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

[samperi649]

• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.

You're not answering the question - but just restating your conviction.
If I run a TOR exit Node because I think people should be able to access websites blocked by the Chinese government, people can still use it to send child-pornography. The agreement is only to use a certain kind of protocol - that is handling data in a formal way.

Bitcoin at day 1 was only transactional, at the protocol level (the only exception being the scriptSig for the generation transaction).
All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

What is the implicit agreement every Bitcoin node accepted? Did you conduct a large survey of Bitcoin users to find out what they were 'implicitly' agreeing to?

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Who decided what kind of financial transactions were the appropriate kinds and what kinds of financial transactions are not?

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

Hey, by the way, are you Satoshi?

[1715310754]

1715310754

[1715310754]

1715310754

[1715310754]

1715310754

[1715310754]

1715310754

[1715310754]

1715310754

[PhantomPhreak]

I guess the past few responses to me have made it clear that people on this thread don't want to discuss or solve things, but merely make strawmen and misrepresent the reasonable statements of others.

We are all eager to discuss these issues and to resolve our disagreement. Your main argument, however, just doesn't have leg to stand on, IMO.

If it didn't have "leg to stand on", you wouldn't need to misrepresent me.

Ok restate a concise version, if you have time.

• The blockchain must be stored and downloaded by every Bitcoin full node.
• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.
• Therefore, there is consent to store these financial transactions in the blockchain.
• On the contrary, there exist nodes among these which have not consented to store other data.
• Therefore, there is not consent to store that other data in the blockchain.

To extend Bitcoin, one should keep these facts in mind.
Non-transactional data should be stored parallel to the blockchain, possibly available for anyone who wants to download/store it (perhaps using an extension to the p2p protocol to relay it), but not inside it (which has never been demonstrated to have any necessity/value anyway).

As a reminder, my only comment here on Counterparty specifically has been:

In your opinion, which category do you feel XCP falls into?

I haven't looked at XCP in detail yet, so I'll have to defer to others who have.

Again, we only store financial transactions in the blockchain, and we are paying for the space that we're using. Financial transactions in OP_RETURN outputs aren't any more painful for a full-node to store than anything else.

Would you be willing to consider Peter Todd's proposal? If not, how would you make it better?

[bitwhizz]

• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.

You're not answering the question - but just restating your conviction.
If I run a TOR exit Node because I think people should be able to access websites blocked by the Chinese government, people can still use it to send child-pornography. The agreement is only to use a certain kind of protocol - that is handling data in a formal way.

Bitcoin at day 1 was only transactional, at the protocol level (the only exception being the scriptSig for the generation transaction).
All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

What is the implicit agreement every Bitcoin node accepted? Did you conduct a large survey of Bitcoin users to find out what they were 'implicitly' agreeing to?

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Who decided what kind of financial transactions were the appropriate kinds and what kinds of financial transactions are not?

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

great argument.......the reverse can be said - I will just consent to data storage myself. Which puts you in a position to never change the OP-RETURN, surely,
You do not own the blockchain

[baddw]

It's abuse because you're forcing others to download/store your data against their free choice.

Funny to see this line of reasoning from the guy who defended putting religious messages in the blockchain.

Every full node must download the full blockchain (prunable or not!).
Every full node has consented to download and store financial transactions.
NOT every full node has consented to store anything else.
You need 100% consensus for this, not merely some subset (ie, not miners; not developers) or even a majority.

Furthermore, everyone is free to store data that isn't in the blockchain.
There is nothing to be gained by putting it in the blockchain except that you force it on those who don't want it.
Explain how this is anything but abuse...

The fact is, arbitrary data can be stored in the blockchain by anybody at any time.  It has been and is being used for this purpose already.  Everybody running a Bitcoin node should already know this, and if they aren't, it should be a part of the notice that comes up when they install Bitcoin-QT (if there is one; I don't recall seeing one).  Any Bitcoin transaction could just be a simple movement of funds, or it could be a love note, or it could be a trigger for setting off a bomb.

Eliminating this possibility would kill Bitcoin, period.

Maybe there are some ways of doing this that are more harmful than others.  Maybe you can eliminate the most harmful ones, maybe not (it seems that using unspendable addresses to store data would be the "last resort" which could NEVER be eliminated from Bitcoin, and that this is one of the options that is most harmful).

It seems that the Counterparty devs are being very reasonable here.  My instinct would be to say "screw it" and just continue as planned, and if future changes to Bitcoin require changes to Counterparty, then so be it.

