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

[Equality 7-2521]

Please appreciate that this only occurs for BTC trading. There is no need to bash the entire DEx for that. There are ways to improve the BTC trading experience. These are being explored/developed. Try using XBTC instead, for example.

Not trying to bash the entire DEx, but it's silly to assume that the majority of new people coming to counterwallet won't be operating in BTC, though. It's not unreasonable to give people fair warning about the fact that BTC on the exchange, does not function very well. It should be visible somewhere on the exchange or wallet itself, not buried in this thread..

I completely understand where you are coming from. I was just frustrated by your first few sentences. I find it to be quite useable.

I had to register just to ask this. Can you guys please fix or address the decentralized exchange in Counterwallet? It's nigh unusable at the moment.

Doesn't Counterwallet give warnings about using BTCPay anyway?

[1715506311]

1715506311

[1715506311]

1715506311

[1715506311]

1715506311

[Xypro]

Doesn't Counterwallet give warnings about using BTCPay anyway?

Not in any very obvious way, no. It certainly doesn't give warnings that the issue is being abused by a couple people. It's one thing if an order drops because someone accidentally logs out, that's bound to happen a few times. It's another if there are a couple people actively abusing it to game the exchange.

[Jpja]

I'm just saying they should not have the xcp/btc exchange open right now. I've seen people complaining about it all week and it simply does not work. It should just be closed for now until they sort out btcpay because it's opening the door to financial loss for new people.

+1

I agree. I also vote for removing BTC from the DEX until a better solution is found. I'd like to add that the DEX works very well for XCP and any other assets.

[xnova]

I'm just saying they should not have the xcp/btc exchange open right now. I've seen people complaining about it all week and it simply does not work. It should just be closed for now until they sort out btcpay because it's opening the door to financial loss for new people.

+1

I agree. I also vote for removing BTC from the DEX until a better solution is found. I'd like to add that the DEX works very well for XCP and any other assets.

Removing BTC based trading from Counterwallet proposed, please comment here: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterwallet/issues/560

[Equality 7-2521]

There is at least one additional reason for XCP to have value. Another spam prevention mechanism:

"There is a small fee per recipient with dividends, to prevent SPAM." See here - https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/Counterparty/blob/master/README.md.

This fee is burned. Currently this dividend fee is set to 0.0002 XCP per recipient. I.e. 5,000 dividend recipients = 1 XCP burned.

[mishax1]

I'm just saying they should not have the xcp/btc exchange open right now. I've seen people complaining about it all week and it simply does not work. It should just be closed for now until they sort out btcpay because it's opening the door to financial loss for new people.

+1

I agree. I also vote for removing BTC from the DEX until a better solution is found. I'd like to add that the DEX works very well for XCP and any other assets.

Removing BTC based trading from Counterwallet proposed, please comment here: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterwallet/issues/560

Is it for both Sell and Buy or only for Buy with BTC orders ?  (like it was on Masterchest)

[PhantomPhreak]

I'm just saying they should not have the xcp/btc exchange open right now. I've seen people complaining about it all week and it simply does not work. It should just be closed for now until they sort out btcpay because it's opening the door to financial loss for new people.

+1

I agree. I also vote for removing BTC from the DEX until a better solution is found. I'd like to add that the DEX works very well for XCP and any other assets.

Removing BTC based trading from Counterwallet proposed, please comment here: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterwallet/issues/560

Note, this is a proposal to temporarily remove it from the version of Counterwallet that we host, not from the Counterparty distributed exchange.

[GeminiSimba]

The guys at the wallstreet journal write their new article with a bit of pessimistic flair using terms like "it falls short" and "Medici's limits" etc..
Ok so there will be a clearinghouse but so what, this will be a great step to creating a more peer to peer world and I'm sure the crypto community is willing to accept a few bumps in the road and sacrifices to make the necessary headway in this world that is still dominated by central powers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/24/bitbeat-the-promise-and-limits-of-overstocks-crypto-stock-exchange/?utm_content=buffer94df6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[visual111]

The guys at the wallstreet journal write their new article with a bit of pessimistic flair using terms like "it falls short" and "Medici's limits" etc..
Ok so there will be a clearinghouse but so what, this will be a great step to creating a more peer to peer world and I'm sure the crypto community is willing to accept a few bumps in the road and sacrifices to make the necessary headway in this world that is still dominated by central powers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/24/bitbeat-the-promise-and-limits-of-overstocks-crypto-stock-exchange/?utm_content=buffer94df6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

what is the issue with a "clearing house"? or, what is a clearing house?

