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

[JahPowerBit]

JahPowerBit, developer of BootleXCP and pyrpcwallet, will join Counterparty full-time.

https://www.counterparty.co/fulltime-developer-counterparty/

to the mooon!

+1  

Such an awesome surprise! So this means we can expect many more great things
Kudos, Jah!   Best news in a while.

Thank you guys! I am eager to start full time.

[SlickTheNick]

If ever any of the other chains goes onto a fork or does a blockchain rewind, any floating XCP that got sold would end up being able to be double spent.

Maybe this is a rare enough thing, then again, didnt DOGE just have one of these? The stability of XCP would end up being the stability of the weakest chain it ever floated on

James

Perhaps it would only be implemented on certain chains that are expected to be secure and stick around for the long run, rather than able to have XCP on every random BTC/LTC clone. There could be 3 maybe. BTC for security, doge or litecoin for transaction speed and then maybe something else which allows relatively large data storage or something, idk. But really though, anything could happen to anyone or any coin at any time (fork, attacks, price crash, whatever). BTC is just the hardened veteran

[zbx]

If ever any of the other chains goes onto a fork or does a blockchain rewind, any floating XCP that got sold would end up being able to be double spent.

Maybe this is a rare enough thing, then again, didnt DOGE just have one of these? The stability of XCP would end up being the stability of the weakest chain it ever floated on

James

Perhaps it would only be implemented on certain chains that are expected to be secure and stick around for the long run, rather than able to have XCP on every random BTC/LTC clone. There could be 3 maybe. BTC for security, doge or litecoin for transaction speed and then maybe something else which allows relatively large data storage or something, idk. But really though, anything could happen to anyone or any coin at any time (fork, attacks, price crash, whatever). BTC is just the hardened veteran

Yeah. You'd need every Counterparty client constantly talking to the servers for every single altcoin it was running on. And you'd have to implement a strict system for ordering blocks across chains. You'd also have to come up with a good system for sending funds across chains, because the addresses are not compatible and Counterparty right now stores the destination of transfers in its own output.

BTC is much more secure than any other coin, as far as I can tell. On multiple blockchains, Counterparty would only be as secure as the weakest of them.

[Peter Todd]

Can somebody post some credible sources about the coiledcoin event? I currently mine via Eligius and would like to reconsider if this is being accurately portrayed.

More generally, I think pools should be a lot more aggressive about differentiating themselves politically, so small-time miners can 'vote' to support the kind of bitcoin we want. (Though I also understand Adam Back's point, that the miners aren't all that important in comparison to the 'political' clout of the people simply running a node, I still think there's some signal in supporting certain pools over others).

The credible source is Luke-Jr himself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.msg678006#msg678006

Personally I find it disgusting how he keeps on saying I'm "slandering" him to bringing up coiledcoin yet refuses to answer to his actions. I've got no personal issue myself with the Coiledcoin attack - it's a decentralized "might is right" system - but he sure seems to find it inconvenient that his own actions prove so clearly my point that merge-mining is dangerous and embedded consensus systems are a much safer design.

[sherlock421]

i suggest if one company Issue of shares，then Destroy 5XCP，but this destroy is not really,if compay is still work Normal，nobody can use this 5 xcp like destroy or if the Dividends is Enough then real destroy this 5 xcp. the amount of xcp is reduce when the more company issue they shares.and xcp Price raise.
but if compay who issue of the shares is run off or close ,then can Thaw this 5 xcp which hige price this time to Compensate Shareholder

[qtgwith]

i suggest if one company Issue of shares，then Destroy 5XCP，but this destroy is not really,if compay is still work Normal，nobody can use this 5 xcp like destroy or if the Dividends is Enough then real destroy this 5 xcp. the amount of xcp is reduce when the more company issue they shares.and xcp Price raise.
but if compay who issue of the shares is run off or close ,then can Thaw this 5 xcp which hige price this time to Compensate Shareholder

This has no any relationship with decentralization. This is the work of centralization.

[baddw]

If ever any of the other chains goes onto a fork or does a blockchain rewind, any floating XCP that got sold would end up being able to be double spent.

Maybe this is a rare enough thing, then again, didnt DOGE just have one of these? The stability of XCP would end up being the stability of the weakest chain it ever floated on

James

Perhaps it would only be implemented on certain chains that are expected to be secure and stick around for the long run, rather than able to have XCP on every random BTC/LTC clone. There could be 3 maybe. BTC for security, doge or litecoin for transaction speed and then maybe something else which allows relatively large data storage or something, idk. But really though, anything could happen to anyone or any coin at any time (fork, attacks, price crash, whatever). BTC is just the hardened veteran

Yeah. You'd need every Counterparty client constantly talking to the servers for every single altcoin it was running on. And you'd have to implement a strict system for ordering blocks across chains. You'd also have to come up with a good system for sending funds across chains, because the addresses are not compatible and Counterparty right now stores the destination of transfers in its own output.

