT.RAREGOLD#18394 from a catalog than to search for BTT.GOLDXFR and BTT.RAREGOLDSXR to identify the asset.


If Counterparty is a protocol like TCP/IP, then we will need a flexible asset naming scheme that works almost like the domain naming system.

Upon first glance this seems pretty damn genius. It's genius because its so simple its almost obviously the way it should be. I hope the developers strongly consider implementing this or something quite like this, as soon as robot/human-hybridally possible.

Edit: That being said this may be something left to other developers to build on top of Counterparty, but I think its fundamental enough to be included in the protocol layer itself.

Think:

Code:

Issuer.Issuance.Sub-Issuance

And so once an issuer name is chosen, that issuer can create other issuer names of course but they will be the only ones who are permitted to create issuances and sub-issuances relative hierarchically to their issuer name.

And then perhaps blockscan can implement a nice new GUI feature which will allow for collapsing and expanding assets based on this hierarchy of issuance. This will make searching for assets and trusting assets that are issued much much easier and much cleaner of an experience. Good idea GLaDos.

Edit 2: In addition, fees can be adjusted, say... maybe 5 - 10 XCP more or less to register an issuer name, but the issuance might be half that and then the sub-issuances might be even half of half etc., This makes sense to me, but I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm an idiot or that its not feasible as is common round these parts. -___-

I can't agree more.
This is so beautifully simple it should have been designed that way in the first place!

I wonder how this will affect pre-created assets should it be implemented though.

[deliciousowl]

An simple idea that seems to have been ignored on the official forums...

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow dots in the asset names (hint:  Global_trade_repo's hierarchy idea)?

That way BTT.UNIQUESILVER and BTT.RARECOIN would not collide with someone else's UNIQUESILVER and RARECOIN?
As suggested by Global_trade_repo, the asset names with dots in them could cost less to issue.

Not only that, but the buyers could be more confident that the assets were issued from BTT without rechecking/verifying the description/catalog.  An impostor could issue a VERYRARECOIN with a description poiting to BTT's catalog for example.  But the impostor cannot fake a BTT.VERYRARECOIN asset if it's required to own the BTT asset first.

We should also allow other characters such as #, $, %, and digits after the dot in the asset names.  So BTT can issue BTT.SILVER$100  or BTT.GOLD#1906 for example.


Otherwise, assuming a business can issue 100000+ assets, how does it go about organizing/tracking assets efficiently?  It much easier to match BTT.GOLD#1906 or BTT.RAREGOLD#18394 from a catalog than to search for BTT.GOLDXFR and BTT.RAREGOLDSXR to identify the asset.


If Counterparty is a protocol like TCP/IP, then we will need a flexible asset naming scheme that works almost like the domain naming system.

Upon first glance this seems pretty damn genius. It's genius because its so simple its almost obviously the way it should be. I hope the developers strongly consider implementing this or something quite like this, as soon as robot/human-hybridally possible.

Edit: That being said this may be something left to other developers to build on top of Counterparty, but I think its fundamental enough to be included in the protocol layer itself.

Think:

Code:

Issuer.Issuance.Sub-Issuance

And so once an issuer name is chosen, that issuer can create other issuer names of course but they will be the only ones who are permitted to create issuances and sub-issuances relative hierarchically to their issuer name.

And then perhaps blockscan can implement a nice new GUI feature which will allow for collapsing and expanding assets based on this hierarchy of issuance. This will make searching for assets and trusting assets that are issued much much easier and much cleaner of an experience. Good idea GLaDos.

Edit 2: In addition, fees can be adjusted, say... maybe 5 - 10 XCP more or less to register an issuer name, but the issuance might be half that and then the sub-issuances might be even half of half etc., This makes sense to me, but I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm an idiot or that its not feasible as is common round these parts. -___-

I can't agree more.
This is so beautifully simple it should have been designed that way in the first place!

I wonder how this will affect pre-created assets should it be implemented though.

Agreed this is perfect +++