Furthermore, for some to come in here whining "why haven't they reached out to the Bitcoin community?" "Why did they merely flip a switch without consulting anybody?"  I merely present this thread, which has been openly discussing Counterparty and its "built on Bitcoin" design for months now, here on the home forum of Bitcoin, with over 6000 replies.  If that's not "reaching out to the Bitcoin community" then I don't know what is.

[Luke-Jr]

• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.

You're not answering the question - but just restating your conviction.
If I run a TOR exit Node because I think people should be able to access websites blocked by the Chinese government, people can still use it to send child-pornography. The agreement is only to use a certain kind of protocol - that is handling data in a formal way.

Bitcoin at day 1 was only transactional, at the protocol level (the only exception being the scriptSig for the generation transaction).
All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

What is the implicit agreement every Bitcoin node accepted? Did you conduct a large survey of Bitcoin users to find out what they were 'implicitly' agreeing to?

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Who decided what kind of financial transactions were the appropriate kinds and what kinds of financial transactions are not?

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

great argument.......the reverse can be said - I will just consent to data storage myself. Which puts you in a position to never change the current protocol, surely,
You do not own the blockchain

Your consent does not mean I should be forced to store it, which is what you are proposing.
I'm not the one trying to change the protocol here... the current protocol does not support data storage.

[Anotheranonlol]

I really cannot understand how a counterparty transaction would not constitute a financial transaction?. 

nor can i understand the point of view that because say, 1 node out of 1000 is not willing to accept this data, by default it should be forbidden.

After the recent nightmare that was mt gox and huge amount of hacks, thefts, closures and losses that came from storing your balance on centralised entities
it seemed that counterparty had came up with a solution that allowed a decentralised, trustless solution to this problem- boostrapping on top of bitcoin blockchain and benefitting from it's proof-of work, and now it seems like some more senior members are on the offensive. Are solutions like this note hugely beneficial to bitcoin ecosystem?

[Luke-Jr]

Do I need to repost this every post here?

As a reminder, my only comment here on Counterparty specifically has been:

In your opinion, which category do you feel XCP falls into?

I haven't looked at XCP in detail yet, so I'll have to defer to others who have.

[porqupine]

• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.

You're not answering the question - but just restating your conviction.
If I run a TOR exit Node because I think people should be able to access websites blocked by the Chinese government, people can still use it to send child-pornography. The agreement is only to use a certain kind of protocol - that is handling data in a formal way.

Bitcoin at day 1 was only transactional, at the protocol level (the only exception being the scriptSig for the generation transaction).
All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

What is the implicit agreement every Bitcoin node accepted? Did you conduct a large survey of Bitcoin users to find out what they were 'implicitly' agreeing to?

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

I don't think you quite follow my point. You agreed to run a Node and Mine block transactions with a certain protocol - when you run the code it doesn't say in the code #financial transaction or #child pornography - it just specifies rules for handling data.

You can be selective in what you mine and in what your node rebroadcasts - that's consensual. You can alter whether your client accepts certain newly formed blocks or not - also consensual. You can alter your client and the implementation of the protocol your client handles, of course it will not work with all the other Nodes - but you did not give any evidence for why you think the rest of the network 'implicitly disagrees', logically speaking if they do 'implicitly agree' they will democratically alter their clients as well. This is how an open-source protocol is supposed to work right? 

Who decided what kind of financial transactions were the appropriate kinds and what kinds of financial transactions are not?

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

Counterparty transactions are as Phantomphreak mentioned, storing financial data.

[bitwhizz]

• Every Bitcoin full node, upon adopting Bitcoin, agreed implicitly to store a specific kind of data in the blockchain: financial transactions.

You're not answering the question - but just restating your conviction.
If I run a TOR exit Node because I think people should be able to access websites blocked by the Chinese government, people can still use it to send child-pornography. The agreement is only to use a certain kind of protocol - that is handling data in a formal way.

Bitcoin at day 1 was only transactional, at the protocol level (the only exception being the scriptSig for the generation transaction).
All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

What is the implicit agreement every Bitcoin node accepted? Did you conduct a large survey of Bitcoin users to find out what they were 'implicitly' agreeing to?

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Who decided what kind of financial transactions were the appropriate kinds and what kinds of financial transactions are not?