BTC is much more secure than any other coin, as far as I can tell. On multiple blockchains, Counterparty would only be as secure as the weakest of them.

But you could limit XCP-XCP transactions to whatever the underlying coin is.  So while X_Asset1 might be trading on both DOGE and BTC, people with their XCP on DOGE could only trade with other XCP_DOGE holders while people with XCP_BTC would be limited to XCP_BTC.  People who have their XCP solely on BTC will never see the DOGE/LTC/whatever markets. 

And then whenever they wanted to swap for whatever reason, just do the REBORN process and wait for the XCP to be "transferred" from one blockchain to the other.  All XCP are "natively" started in BTC, and it is likely that people will want to keep them in BTC for long-term storage.  But for fast trades or whatever, they might transfer to a faster blockchain for that purpose.  Not to mention, 1 DOGE for transaction fee will probably be a lot cheaper than whatever the BTC transfer fee happens to be at the time!  And the DOGE miners are less likely to have custom tweaks, they will just be running the bog standard software.

I was ruminating over something like this myself over the past week or so.  Turning XCP into a meta-crypto-currency that can theoretically live on *any* crypto-currency would be kind of an end-game.  And I think it will actually be necessary, otherwise somebody is just going to copy the Counterparty code and fork it to run on top of LTC, DOGE and whatever else.  I'd rather have 1 meta-XCP than a ton of XCP clones running around on every altcoin under the sun.  (Theoretically, this should be fairly easy to implement in XCP since most of the crap altcoins have virtually no alterations and are pretty much straight copypastas of Bitcoin or Litecoin, with a few tweaks in the parameters.  Of course, the chain-hopping itself would be difficult to implement, but once it's implemented for, say, Litecoin, it would be pretty straightforward to extend it to DOGE or Name_Altcoin_Here.)

[SlickTheNick]

If ever any of the other chains goes onto a fork or does a blockchain rewind, any floating XCP that got sold would end up being able to be double spent.

Maybe this is a rare enough thing, then again, didnt DOGE just have one of these? The stability of XCP would end up being the stability of the weakest chain it ever floated on

James

Perhaps it would only be implemented on certain chains that are expected to be secure and stick around for the long run, rather than able to have XCP on every random BTC/LTC clone. There could be 3 maybe. BTC for security, doge or litecoin for transaction speed and then maybe something else which allows relatively large data storage or something, idk. But really though, anything could happen to anyone or any coin at any time (fork, attacks, price crash, whatever). BTC is just the hardened veteran

Yeah. You'd need every Counterparty client constantly talking to the servers for every single altcoin it was running on. And you'd have to implement a strict system for ordering blocks across chains. You'd also have to come up with a good system for sending funds across chains, because the addresses are not compatible and Counterparty right now stores the destination of transfers in its own output.

BTC is much more secure than any other coin, as far as I can tell. On multiple blockchains, Counterparty would only be as secure as the weakest of them.

But you could limit XCP-XCP transactions to whatever the underlying coin is.  So while X_Asset1 might be trading on both DOGE and BTC, people with their XCP on DOGE could only trade with other XCP_DOGE holders while people with XCP_BTC would be limited to XCP_BTC.  People who have their XCP solely on BTC will never see the DOGE/LTC/whatever markets. 

And then whenever they wanted to swap for whatever reason, just do the REBORN process and wait for the XCP to be "transferred" from one blockchain to the other.  All XCP are "natively" started in BTC, and it is likely that people will want to keep them in BTC for long-term storage.  But for fast trades or whatever, they might transfer to a faster blockchain for that purpose.  Not to mention, 1 DOGE for transaction fee will probably be a lot cheaper than whatever the BTC transfer fee happens to be at the time!  And the DOGE miners are less likely to have custom tweaks, they will just be running the bog standard software.

I was ruminating over something like this myself over the past week or so.  Turning XCP into a meta-crypto-currency that can theoretically live on *any* crypto-currency would be kind of an end-game.  And I think it will actually be necessary, otherwise somebody is just going to copy the Counterparty code and fork it to run on top of LTC, DOGE and whatever else.  I'd rather have 1 meta-XCP than a ton of XCP clones running around on every altcoin under the sun.  (Theoretically, this should be fairly easy to implement in XCP since most of the crap altcoins have virtually no alterations and are pretty much straight copypastas of Bitcoin or Litecoin, with a few tweaks in the parameters.  Of course, the chain-hopping itself would be difficult to implement, but once it's implemented for, say, Litecoin, it would be pretty straightforward to extend it to DOGE or Name_Altcoin_Here.)

This is more or less how I was thinking it could work as well. Kind of hope this catches on :p good stuff

On a side note and totally off topic... anybody able to give me some + rating on my profile to counteract the negative rating my account has so I can get rid of that red "trade with caution" warning? Annoying troll from another thread decided to give me negative feedback and label me scammer over literaly nothing. ugh >_>

[Mrrr]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And with pain in my heart I've called upon the ultimate weapon: the Bayeux Tapestry Generator.



Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

[porqupine]

It's pretty good. But Satoshi was actually in favor of further development.

