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

[ewibit]

ROCKMINER:
----------------
XCP is under developing,we will consider it if it really works well.
----------------
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.msg6136502#msg6136502

[yanglei504]

I need pay more attention to XCP

[OTK47]

Have you seen this? What do you guys think?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/04/08/beyond-bitcoin-crypto-ownership-companies-hope-youre-ready-to-decentralize-everything-on-the-internet/

[PhantomPhreak]

What version of OpenSSL was Bitcoin 0.8.6 using ?

+1
Should we be upgrading our Bitcion-qt to 0.9.1. If so will it affect Counterparty installation.

no unless you are opening SSL access on your RPC

Yes. counterpartyd works with Bitcoin Core 0.9.1.

[l4p7]

Hi guys. With the Counterwallet mainnet release behind us, I've made my identity public to facilitate the continued evolution of Counterparty as we enter the next stage of growth.

Please see our blog post on this matter at: https://www.counterparty.co/next-steps/

This is a great thing! And in my opinion a necessary one to actually being able to compete. There will be competition with real world identity developers. Real world identity creates trust and the media is looking for a face and a story behind it. Also how would you want to negotiate deals with partner with a hidden idenity?? Over Skype only? That would be highly unprofessional.   

[l4p7]

Does any sort of collateralization requirement denominated in XCP limit the total amount of assets that can be traded on the exchange to the market cap of XCP? How do you work out the margin requirement? Or is the idea that any asset in one's possession can be used as collateral, but represented as an XCP equivalent?

In a world with XCP backed assets, one way I could imagine this working would be that the current market price of the asset (based on a price feed) would be locked away when the asset was created, and the issuer would place a bet to cover future variations in the price, up to a disclosed bet size, and future date.

An issuer could choose the amount of margin they want to put up, and when they run out, the asset would be automatically liquidated. This would have the side effect of dumpling an asset holder back into XCP if a market got volatile, but I think it could dramatically reduce counterparty risk, and everyone would know were they stood.

When issuing, an issuer would lock away $1 worth of XCP to create the asset, and might choose to commit, say, another 25% to cover variation. So $1.25 worth of XCP might be locked away per USD token. They could sell the token to get $1 of XCP back, so they'd basically be net a long XCP bet.

I can imagine that this kind of usage would increase the scarcity of XCP and push the price up (so in the next round a unit of XCP could back a larger dollar value of assets, and so on).

You cannot eliminate counterparty risk from an asset-backed currency peg, as there is no mechanism at the protocol level to stop the issuer (i.e. the user with the private key of the address with the XCP backing) from withdrawing funds. I still think though that is a really good use-case.

A currency peg that actually requires no trust is making a CFD on the price of an asset to which you would like to peg your holdings in XCP. The effectiveness of the peg, however, depends on one's leverage, which in turn increases one's risk. For anyone who is interested in making such a peg, I have come up with a few examples which would show how you do it.

as there is no mechanism at the protocol level to stop the issuer (i.e. the user with the private key of the address with the XCP backing) from withdrawing funds

But would it be possibility to implement such a mechanism: The issuer of XLTC sends the funds to a LTC wallet within the Counterparty system....

So the above says that trading a user defined and user issued asset involves counter party risk (the issuer not keeping his promise to redeem the asset if desired) but the counterparty website claims: "Trade, BTC, XCP and user-created assets with no counterparty risk" 

[CryptoFinanceUK]

So the above says that trading a user defined and user issued asset involves counter party risk (the issuer not keeping his promise to redeem the asset if desired) but the counterparty website claims: "Trade, BTC, XCP and user-created assets with no counterparty risk"  

I think they mean that there's no counterparty risk in the trade itself, as opposed to the issuer risk of holding an asset token that (you hope) is backed by real property.

I have a proposal for a service that might go some way toward mitigating the issuer risk part. I'd love some feedback from you guys if you have a moment.  


 

[PhantomPhreak]

Anyone know how the 0.5xcp got there?

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb also looks weird ( crosspost from https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,188.msg1803.html#msg1803 )

13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw definitely is strange. There is no record in counterpartyd logs for transfers of XCP to this address. I'd say that it couldn't be a coincidence that there is a send of 0.5 UNIT.

I'd need more context for 17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb. It's possible for that to be just a mistake from the command line. You don't have to btcpay from the address you originally made the order.

Yep, there was a bug, which we've now fixed. (See that thread for more info.)