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

great argument.......the reverse can be said - I will just consent to data storage myself. Which puts you in a position to never change the current protocol, surely,
You do not own the blockchain

Your consent does not mean I should be forced to store it, which is what you are proposing.
I'm not the one trying to change the protocol here... the current protocol does not support data storage.

Thats right, if you don't want to store it, don't, fairly simple, don;t use bitcoin, don;t download the block chain, your scott free
However my consent means that i believe bitcoin has more functionality than just for transactions, and based on that fact nobody owns it, and there is OP_RETURN feature, i don;t see why that functionality should be eradicated becouse you don;t want to store the data which you already have a free choice on.

[baddw]

All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

Many of the greatest developments in computing history (and indeed, human technological history on the whole) are the result of people finding uses for things which were unintended by their inventors.  Good thing that most inventors are not so protective of their inventions that they decline to let others use it for new things.  Those that did, found themselves surpassed quickly.

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Then you should delete the entire blockchain from any nodes that you have running right now, because there is arbitrary, non-financial-transaction data being stored in it already.  LOTS of it.  If you decline to consent to store that data, then you have no choice but to shut down your node, unless you have some sort of magic decoder that can sort through the millions of transactions to find stuff secretly encoded into addresses and such, and discard it while keeping the valid stuff.

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

[Luke-Jr]

Counterparty was originally designed to use the OP_RETURN output to store all of its message data, which I feel is very elegant, and leaves a minimal impact on the blockchain.

Message data does not belong in the blockchain, only financial transactions.
If by "message data" you mean something that is in fact financial transaction itself, then please write a draft BIP explaining why you think more than 40 bytes OP_RETURN space is needed.

We planned all of our message formats around the 80 byte limit announced by Gavin on the official Bitcoin blog.

There is no official Bitcoin blog, or official Bitcoin anything.
Gavin does not speak for Bitcoin. Jeff does not speak for Bitcoin. I do not speak for Bitcoin.

We only use multi-sig outputs because we have no other choice. We don't want to extend the Bitcoin protocol. We want to do something entirely within it, and as simply and directly as possible, for the benefits to stability, security etc..

The Bitcoin protocol, today, does not support data storage, nor what (I presume) Counterparty wants to do (otherwise it would just be Bitcoin, not Counterparty!).
So, if you want to do more than what that Bitcoin protocol does, you must extend Bitcoin.
That extending should be done in a rational, open manner, using the BIP process.


I'm just going to ignore the trolls who demand that because they want to change Bitcoin, I must stop using it.

[Luke-Jr]

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty.
Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far).

[rwfreshmore]

I'm not the one trying to change the protocol here... the current protocol does not support data storage.

The blockchain is a data store.

[Anotheranonlol]

All data storage attempts, even the OP_RETURN stuff, are technically abuses the protocol was never intended for.

Many of the greatest developments in computing history (and indeed, human technological history on the whole) are the result of people finding uses for things which were unintended by their inventors.  Good thing that most inventors are not so protective of their inventions that they decline to let others use it for new things.  Those that did, found themselves surpassed quickly.

You only need to find one person who did not agree to data storage, for it to be non-consensual.
For the sake of avoiding wasting time on a survey, I will just decline to consent to data storage myself.

Then you should delete the entire blockchain from any nodes that you have running right now, because there is arbitrary, non-financial-transaction data being stored in it already.  LOTS of it

yes, an example

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191039.msg1980099#msg1980099

and who consents to this?, I certainly don't, doubt anyone else does either. I use SPV client so there is my choice.

and this;

<luke-jr> cosurgi: by design, it contains "random" data-- I've just been setting some of that "random" data to prayers

<Graet> mm interesting luke-jr i understand you are strong in your faith but you dont think putting prayers in might alienate some ppl - after all btc is multidenominational
<luke-jr> Graet: Catholics do not believe in freedom of religion.
<Graet> and you make your non catholic miners aware of this?

no response to that last question.

 

Quote from: Sukrim on August 20, 2011, 10:46:10 PM
Can we have links to a few blocks of Eligius to see this ourselves?

