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

[porqupine]

It's also possible to add Feeds that will return the value of say XCP/Gold rather than Gold/USD - which will hedge against XCP volatility.

[1714746245]

1714746245

[1714746245]

1714746245

[BitcoinTangibleTrust]

Possible April Fools' joke...

While the "no funding" thing is in some ways a disadvantage, mostly due to the lack of funding, in other ways it's been advantageous.

Counterparty is about five months old as a project and we have the first functioning DEx as well as a fully functioning deterministic web wallet that was created in a few months, drastically increasing usability and it will be live shortly. That is great progress.

Burning bitcoins into a black hole is never going to be the most "productive model" because you are destroying value. You are trading monetary value in order to ensure risk and reward are both distributed as evenly as possible. It also immediately aligns developer priorities with every person who burnt a bitcoin.

The Counterparty developers are developing at an incredibly fast pace. Compare Counterparty's development timeline to other second generation projects. Five months in, I have no complaints. In fact, no funding appears to have had no effect on the project's development. The same can be said for other unfunded projects, such as Linux. Furthermore, too much money, too soon, can easily destroy a project.

Nontechnical people likely "only care about the price" when an altcoin does not have significant utility behind it. There are no apples to apples comparison for Counterparty because of the utility that the protocol provides. When Counterparty is easier to use, people will be buying and selling XCP to do various actions within the Counterparty ecosystem, not because of the price. Also, the recent downturn in market caps has largely been "industry" wide, from bitcoin on down.

Well said, sir. We have traded onerous corporate governance for rapid software execution.

I can go into how fast BTT has setup a business atop of Counterparty, but that would encourage competitors and I'd prefer we have less.

Counterparty has made the ridiculously impossible, possible in just 3 months.

More to is yet to come!

[sparta_cuss]

Possible April Fools' joke...

While the "no funding" thing is in some ways a disadvantage, mostly due to the lack of funding, in other ways it's been advantageous.

Counterparty is about five months old as a project and we have the first functioning DEx as well as a fully functioning deterministic web wallet that was created in a few months, drastically increasing usability and it will be live shortly. That is great progress.

Burning bitcoins into a black hole is never going to be the most "productive model" because you are destroying value. You are trading monetary value in order to ensure risk and reward are both distributed as evenly as possible. It also immediately aligns developer priorities with every person who burnt a bitcoin.

The Counterparty developers are developing at an incredibly fast pace. Compare Counterparty's development timeline to other second generation projects. Five months in, I have no complaints. In fact, no funding appears to have had no effect on the project's development. The same can be said for other unfunded projects, such as Linux. Furthermore, too much money, too soon, can easily destroy a project.

Nontechnical people likely "only care about the price" when an altcoin does not have significant utility behind it. There are no apples to apples comparison for Counterparty because of the utility that the protocol provides. When Counterparty is easier to use, people will be buying and selling XCP to do various actions within the Counterparty ecosystem, not because of the price. Also, the recent downturn in market caps has largely been "industry" wide, from bitcoin on down.

Well said, sir. We have traded onerous corporate governance for rapid software execution.

I can go into how fast BTT has setup a business atop of Counterparty, but that would encourage competitors and I'd prefer we have less.

Counterparty has made the ridiculously impossible, possible in just 3 months.

More to is yet to come!

I would show up two hours early to the party just to talk to you, BTT. And I'd bring investor friends.

[TheMightyX]

Possible April Fools' joke...

While the "no funding" thing is in some ways a disadvantage, mostly due to the lack of funding, in other ways it's been advantageous.

Counterparty is about five months old as a project and we have the first functioning DEx as well as a fully functioning deterministic web wallet that was created in a few months, drastically increasing usability and it will be live shortly. That is great progress.

Burning bitcoins into a black hole is never going to be the most "productive model" because you are destroying value. You are trading monetary value in order to ensure risk and reward are both distributed as evenly as possible. It also immediately aligns developer priorities with every person who burnt a bitcoin.

The Counterparty developers are developing at an incredibly fast pace. Compare Counterparty's development timeline to other second generation projects. Five months in, I have no complaints. In fact, no funding appears to have had no effect on the project's development. The same can be said for other unfunded projects, such as Linux. Furthermore, too much money, too soon, can easily destroy a project.

Nontechnical people likely "only care about the price" when an altcoin does not have significant utility behind it. There are no apples to apples comparison for Counterparty because of the utility that the protocol provides. When Counterparty is easier to use, people will be buying and selling XCP to do various actions within the Counterparty ecosystem, not because of the price. Also, the recent downturn in market caps has largely been "industry" wide, from bitcoin on down.

