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

[davidpbrown]

Are the Bitcoins devs simply worried about how to manage later Blockchain size?.. Counterparty or not.. Size matters? If that fundamental hasn't been resolved for Bitcoin on its own, then perhaps those devs are naturally worried about accepting anything more which would compound that problem in future?

[BitzMD]

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

+1, I agree, we need to come to a final conclusion that satisfies all parties involved.
We are all here for the success of that which is decentraized currency.
Counterparty is an interesting innovation,  having a biomedical background, the counterparty protocol makes alot of sense to me and seems like a logical next step in the grand scheme of things.

Please take this as an opportunity to work together in doing what is right for the evolution of bitcoin.

[halfcab123]

Just as an aside, as many of you know I'm getting ready to churn out a couple renditions of a teaser/trailer/commercial which conveys the vision of Counterparty. I believe someone has PM'ed me already concerning a phone/chat consultation to spak more in-depth on the protocol. I would like to get that done tonight if possible, is anyone going to be around for that ? Matt Y, Led_Lcd ? Someone preferably with technical knowledge specific to counterparty, at least enough technical knowledge to be able to convey to me somewhat of a roadmap of what will likely take place over the next several months and what is possible with such a protocol, possibly extending the vision out to things that maybe have not been discussed or thought of yet. Please let me know via PM asap. Thank you guys!

[PhantomPhreak]

Are the Bitcoins devs simply worried about how to manage later Blockchain size?.. Counterparty or not.. Size matters? If that fundamental hasn't been resolved for Bitcoin on its own, then perhaps those devs are naturally worried about accepting anything more which would compound that problem in future?

It's more complicated than that, because transactions, and particular parts of transactions, have to be processed, relayed, etc., in addition to being stored. They can also sometimes be pruned, depending on how they are constructed.

[Luke-Jr]

Based on a quick readover of https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty, it looks like Counterparty wants to be Freimarkets, except Counterparty is built on top of bitcoin bad practices (eg, key reuse, "from addresses", etc) and a not-properly-softforked P2SH-like use of the blockchain's Script, rather than a merged-mined side-chain like this kind of thing should be...

[Anotheranonlol]

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

I think most of the 'core' bitcoin user have  a fairly purist outlook. opinions which seem pretty set in stone with regards to anything expanding directly on bitcoin blockchain itself
I do think it's important to have discussion though.  look at recent news. hundreds of millions of $ down the drain at gox.. for what!! . for trusting a centralised service with private keys.  If we had such solutions as counterparty we might  well have avoided some of the recent disasters which surely had a tremendous negative effect on bitcoin. I can't understand why services such as this which put the control and power back in users hands are not being embraced in open arms by the larger community, especially those that have been around for a long time and seen a sickening amount of hacks, closures, thefts. Recently all there seems is bullshit copy-pastes, pump and dumps and. just total shit scum. This is first concept I've seen in long time where there seems to be a genuine need for- and it's not just another 'whitepaper' or proposal with no code behind it.  The team has gone forward and created a working marketplace. it seems like the next step- decentralised solution to centralised problems, yet it seems to be getting barrage of criticism, with alternative solutions proposed not really all that  reasonable at all

I'm so sick to death of hearing the words, 'exchange hacked' 'suspending operation' 'site down for maintenence' 'hot-wallet breached' bla bla bla. Some people will give answers such as 'easy solution, don't send any btc to exchanges' but it's not really a solution at all. we have a creation here which can help- users can trade assets in & out without being forced to send passport scans to withdraw their own fucking bitcoin that will later be 'leaked by hackers' and sold on the blackmarket. all that after the first kick in the balls of their funds actually going missing completely, users can create bets. no more sending money to bitbet and hoping popescu and co doesn't hold funds hostage on some fine-print, users can buy and sell shares in security without waking up to find the share value has plunged because SEC forced closure of exchange for unregulated securities etc and site-owner can't open mouth on gag order for 12months.. the list goes on, I don't know why this isn't a top-priority for some of the best minds to work on

[LightedLamp]

Based on a quick readover of https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty, it looks like Counterparty wants to be Freimarkets, except Counterparty is built on top of bitcoin bad practices (eg, key reuse, "from addresses", etc) and a not-properly-softforked P2SH-like use of the blockchain's Script, rather than a merged-mined side-chain like this kind of thing should be...

https://i.imgur.com/ry3zrhg.png

[kdrop22]

Guys lets keep this discussion constructive.

[LightedLamp]

It's nonconstructive nonsense to say the protocol shouldn't be used because the solution isn't as elegant as the dev's think it could be. I think Xnova has already responded on this point adequately. 