Output of "strings -n 20 .bitcoin/blk0001.dat":

Code:

EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>z+o>
=ybegin line=128 siz
e=8776 name=bitcoin.
***2*.+D*/***+***h+E
*/***+***p+R*-***+*,
**+[*,***;***x******
0010/211133246>76556
C<=}9>GDIHGDFFJNXQJL
VMFFRaSVZ[^^^IQcgb\f
KFK\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
+/++++++********+,-.
DPQRST_`abcdmnopqrst
*>{o*>{o*>{o*>{o*>{o
---BEGIN TRIBUTE--- 
#./BitLen           
::::::::::::::::::: 
:::::::.::.::.:.::: 
:.: :.' ' ' ' ' : : 
:.:'' ,,xiW,"4x, '' 
:  ,dWWWXXXXi,4WX,  
' dWWWXXX7"     `X, 
 lWWWXX7   __   _ X 
:WWWXX7 ,xXX7' "^^X 
lWWWX7, _.+,, _.+., 
:WWW7,. `^"-" ,^-'  
 WW",X:        X,   
 "7^^Xl.    _(_x7'  
 l ( :X:       __ _ 
 `. " XX  ,xxWWWWX7 
  )X- "" 4X" .___.  
,W X     :Xi  _,,_  
WW X      4XiyXWWXd 
"" ,,      4XWWWWXX 
, R7X,       "^447^ 
R, "4RXk,      _, , 
TWk  "4RXXi,   X',x 
lTWk,  "4RRR7' 4 XH 
:lWWWk,  ^"     `4  
::TTXWWi,_  Xll :.. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
LEN "rabbi" SASSAMA 
     1980-2011      
Len was our friend. 
A brilliant mind,   
a kind soul, and    
a devious schemer;  
husband to Meredith 
brother to Calvin,  
son to Jim and      
Dana Hartshorn,     
coauthor and        
cofounder and       
Shmoo and so much   
more.  We dedicate  
this silly hack to  
Len, who would have 
found it absolutely 
hilarious.          
--Dan Kaminsky,     
Travis Goodspeed    
P.S.  My apologies, 
BitCoin people.  He 
also would have     
LOL'd at BitCoin's  
new dependency upon 
   ASCII BERNANKE   
:'::.:::::.:::.::.: 
: :.: ' ' ' ' : :': 
:.:     _.__    '.: 
:   _,^"   "^x,   : 
'  x7'        `4,   
 XX7            4XX 
 XX              XX 
 Xl ,xxx,   ,xxx,XX 
( ' _,+o, | ,o+,"   
 4   "-^' X "^-'" 7 
 l,     ( ))     ,X 
 :Xx,_ ,xXXXxx,_,XX 
  4XXiX'-___-`XXXX' 
   4XXi,_   _iXX7'  
  , `4XXXXXXXXX^ _, 
  Xx,  ""^^^XX7,xX  
W,"4WWx,_ _,XxWWX7' 
Xwi, "4WW7""4WW7',W 
TXXWw, ^7 Xk 47 ,WH 
:TXXXWw,_ "), ,wWT: 
::TTXXWWW lXl WWT:  
----END TRIBUTE---- 
Eligius/Benedictus Deus. Benedictum Nomen Sanctum eius.
Eligius/Benedictus Deus. Benedictum Nomen Sanctum eius.
***************************************************
Benedictus Iesus Christus, verus Deus et verus homo.
Benedictum Nomen Iesu.
   I LIKE TURTLES   
Benedictum Cor eius sacratissimum.
Benedictus Sanguis eius pretiosissimus.
Benedictus Iesus in sanctissimo altaris Sacramento.
Benedictus Sanctus Spiritus, Paraclitus.
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER 
Benedictus Sanctus Spiritus, Paraclitus.
Benedicta excelsa Mater Dei, Maria sanctissima.
Benedicta sancta eius et immaculata Conceptio.
Benedicta sancta eius et immaculata Conceptio.
Benedicta eius gloriosa Assumptio.
Benedictum nomen Mariae, Virginis et Matris.
Benedictum nomen Mariae, Virginis et Matris.
Benedictus sanctus Ioseph, eius castissimus Sponsus.
Benedictus Deus in Angelis suis, et in Sanctis suis. Amen.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee and I detest all my sins...
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee and I detest all my sins...
Eye'm the strongest!
...because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, ...
...my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more...
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more...
...and avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen.
O my God! I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine persons, ...
O my God! I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine persons, ...
...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy Divine Son became man, ...
...and died for our sins, and that he will come to, judge the living and the dead.
I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, ...
...because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
O my God! relying on Thy infinite goodness and promises, ...
...I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace, ...
...and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer.
...and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer.
O my God! I love Thee above all things, with my whole heart and soul, ...
...because Thou art all-good and worthy of all love.
...because Thou art all-good and worthy of all love.
Yukkuri Shiteitte ne
I love my neighbor as myself for the love of Thee.
I forgive all who have injured me, and ask pardon of all whom I have injured.
I forgive all who have injured me, and ask pardon of all whom I have injured.
I forgive all who have injured me, and ask pardon of all whom I have injured.
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, ...
...lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, ...
... to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, ...
... to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints, ...
... that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word, and deed, ...
... through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.
Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, ...
... blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, ...
... and all the Saints to pray to the Lord our God for me. Amen.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against ...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against ...
... the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, ...
... we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, ...
... we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, ...
... we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, ...
... we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, ...
... by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, ...
... who wander throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom His love commits me here, ...
... ever this night be at my side, to light and guard, to rule and guide. Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, ...
... et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ...
... et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ...
... et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ...
... ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae: vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve.
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes ...
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes ...
... in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia, ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos ...
... misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ...
... ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende. O clemens, O pia, ...
... O dulcis Virgo Maria. Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genetrix.
kLhLUKE-JR IS A PEDOPHILE! Oh, and god isn't real, sucka. Stop polluting the blockchain with your nonsense.
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi. Amen.
Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur Nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum.
Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur Nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum ...
... da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus ...
... debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.
Domine Iesu Christe, Filius Dei, miserere me peccatorem!
Sanae is a good girl
We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee;
We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee;
because by Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world.
May the Holy Trinity be blessed.