[SlickTheNick]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And with pain in my heart I've called upon the ultimate weapon: the Bayeux Tapestry Generator.



Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

haha this is great

[lonsharim]

OP_RETURN covered by Coin Desk

http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/

[coins101]

+1 for Common Sense

When you really think about it in a global way, storing data in a second blockchain is even more wasteful.

Imagine these two future cases:
Scenario 1: Bitcoin + Counterparty
Scenario 2: Bitcoin + BitcoinLikeSecondChain + Counterparty

Scenario #2 will always use up more data globally than #1 because we have to add in the second chain + its overheads.
Scenario #2 makes all parties (Bitcoin, BitcoindSecondChain, and Counterparty) a little less secured.

Why have Counterparty/metaprotocols running on top of a second chain when it's even simpler to integrate directly into the chain like some of the Bitcoin competitors?  Why even have OP_RETURN?  Why even have script if we really want to save every bit of space?

Counterparty is just tiny writings in the margins of the Bitcoin book.  Reducing the margin to 40 bytes and advocating that all metaprotocols write to more books is just encouraging more wasted resources for everyone on the planet -- just so we might save up a few bytes in one book.

Allowing just enough room in OP_RETURN for a hash is like leaving enough room for Fermat to write down one last equation when that one equation could have led to another, and another in a chain of discoveries.  It makes sense that a little more room for writing in the margin will make the Bitcoin book more valuable for everyone NOW before the new competitions come.

Please allow some room in the margins instead of encouraging metaprotocols to waste more trees by starting more useless books.

It is called a free ride.  Given that the overwhelming majority -- >90% -- application for the bitcoin blockchain is currency use, using full nodes as dumb data storage terminals is simply abusing an all-volunteer network resource.  The network replicates transaction data, so why not come along for a free ride?

Rather than engage the existing community, mastercoin and counterparty simply flipped an "on" switch and started using bitcoin P2P nodes as unwanted data stores.  An unspent transaction output was never meant to be used as arbitrary data storage.  The fact that it can be abused as such does not make it right, or remotely efficient, or the best solution.

The UTXO (unspent transaction output) database is the entire network's fast access database.  Every single node needs that database to be as small as possible, for best processing of network transactions.  Encoding arbitrary data into unspent outputs is network-wide abuse, plain and simple.  The entire network bears the cost.

Why not just charge people that want to store data, pass the fee to the nodes and developers?

Unless it significantly impacts processing speed, all those professional mining operations need to earn extra revenue so they can keep up with the ASIC arms race.

[nakaone]

OP_RETURN covered by Coin Desk

http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/

good to see this discussed on a broader scale

[porqupine]

It's not very well researched.

[nakaone]

It's not very well researched.

it is number 1 in reddit/bitcoin

it opens basically the question what the bitcoin blockchain is for - I think this question is quite elemental. anyway good to see your comment in the discussion on reddit

[porqupine]

It's not very well researched.

it is number 1 in reddit/bitcoin

I saw. I made a few comments (though one of my coindesk comment's is missing idk why?) -

Overall I think this issue has brought out a lot about Bitcoin development and the environment around it, and I'd hate the for the serious discussion to be lost among those misinformed 'those whiny guys want to store their data' comments. I don't think that moves anything forward, and unfortunately I think the Coindesk article being poorly researched inclines people towards that kind of shallow point of view.
Then again maybe my expectations of redditors are far too high.

[super3]

I've heard many complaints about all the altcoins, then we can't allow an extra 40 bytes for the metachains that are trying to build on top of Bitcoin?

Blockchain bloat is a technical problem that can be solved. I don't think anyone should be gatekeepers to what should or should not be stored in the blockchain.

[IamNotSure]

It's not very well researched.

it is number 1 in reddit/bitcoin

I saw. I made a few comments (though one of my coindesk comment's is missing idk why?) -

Overall I think this issue has brought out a lot about Bitcoin development and the environment around it, and I'd hate the for the serious discussion to be lost among those misinformed 'those whiny guys want to store their data' comments. I don't think that moves anything forward, and unfortunately I think the Coindesk article being poorly researched inclines people towards that kind of shallow point of view.
Then again maybe my expectations of redditors are far too high.

The article is not that bad, don't forget that we are all biaised toward XCP since most of us own some XCP and support the project. Besides, there is no such thing as bad press.

Glad to see it reached the top on reddit, I suspected it to be downvoted like hell because of the "get out of my blockchain effet"

[porqupine]

I mean you have to realize - your average person isn't going to read the article and then research the facts. He's going to read 'storage problems' - 'free ride' - 'Mike Hearn's proposal' - and then make pointed considerations as a credible authority about what he just read five minutes ago. 
Most of these arguments have been debunked (even the point that Jgarzik conceded in support of OP_Return 80) - I have not double checked dex7's analysis of multi-sig transactions - but as far as I can tell he is the only one that even performed said analysis - the Dev's apparently didn't feel obligated to do any such thing.