The blockchain itself would be most benefited by the use of OP_RETURN here, but it seems to me at least that there is a disconnect in the logic of why the size was halved among some, pointing to theoretical reasons as justification on why that would be a good idea instead of the *actual real world current uses*. While the optimal solution in your mind for Counterparty and others may be to move to their own side chains and store hashes in the Bitcoin blockchain using OP_RETURN, you have to understand that doing so is highly complex, rife with potential security issues, and that the only evidence supporting this is (as far as I know) essentially a theoretical-type thread on the Bitcoin developers mailing list. This would be a bit like me telling the Bitcoin devs that Bitcoin should move to using GHOST (https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf) immediately as it's technically the optimal solution over the longer block times today. While the latter could be argued to be the case, it is a proposal that has not been fully vetted in the real world, and would introduce major protocol-level changes that could cause potential security and usability problems.

[halfcab123]

Ultimately I believe something positive will come from all of this boat rocking.

[PhantomPhreak]

Based on a quick readover of https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty, it looks like Counterparty wants to be Freimarkets, except Counterparty is built on top of bitcoin bad practices (eg, key reuse, "from addresses", etc) and a not-properly-softforked P2SH-like use of the blockchain's Script, rather than a merged-mined side-chain like this kind of thing should be...

Where is the Freimarkets project right now? Nowhere.

Our development costs are very low, and our development speed is very high. That matters. It's why Linux has a market share many, many times that of GNU Hurd.

[BitcoinTangibleTrust]

I am just sharing some IRC #bitcoin-dev chat logs here for further context on the perspective of bare multisig & Counterparty

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/03/21#l1395378649


And here:
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/03/21#l1395416477


If you are not on this IRC channel, I invite you to join and listen or constructively participate.

[Peter Todd]

Based on a quick readover of https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/Counterparty, it looks like Counterparty wants to be Freimarkets, except Counterparty is built on top of bitcoin bad practices (eg, key reuse, "from addresses", etc) and a not-properly-softforked P2SH-like use of the blockchain's Script, rather than a merged-mined side-chain like this kind of thing should be...

Where is the Freimarkets project right now? Nowhere.

Our development costs are very low, and our development speed is very high. That matters. It's why Linux has a market share many, many times that of GNU Hurd.

Not to mention that Freimarkets is insecure because it has hardly any miners... which in turn means why on earth would you use it instead of Mastercoin/Counterparty/Colored Coins? Your assets on it are just one 51% attack away from becoming worthless, and again, there is precedent to this happening before with how Coiledcoin was attacked by Eligius.

[Peter Todd]

I am just sharing some IRC #bitcoin-dev chat logs here for further context on the perspective of bare multisig & Counterparty

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/03/21#l1395378649


And here:
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/03/21#l1395416477


If you are not on this IRC channel, I invite you to join and listen or constructively participate.

I can't believe that whole discussion completely missed the actual technical reason not to want bare OP_CHECKMULTISIG txouts, which is that each CHECKMULTISIG opcode in a block is counted as 20 "sigop" instructions, and there is a 20,000 sigop limit per block. (one per 50 bytes of the 1MB hard limit) This makes OP_CHECKMULTISIG untenable for widespread use, and makes fee calculation a good deal more complex.

[mcjavar]

I am trying to get BoottleXCP working, but I am stuck at block 281034. And it was a pain to even get there, as I had to restart the client after every 20-30 blocks.
Anyone made the same experience?

[jgarzik]

Nobody is "killing innovation."  There is plenty of room to extend bitcoin's protocol, if that is what people want to do.

There is just one particular method, CheckMultiSig, that has multiple disadvantages.

[Bellebite2014]

Wow if anything kills Bitcoin, its gonna be the devs.

They are restricting innovation on the platform, even with a good way to handle this situation using OP_RETURN 80 bytes.

More innovation on Bitcoin = more widespread use of Bitcoin = higher security of blockchain

vs

less innovation on Bitcoin = less use of Bitcoin platform = less security for projects like msc, xcp. Which are innovative, with non-hostile intentions

Even if cityglut told me to stop posting, I can't just sit down while watching XCP falling apart.

Having 200 non technical people trying to protect their 2 burnt BTC insulting the BTC devs and adding their irrelevant 2 cents is the way to go, definitely.

Back to reality, no one from the core devs has been consulted, and they can get rid of the 'XCP parasite' in one commit if they want.

It was an interesting project, with talented devs, but the greed and overall retardness of the so called 'community' on top of the terrible lack of communication in general was the last nail in the coffin.

Time to dump until the news spreads, and move to something else. Thanks for the five folds profit. Hopefully Ether or whatever will make things right, control their community, and have a clear communication with all people involved.

[PhantomPhreak]

Nobody is "killing innovation."  There is plenty of room to extend bitcoin's protocol, if that is what people want to do.

There is just one particular method, CheckMultiSig, that has multiple disadvantages.

We don't want to use CheckMultiSig either. We want to use OP_RETURN, and with at least 80 bytes instead of the 40 we already have.

[qtgwith]

PM each other for communication is more suitable for this stage.

[dotcoin.info]

can we tell that xcp now will lame?