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

[PhantomPhreak]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

The settlement time is not a problem. In traditionnal financial markets, the settlement take up to 3 days after the trade, and involve a lot of different actors which takes their fees. An automatic settlement in 10 minutes is a massive progress.

But pairing the trade and the settlement makes the trading painful. I don't think this model is viable in the long term. (If historically they have been unpaired it's for a good reason.)

[PhantomPhreak]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

The settlement time is not a problem. In traditionnal financial markets, the settlement take up to 3 days after the trade, and involve a lot of different actors which takes their fees. An automatic settlement in 10 minutes is a massive progress.

But pairing the trade and the settlement makes the trading painful. I don't think this model is viable in the long term. (If historically they have been unpaired it's for a good reason.)

Yes, but in traditional financial markets, you're legally obligated to settle. Here, you don't have to settle if you don't want to, if the funds in question are not already held in escrow. For a middleman-less escrow system, the matching has to be done in the same layer.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

The settlement time is not a problem. In traditionnal financial markets, the settlement take up to 3 days after the trade, and involve a lot of different actors which takes their fees. An automatic settlement in 10 minutes is a massive progress.

But pairing the trade and the settlement makes the trading painful. I don't think this model is viable in the long term. (If historically they have been unpaired it's for a good reason.)

How do you mean it makes it painful? Are you talking about the lag when trading with BTC? Otherwise I think 10 minutes or whatever the block happens to be is not too long a period to wait. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

10 minutes are still long enough to deter some trades from happening and therefore to undermine liquidity. But I guess there is no workaround.

[xnova]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

The settlement time is not a problem. In traditionnal financial markets, the settlement take up to 3 days after the trade, and involve a lot of different actors which takes their fees. An automatic settlement in 10 minutes is a massive progress.

But pairing the trade and the settlement makes the trading painful. I don't think this model is viable in the long term. (If historically they have been unpaired it's for a good reason.)

How do you mean it makes it painful? Are you talking about the lag when trading with BTC? Otherwise I think 10 minutes or whatever the block happens to be is not too long a period to wait. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

10 minutes are still long enough to deter some trades from happening and therefore to undermine liquidity. But I guess there is no workaround.

http://support.counterparty.co/support/solutions/articles/5000003456-how-would-counterparty-support-faster-trading-than-bitcoin

But yes, it is possible to support such fast trades, but it would require centralization (or at least some form of it) for trading, and then settlement to the blockchain, as Adam noted.

[BldSwtTrs]

I am probably asking a stupid question here, but is there a way to make the matching happens on a central server outside the protocol and still use Counterparty to make the settlement?

It's definitely possible, but not currently supported. Such a system also wouldn't have many advantages over the current one.

Wouldn't it allow to make trading easier and also scale better?

I see how counterparty could disrupt the custodian and clearing houses business but I really don't see how it can compete with centralized exchanges.

It could, yes. The order matching would be faster. The settlement would still take the same amount of time.

The settlement time is not a problem. In traditionnal financial markets, the settlement take up to 3 days after the trade, and involve a lot of different actors which takes their fees. An automatic settlement in 10 minutes is a massive progress.

But pairing the trade and the settlement makes the trading painful. I don't think this model is viable in the long term. (If historically they have been unpaired it's for a good reason.)

How do you mean it makes it painful? Are you talking about the lag when trading with BTC? Otherwise I think 10 minutes or whatever the block happens to be is not too long a period to wait. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

10 minutes are still long enough to deter some trades from happening and therefore to undermine liquidity. But I guess there is no workaround.

http://support.counterparty.co/support/solutions/articles/5000003456-how-would-counterparty-support-faster-trading-than-bitcoin

But yes, it is possible to support such fast trades, but it would require centralization (or at least some form of it) for trading, and then settlement to the blockchain, as Adam noted.

Take Bitcoin, despite all the decentralization spirit and purpose, if it weren't for centralized services, it would probably be nowhere today.

I hope some exchange will think about Counterparty assets and give them a try. Then the market could decide what's the most useful way to use that technology.

[jrmg]

I try log in with crhome and get message, last days my counterwallet have been logged in and now i try log out and in when get this. Only warning what no need care i dont have try my acc with any other device or browser?
"Confirm connection You appear to be logged into Counterwallet elsewhere. It's not safe to be logged into the same wallet account from multiple devices at the same time. If you are sure that this is not the case, press Continue. Otherwise, please press Cancel, logout from your other device, and try again."

[Viper1]

I try log in with crhome and get message, last days my counterwallet have been logged in and now i try log out and in when get this. Only warning what no need care i dont have try my acc with any other device or browser?
"Confirm connection You appear to be logged into Counterwallet elsewhere. It's not safe to be logged into the same wallet account from multiple devices at the same time. If you are sure that this is not the case, press Continue. Otherwise, please press Cancel, logout from your other device, and try again."