Not sure why someone thought my rant was an april fools joke?
Everything in it was factual.

I wouldn't argue that counterparty has come a long way and the developers are doing amazing work.
That being said, the developers are working in a bubble at the moment.
Who is here to see their achievements but us?
Are there ever any news reports? Why isn't this all over the mainstream news?
We all know this project is huge, but regular folks don't.
This project is designed to replace and improve a corrupt financial system.
This is big shit we are talking about.

You say that regular people only care about the price when a coin is useless. I don't agree with that. Counterparty has probably the most utility behind it than any protocol out there at the moment, but no one knows about it, even in the altcoin community! The fact of the matter is people are busy. People are also impatient, arrogant, lazy and ignorant. We cannot succeed on our merits alone.

This may seem like a stupid idea that has probably been covered already, but what would be the downside of counterparty functioning on its own PoS blockchain?
In this regard wouldn't we need significant less hashing power to secure the blockchain?  And what if bitcoin could be cloned and all addresses transferred over? If bitcoin was cloned wouldn't we be able to import our addresses into the new blockchain without losing any progress? We would all have the same amount of XCP, we wouldnt be reliant on bitcoin for security and we would make our own rules.

We could up the block speed and increase the OP_return on our own. The PoS minting could just pay off transaction fees.
So instead of paying fees to bitcoin miners we would be paying fees to ourselves.

This whole reliance on bitcoin just seems foolish and nearsighted.

If we can't clone bitcoin and change it into a PoS blockchain couldn't we adopt our own PoS chain and use proof of burn to transfer XCP to the new blockchain?


10 min blocks and a 13Gb blockchain to download is admittedly suffocating this startup.
That is an unusually high barrier to entry that most people are not going to take the time to figure out.
13gb in a year or two? Sure, that might be ok. But if people can't download the software, run it, sync the blockchain within 20 minutes and use the stupid thing; You are yelling at deaf people.

[Fernandez]

Whats the eta on the counterwallet going live on mainnet?

Also

http://blog.mastercoin.org/2014/04/01/masterdoge-mastercoin-moving-to-dogecoin/  

It can't be true or is it ?

Much suprise!

what's going on? 

Many colours!

[Matt Y]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin with the blessing of the core developers. I would suggest that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

[TheMightyX]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin. I would argue that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe a 6 hour process if you are lucky)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy and spend BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

When we make XCP transactions, those fees should be paid to the XCP community, not some arbitrary middleman.

[CryptoFinanceUK]

What possible benefit does it have other than security?

Well, one thing is that it keeps us native to a $6B marketcap currency, enabling people to trade directly with that currency and settle using BTCPay. If we move away, people will need to use BTC tokens backed by an issuer instead, which adds a layer of counterparty risk.

[dpb]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin. I would argue that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe a 6 hour process if you are lucky)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

I'd like to see a future where Bitcoin is a neutral medium on which other protocols pay to get secured by the world's largest hashing network. All projects are made less secure by splitting off into their own blockchains; it might be worth the compromise of having to carry unwanted data if it means getting significantly more security for the desirable data.

[TheMightyX]

What possible benefit does it have other than security?

Well, one thing is that it keeps us native to a $6B marketcap currency, enabling people to trade directly with that currency and settle using BTCPay. If we move away, people will need to use BTC tokens backed by an issuer instead, which adds a layer of counterparty risk.

a 6B marketcap currency currently

So we are going to put all our eggs in that one basket are we...

I feel like that is narrowminded.
What need is there for bitcoin if we do everything they do plus so much more?
We are bitcoin. We are better than bitcoin. We don't need bitcoin. It is redundant.

Again, blind loyalty is not productive. Yes they came before and they paved the way, but if they are stifling progress....
Fuck them. The world is going to keep moving, with or without them.

[porqupine]

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe an 6 hour process)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

If Companies are going to issue Stock on the DEX - or merchants are going to hedge their received BTC payments - security IS a must. Merchants use Coinbase/Bitpay for their transactions - are they sacrificing security?
Deterministic Wallets are very secure - btw if you don't want to use a Web Wallet with Bitcoin - you do have to run BitcoindD or QT. Plus you are supporting the Network by running a Full Node.

Bitcoin was also hard to mine early on in it's development and you had to build from source I don't see why this should be any different. The reward is that you get to be an early investor - just like the people who Mined Bitcoins when the difficulty was low.