That bug was with fees and slow tx confirmations. That negative balance is a problem with Blockscan: in counterpartyd, the balances of that address are

> counterpartyd.py balances 13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw
Balances
+-------+-----------+
| Asset |   Amount  |
+-------+-----------+
|  BTC  | 0.0103172 |
|  HATE | 999000000 |
|  UNIT |    0.5    |
|  XCP  |    0.5    |
+-------+-----------+

[infra172]

Why do I see "Pending order to sell" for more than 20 hours now?
And how was I able to send another sell order for the same amount? (there is no more XCP on the account)

?

Ok, again, maybe someone answers this...




WHY?

Because it hasn't been matched?

But I can´t see it in the order book, it is under pending actions and not open orders and I am able to send it over and over again.

It seems that this is due to insufficient fees. We raised the MIN_FEE at 0.0002 until I remove the priming which are increasing transactions size:

https://github.com/xnova/counterwallet/issues/44

Thank you! What does this mean in regards of my balance? Will the transactions just disappear from the interface after a while? Are the funds still available in my account? How can I set the fee for a transaction? When will the gui be updated so I can start trading?

Thank you very much for your help, the work you all are doing is really amazing!

The great silver



More miners involved

[Aru Hasa-Special]

If XCP early in half a year, in the stock market gold period believe that price is far above the MSC now!

[romerun]

such wow, if it works great for RM, AM might be interested in XCP as well.

ROCKMINER:
----------------
XCP is under developing,we will consider it if it really works well.
----------------
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.msg6136502#msg6136502

how should RM do it ? The XCP liquidity is not there yet for a medium size company, maybe they should build the orderbook with XBTC, so that it's not affected by the price swing of BTC/XCP with the downside of trusting led_lcd/maxmint, and later switch to trade the asset against XCP when enough liquidity with no counterparty risk.

[Anotheranonlol]

such wow, if it works great for RM, AM might be interested in XCP as well.

ROCKMINER:
----------------
XCP is under developing,we will consider it if it really works well.
----------------
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.msg6136502#msg6136502

how should RM do it ? The XCP liquidity is not there yet for a medium size company, maybe they should build the orderbook with XBTC, so that it's not affected by the price swing of BTC/XCP with the downside of trusting led_lcd/maxmint, and later switch to trade the asset against XCP when enough liquidity with no counterparty risk.

You are right, and liquidity begets liquidity, but why do they need to expose themself to XCP? they can be using counterparty only as a share distribution, tracking and trading mechanism (compared with excel sheets or whatever antiquitated system AM is using) and paying shareholders directly in BTC right?

[mtbitcoin]

Anyone know how the 0.5xcp got there?

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb also looks weird ( crosspost from https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,188.msg1803.html#msg1803 )

13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw definitely is strange. There is no record in counterpartyd logs for transfers of XCP to this address. I'd say that it couldn't be a coincidence that there is a send of 0.5 UNIT.

I'd need more context for 17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb. It's possible for that to be just a mistake from the command line. You don't have to btcpay from the address you originally made the order.

Yep, there was a bug, which we've now fixed. (See that thread for more info.)

That bug was with fees and slow tx confirmations. That negative balance is a problem with Blockscan: in counterpartyd, the balances of that address are

> counterpartyd.py balances 13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw
Balances
+-------+-----------+
| Asset |   Amount  |
+-------+-----------+
|  BTC  | 0.0103172 |
|  HATE | 999000000 |
|  UNIT |    0.5    |
|  XCP  |    0.5    |
+-------+-----------+

I have updated to the latest build and from what I can see the balances are now correct. However, as there were some syntax changes in the database "status" fields and change from using "amount"->"quantity" in the field naming, this has somewhat thrown a portion of the blockscan code off balance as I directly read from the DB for performance reasons (vs. using the API).

I've fixed what I know off but I might have missed something. If there are any other discrepancies please drop me  PM

Cheers

[kuloch]

Why do I see "Pending order to sell" for more than 20 hours now?
And how was I able to send another sell order for the same amount? (there is no more XCP on the account)

?

Ok, again, maybe someone answers this...




WHY?

Because it hasn't been matched?

But I can´t see it in the order book, it is under pending actions and not open orders and I am able to send it over and over again.

I hope you can get more harvest



Come on price can fly to the moon

[wqdqszj]

XCP can never up to .25 btc again.

[kuloch]

Hi guys. With the Counterwallet mainnet release behind us, I've made my identity public to facilitate the continued evolution of Counterparty as we enter the next stage of growth.

Please see our blog post on this matter at: https://www.counterparty.co/next-steps/

This is a great thing! And in my opinion a necessary one to actually being able to compete. There will be competition with real world identity developers. Real world identity creates trust and the media is looking for a face and a story behind it. Also how would you want to negotiate deals with partner with a hidden idenity?? Over Skype only? That would be highly unprofessional.   