Try clearing your cache/cookies. I had that once as well. Now I run it in an incognito window and haven't seen that happen again.

[nutildah]

Hi Devs and Community,

Good job with the new Counterwallet fixes! I like the addition of "Escr:" next to balances in orders. It also seems like trades are happening more smoothly.

The time seems right so I just wanted to pre-emptively let you guys know that I am about to flood the exchange with 32 different assets, all of which correspond to different NFL football teams' odds of winning the Super Bowl.

Its kind of a complicated "game" but if you're interested in knowing more about what these tokens are, please visit the BitBowl blog page. Thanks and just so you know I will not be using this thread for advertisement purposes in the future.

[Matt Y]

Awesome. Good luck!

[IXC2XIC]

The price on this coin has been very stable especially compared to most alts. Good buy and hold. 

[Matt Y]

The price on this coin has been very stable especially compared to most alts. Good buy and hold.  

The market cap of Counterparty has doubled from the previous bottom, which occurred in early May.

Counterparty market cap in early May: $2,700,000

Counterparty market cap now: $5,600,000

[SyRenity]

Anyone knows why scrubbing does not work anymore?

Trying to import XPC's into counterwallet since the morning, and the process just stops on step 1.

[JahPowerBit]

Anyone knows why scrubbing does not work anymore?

Trying to import XPC's into counterwallet since the morning, and the process just stops on step 1.

You talk about sweeping? Please send me more details by PM or email.

[nutildah]

Hi Guys,

I apologize if this question has been answered already, but I couldn't help but wonder the trading fees for orders involving XCP are listed in the buy/sell screens as .0002 BTC when the final fee comes out to .000356 BTC. At 11-12 cents a pop isn't such a big deal but at 20-21 cents, well, it becomes more expensive than some of the assets that are currently for sale, which is a heavy disincentive to list cheap assets in small or singular quantities.

I realize there has to be motivation for the network to process transactions, but would someone mind explaining why the fee is currently 78% higher than what is listed in market order screens?

Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.

[nutildah]

...I couldn't help but wonder the trading fees for orders involving XCP are listed in the buy/sell screens as .0002 BTC when the final fee comes out to .000356 BTC.

Update: after the BTC balance for the account conducting the trades had settled, the averaged fee was .000317 BTC... somehow I got back an additional .000039 BTC credit.

Thoughts?

[deliciousowl]

...I couldn't help but wonder the trading fees for orders involving XCP are listed in the buy/sell screens as .0002 BTC when the final fee comes out to .000356 BTC.

Update: after the BTC balance for the account conducting the trades had settled, the averaged fee was .000317 BTC... somehow I got back an additional .000039 BTC credit.

Thoughts?

I'm guessing the extra amount in the fee is the unspent multisig output (a method of storing XCP data), which can be redeemed here: http://api.bitwatch.co/redeem (this functionality will soon be added to Counterwallet).
 
As for why you got an additional BTC credit, I'm not sure. Could you provide your BTC/XCP address or history? It may be a display bug in the new Counterwallet pre-release, while the actual balance may be accurate.

I suggest you look at your trades/credits and debits in http://blockscan.com, and if it still seems fishy, contact the developers.

[nutildah]

I'm guessing the extra amount in the fee is the unspent multisig output (a method of storing XCP data), which can be redeemed here: http://api.bitwatch.co/redeem (this functionality will soon be added to Counterwallet).
 
As for why you got an additional BTC credit, I'm not sure. Could you provide your BTC/XCP address or history? It may be a display bug in the new Counterwallet pre-release, while the actual balance may be accurate.

I suggest you look at your trades/credits and debits in http://blockscan.com, and if it still seems fishy, contact the developers.

Thank you for this! I appreciate it. For some reason I keep getting the message "invalid arguments" when trying to sign the hex string given at the bottom of the bitwatch results page. Do I accomplish this by using the "Sign Transaction" option under the address for which I am trying to recover BTC to, and pasting the hex string, or is there more to it than that?

Thanks again and I will check out the blockscan balances next.

[dexX7]

Thank you for this! I appreciate it. For some reason I keep getting the message "invalid arguments" when trying to sign the hex string given at the bottom of the bitwatch results page. Do I accomplish this by using the "Sign Transaction" option under the address for which I am trying to recover BTC to, and pasting the hex string, or is there more to it than that?

Thanks again and I will check out the blockscan balances next.

Which Bitcoin Core client verison are you using? If you like, send me the raw transaction and I'll take a look.

The process is basically:

 - open redeem.bitwatch.co
 - paste your address into the input box
 - press "get unspent outputs"
 - copy the complete hex string at the bottom
 - power up bitcoin-qt, -cli
 - enter: signrawtransaction *hex*
 - no error should appear
 - copy this result
 - enter: sendrawtransaction *signedhex*

[SyRenity]

You talk about sweeping? Please send me more details by PM or email.

Sent you all the logs yesterday, still unfortunately doesn't work.