What do you mean by paying Tax? You are paying for transaction fees - everyone should pay this! Not to mention that they are minor for the advantages Bitcoin provides. The developer's are a different story - in this discussion so far, aside from a few people (Peter Todd) they have been overwhelming condescending, and in many ways unreasonable about things without any adequate logic supporting this. Nevertheless I think it's part of a development process and open-source community that you have to deal with people you don't really like and don't really agree with, and still progress to reaching some kind of understanding.

[iwillimust]

Taking policy fights out in the press never gets the wronged party what it wants.

Blockchain.info got Apple to allow wallets in the iPhone when they took out multilple press releases/blog posts. People even shot up their iphones and Apple cried.

Apple's purse is not a good construction?
I have full confidence in the future of coins
The developers think very thoughtful

[Matt Y]

Counterwallet is the next step in development on the usability side of the project. People that do not want to use a web wallet, should not use Counterwallet. They should continue to wait until a viable alternative which meets their needs is developed and released.

I did not say that Counterparty should move off Bitcoin in the future.

Running on Bitcoin is not strangling the adoption of Counterparty and my view is that both Bitcoin and Counterparty will be better together than they are apart.

[iwillimust]

The thing I really got from all these discussions is that Bitcoin is controlled by 12 miners. This is scary and is opposite to the decentralized nature.
I guess when big money comes in greed overrules everything and power grab happens.

If that's what you got from it, then you're either assuming that a majority of people would do things differently (unlikely), or that Bitcoin being controlled by 12 developers is somehow better (no thanks)...

Luke will you shut the fuck up? If your not gonna listen to what the community wants, then get out of this thread. You've sounded nothing short of a arrogant prick in all your posts.

If you don't like Counterparty, close the door on your way out.

Ha-ha
You are a straightforward person very frank
Hope to make friends with you
To provide useful information for each other
Is a good idea?

[CryptoFinanceUK]

I feel like that is narrowminded.

You asked for a benefit, I gave you one. I didn't say it was the only consideration.

I think the best way you'll advance this argument is if you can weight the risks and opportunities side by side.

[igigme77]

This discussion over the past week has made me buy into the argument that proof-of-work is not viable in the long run because it will be cartelized by a few powerful miners.

Proof of stake has its own issues currently but those are technical issues that can be solved, not a political one.

Hope you're not wrong
We can change a problem are discussed
Wish us luck

[TheMightyX]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin. I would argue that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe a 6 hour process if you are lucky)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

I'd like to see a future where Bitcoin is a neutral medium on which other protocols pay to get secured by the world's largest hashing network. All projects are made less secure by splitting off into their own blockchains; it might be worth the compromise of having to carry unwanted data if it means getting significantly more security for the desirable data.

We shouldn't be supporting the worlds largest energy wasting scheme in the future.
And this doesn't address the difference between PoW and PoS security.
We don't need that hashing power with a PoS blockchain.

[baddw]

Possible April Fools' joke...

Definitely not an April Fools' joke. Sorry.

The project is five months old. If you assumed Counterparty would be on CNN and a household name by this point, you set your expectations too high.

Here is something that just came out a couple days ago that includes an unbiased discussion on where Counterparty is as a project, the discussions that we've been having in this thread with regards to OP_RETURN, and what the impact of those discussions is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpuiaLbhEQ&feature=share&t=19m52s

The utility of Counterparty has outpaced the usability of the protocol. The usability is now catching up with the utility due to the upcoming release of Counterwallet.

I personally like Counterparty on Bitcoin and I hope that over the coming months a solution is reached that will allow us to stay on Bitcoin. I would argue that moving Counterparty off of Bitcoin would be premature and that we should continue working with the devs to reach a solution that works for everyone, and that may very well be possible as technologies and opinions continue to evolve.

So your solution is for everyone to use a webwallet?
And for those who don't want to use a webwallet they should just deal with it?

You like "counterparty on bitcoin" but why is that? What possible benefit does it have other than security?
You are forcing a trade of security for insecurity by running counterparty on bitcoin (security) but requiring everyone to use a webwallet (insecurity). You want to work with the bitcoin devs but what is the point in working with them on a solution and doing all this extra work to play nice with bitcoin if we are just going to be leaving them in the future?

We are all bitcoin supporters or were at one time. But blind loyalty is not helping. You can't just say "I want to stay on the bitcoin network because... BITCOIN 4 LIFE!!".
If you argue that moving CP off of bitcoin is the right move, but right now "would be premature"; Then you agree that it is the right thing to do in the future. If we should move it off bitcoin in the future, why aren't we moving it off now if it is strangling the spread of adoption?