At the beginning of a new industry, there exist many deficiencies



Of course, it has also the advantages outweigh the disadvantages



Your idea is correct

[kuloch]

Again, congrats. on today's big move towards adaption. I believe that we need to pickup marketing after a period of debugging.

In order to pickup marketing and in order for all of us to "spread the word", and attract XCP investment as well as CP platform usage I believe that we need to have the best clarity, on details beyond the obvious value that a decentralized platform provides.

-----------------------------------------

Thus, Back to "business model"questions:

I read the LTB coin plan with great interest and I can indeed see a great potential in what they are trying to do there.

I will use this as an example to ask several questions to our devs, Matt or any other visionaries here that would like to answer:

Since LTB coin (and any other such future asset) will be built off the CP platform and is an asset:

1) there will be 510M coins and promotions etc etc. how many actual assets will be issued that will require 0.5xcps? (one time and done? every promotion?)

2) I can see that the LTB vision, as well as the B TangibleAssets vision, as well as all other assets in the future, can create great value to their shareholders. However,

a) what drives XCP's value in real economic terms? what drives CP's value?
b) can we actually have LTB's with a market cap of say 50M and CP with 10M? I believe that it is possible. so how will we generate value to our XCPs when we dont have shares in CP (XCPs ARE our shares).

3) Will all transaction fees incurred from various activities around CP actually go to BTC miners? or are there DEX fees that will stay within the CP eco-system (hence realizing that it is a vertical system within the BTC ecosystem as we tried to display to the BTC devs)

Thanks for thoughtful orderly answers.

not belonging to the xcp team - I think that are very useful questions.

I try to answer question 2 - please correct me if I am wrong

2a) I think this question was also relevant regarding mastercoin. Whereas everyone can see the value of the protocol (mastercoin, counterparty) it is hard to understand the value of the underlying currencies (msc, xcp). As fas as I know xcps value now is mostly derived from speculation, paying dividens and being simply the native currency of the counterparty protocol. In the future this will probably change because xcp will be useful for specific cases. It will be used for betting and derivatives, because some functions of xcp are different to the functions of btc, enabling these specific types of transactions. I talked to xnova yesterday in the chat and he told me that they will implement betting function in the counterparty wallet within the next month. Furthermore there is a huge interest in implementing a kind of a prediction market, enabling more complex financial transaction. I highly ecpect that XCPs will be used for these more complex transactions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

2b) I also see no reason for that not being possible, this probably changes if the metacurrencies would be backed by xcps. A second more likely case is that the demand for the expected specific functions of xcp will be higher than the function or profitability of these specific assets

Have to say that you consider very comprehensive



But every rational



Quite agree with you

[PhantomPhreak]

Anyone know how the 0.5xcp got there?

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw

http://blockscan.com/address.aspx?q=17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb also looks weird ( crosspost from https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,188.msg1803.html#msg1803 )

13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw definitely is strange. There is no record in counterpartyd logs for transfers of XCP to this address. I'd say that it couldn't be a coincidence that there is a send of 0.5 UNIT.

I'd need more context for 17Vxv31VfpFY6tWBBB93tcSgP4SYeqzTTb. It's possible for that to be just a mistake from the command line. You don't have to btcpay from the address you originally made the order.

Yep, there was a bug, which we've now fixed. (See that thread for more info.)

That bug was with fees and slow tx confirmations. That negative balance is a problem with Blockscan: in counterpartyd, the balances of that address are

> counterpartyd.py balances 13J6wg7BdvjnPHHRPUp1EQBx6Z7KW5RcZw
Balances
+-------+-----------+
| Asset |   Amount  |
+-------+-----------+
|  BTC  | 0.0103172 |
|  HATE | 999000000 |
|  UNIT |    0.5    |
|  XCP  |    0.5    |
+-------+-----------+

I have updated to the latest build and from what I can see the balances are now correct. However, as there were some syntax changes in the database "status" fields and change from using "amount"->"quantity" in the field naming, this has somewhat thrown a portion of the blockscan code off balance as I directly read from the DB for performance reasons (vs. using the API).

I've fixed what I know off but I might have missed something. If there are any other discrepancies please drop me  PM

Cheers

Send me a PM about those performance concerns, so that we can work on mitigating them, because everything really should be able to go through the API.

[OTK47]

XCP can never up to .25 btc again.

It never has been .25 btc

[mtbitcoin]

Send me a PM about those performance concerns, so that we can work on mitigating them, because everything really should be able to go through the API.

I was not implying that there was performance issues with the API, but just that reading from the DB directly is naturally faster and more efficient than going through the API.

On a side note, if I was building this from scratch today I would probably consider doing this via API. However, most of the code was already done before an API was available.