really? really...come on..

[PhantomPhreak]

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty.
Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far).

The 40 byte limit is very much arbitrary, and both Bitcoin and Counterparty would benefit if it were raised back to 80 bytes, because then we could store Counterparty transaction data more easily, elegantly and cleanly in the Bitcoin blockchain than we are doing now. 40 bytes is not just enough for our (legitimate!) use case. Of course, 80 bytes, too, is arbitrary, and the best solution is just to scale the fee with the amount of data so that the incentives all line up.

[kdrop22]

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty.
Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far).

The 40 byte limit is very much arbitrary, and both Bitcoin and Counterparty would benefit if it were raised back to 80 bytes, because then we could store Counterparty transaction data more easily, elegantly and cleanly in the Bitcoin blockchain than we are doing now. 40 bytes is not just enough for our (legitimate!) use case. Of course, 80 bytes, too, is arbitrary, and the best solution is just to scale the fee with the amount of data so that the incentives all line up.

Yes, agreed. Increase the transaction fees to account for the data storage and reward the miners.

[Luke-Jr]

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty.
Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far).

The 40 byte limit is very much arbitrary, and both Bitcoin and Counterparty would benefit if it were raised back to 80 bytes, because then we could store Counterparty transaction data more easily, elegantly and cleanly in the Bitcoin blockchain than we are doing now. 40 bytes is not just enough for our (legitimate!) use case. Of course, 80 bytes, too, is arbitrary, and the best solution is just to scale the fee with the amount of data so that the incentives all line up.

Where is the BIP explaining what the 80 bytes are used for and why 80 bytes are needed?

Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).

[PhantomPhreak]

I didn't say there exist non-appropriate financial transactions.

So what is your problem with Counterparty, which is designed to carry financial transactions (but, in the mode of all such inventions, could be used for other stuff as well)?

I didn't say I have a problem with Counterparty.
Counterparty said it had a problem with what I and others consider to be reasonable limits, without explaining why (from what I've seen so far).

The 40 byte limit is very much arbitrary, and both Bitcoin and Counterparty would benefit if it were raised back to 80 bytes, because then we could store Counterparty transaction data more easily, elegantly and cleanly in the Bitcoin blockchain than we are doing now. 40 bytes is not just enough for our (legitimate!) use case. Of course, 80 bytes, too, is arbitrary, and the best solution is just to scale the fee with the amount of data so that the incentives all line up.

Where is the BIP explaining what the 80 bytes are used for and why 80 bytes are needed?

Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).

I don't think that a BIP for this change is strictly necessary, given that there was none for the proposals to allow 80-byte OP_RETURN, or for the later change to 40-byte OP_RETURN.

A larger OP_RETURN space would allow it to support all extant Counterparty message types. We really need 80 bytes minimum, as the protocol was designed around that value.

[JahPowerBit]

It's abuse because you're forcing others to download/store your data against their free choice.

Funny to see this line of reasoning from the guy who defended putting religious messages in the blockchain.

:-)) ok! i understand now!!
It makes perfect sense: censorship, circular reasoning ..

[Matt Y]

It's important to keep this on track and encourage an open discussion from both sides.