If people could actually download and use the software we would have had such wider adoption and usage.
And "just wait for the webwallet" is not a proper remedy, but more of a band-aid.

On day 1 of a new coin release you are not supposed to have to:

• setup bitcoin daemon
• download a 13gb blockchain
• reindex it
• export keys
• import keys
• rescan
• reimport those keys again when it doesn't work properly
• rescan again
• etc etc

(For those who aren't aware, this is a two-day process unless you torrent the blockchain, in which case maybe a 6 hour process if you are lucky)

The idea that we will be forever paying a tax to our bitcoin overlords in the future for the backbreaking labor of carrying our financial transactions is sickening.
For what, security? Really is that the only way we can secure our network? I think not.
Why do I have to buy BTC to use my XCP?
Does no one else see that as a major design flaw?

I'd like to see a future where Bitcoin is a neutral medium on which other protocols pay to get secured by the world's largest hashing network. All projects are made less secure by splitting off into their own blockchains; it might be worth the compromise of having to carry unwanted data if it means getting significantly more security for the desirable data.

We shouldn't be supporting the worlds largest energy wasting scheme in the future.
And this doesn't address the difference between PoW and PoS security.
We don't need that hashing power with a PoS blockchain.

The world's largest energy wasting scheme is going to continue, with or without us.  Counterparty can certainly adapt if that ever looks like it's going to change.

PoS is still an emerging field.  IMO there are, shall we say, "issues" with all existing PoS implementations.  It hasn't been rigorously tested to nearly the same extent as PoW.  Most "PoS" coins out there are hybrid PoW/PoS anyway.  I do think that PoW will eventually be superseded by PoS, just for efficiency's sake, but when the time comes, Counterparty can just hop to the leading PoS coin instead of having to create one.

You are welcome to fork Counterparty if you feel so strongly about its direction.  Or move to one of the alternatives such as NXT, BitShares, or Ripple, all of which have their own take on the blockchain and protocol implementations.  I for one am somewhat invested in all of them, but I want to see them all succeed, and I really do like Counterparty from both a philosophical and technical standpoint.

I'm sure that the devs are flexible and will remain so, but the core idea for Counterparty was to build upon Bitcoin and leverage its security, its blockchain, its nodes, its miners.  They are not going to abandon that lightly.  It may come to that point some day, and they might already have some contingency plans in place, but it is still very early days and there's no reason to jump ship so quickly.  Rome was not built in a day.  IMO Counterparty is already winning the race, and the release of the Web Wallet will be a huge step up in average-end-user functionality.

[TheMightyX]

The world's largest energy wasting scheme is going to continue, with or without us.  Counterparty can certainly adapt if that ever looks like it's going to change.

It certainly will with that mentality.

PoS is still an emerging field.  IMO there are, shall we say, "issues" with all existing PoS implementations.  It hasn't been rigorously tested to nearly the same extent as PoW.  Most "PoS" coins out there are hybrid PoW/PoS anyway.  I do think that PoW will eventually be superseded by PoS, just for efficiency's sake, but when the time comes, Counterparty can just hop to the leading PoS coin instead of having to create one.

So it's better for counterparty to just react, instead of act? Are we really doomed to just follow the current trends? Piggybacking from one solution to the next?

What about actually taking a fucking stance? What about making a decision instead of letting other people make decisions for us.
This is the worst business advice ever. Is it a risk? Sure! But those that never take risks have nothing to gain.

You are welcome to fork Counterparty if you feel so strongly about its direction.  Or move to one of the alternatives such as NXT, BitShares, or Ripple, all of which have their own take on the blockchain and protocol implementations.  I for one am somewhat invested in all of them, but I want to see them all succeed, and I really do like Counterparty from both a philosophical and technical standpoint.

I'm sure that the devs are flexible and will remain so, but the core idea for Counterparty was to build upon Bitcoin and leverage its security, its blockchain, its nodes, its miners.  They are not going to abandon that lightly.  It may come to that point some day, and they might already have some contingency plans in place, but it is still very early days and there's no reason to jump ship so quickly.  Rome was not built in a day.  IMO Counterparty is already winning the race, and the release of the Web Wallet will be a huge step up in average-end-user functionality.

Winning the race of utility but not usage?
I would posit that counterparty has less adopters now than when it started as some early adopters have sold out and moved on.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

[TheMightyX]

INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)