[GeminiSimba]

The guys at the wallstreet journal write their new article with a bit of pessimistic flair using terms like "it falls short" and "Medici's limits" etc..
Ok so there will be a clearinghouse but so what, this will be a great step to creating a more peer to peer world and I'm sure the crypto community is willing to accept a few bumps in the road and sacrifices to make the necessary headway in this world that is still dominated by central powers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/24/bitbeat-the-promise-and-limits-of-overstocks-crypto-stock-exchange/?utm_content=buffer94df6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

what is the issue with a "clearing house"? or, what is a clearing house?

So lets say you start a company today (in regular wallstreet) and i want to buy stocks of your company. The moment I use a normal exchange and I think i'm buying your asset it goes through multiple clearing houses and at the end I think I have a share of your company but because of all these (middle man companies) it's possible that someone else has paperwork thinking they have the same stock that i bought. In other words a situation happens where there is a possibility of corruption and also a possibility of a situation where multiple people think they own the same exact asset, which is totally cool as long as the people who think they own an asset don't try to actually physically ask for that asset lol. Anyways a clearinghouse is not inherently a problem, it just leaves the "possibility" of corruption because it's a middle man of sorts. What Patrick (CEO of overstock) initially desired when he talked about creating a crypto currency version of wallstreet is basically a peer to peer system where say if you are starting a company and you want to sell stock, and I decide to purchase shares of your company, it's directly between me and you. If I purchase a stock from you it's going from you to me and not from you to a middle man to another middle man, to another middle man and finally i potentially have ownership rights of that stock (in theory). So what actually happened was the "law" told patrick that no matter what he needs a clearinghouse (Middle man company to authenticate the transactions of equity shares from a company to an investor). Now remember having a middle man introduces the "possibility" of future corruption, but basically Patrick is like you know what, ok fine by law we need a clearing house, ok we will make the system so transparent anyways by using block chain technology that it will still be 80% better than the regular stock market system.

[GSI_Kristjan]

The guys at the wallstreet journal write their new article with a bit of pessimistic flair using terms like "it falls short" and "Medici's limits" etc..
Ok so there will be a clearinghouse but so what, this will be a great step to creating a more peer to peer world and I'm sure the crypto community is willing to accept a few bumps in the road and sacrifices to make the necessary headway in this world that is still dominated by central powers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/24/bitbeat-the-promise-and-limits-of-overstocks-crypto-stock-exchange/?utm_content=buffer94df6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

what is the issue with a "clearing house"? or, what is a clearing house?

So lets say you start a company today (in regular wallstreet) and i want to buy stocks of your company. The moment I use a normal exchange and I think i'm buying your asset it goes through multiple clearing houses and at the end I think I have a share of your company but because of all these (middle man companies) it's possible that someone else has paperwork thinking they have the same stock that i bought. In other words a situation happens where there is a possibility of corruption and also a possibility of a situation where multiple people think they own the same exact asset, which is totally cool as long as the people who think they own an asset don't try to actually physically ask for that asset lol. Anyways a clearinghouse is not inherently a problem, it just leaves the "possibility" of corruption because it's a middle man of sorts. What Patrick (CEO of overstock) initially desired when he talked about creating a crypto currency version of wallstreet is basically a peer to peer system where say if you are starting a company and you want to sell stock, and I decide to purchase shares of your company, it's directly between me and you. If I purchase a stock from you it's going from you to me and not from you to a middle man to another middle man, to another middle man and finally i potentially have ownership rights of that stock (in theory). So what actually happened was the "law" told patrick that no matter what he needs a clearinghouse (Middle man company to authenticate the transactions of equity shares from a company to an investor). Now remember having a middle man introduces the "possibility" of future corruption, but basically Patrick is like you know what, ok fine by law we need a clearing house, ok we will make the system so transparent anyways by using block chain technology that it will still be 80% better than the regular stock market system.

Agreed. Just the same thoughts from me. Im sure that in more distant future there will be an option for pure p2p instead of clearinghouse. Laws need to be changed for that, but its doable.

[Matt Y]

Medici in CoinDesk: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2kavg1/crypto_20_roundup_bits_of_bullion_a_foundation/

[Fernandez]

The bashing of viacoin makes zero sense because:

Fact 4.  Viacoin implements BTC core devs' suggestion that Counterparty get its own blockchain and stop parasitizing theirs.

Simply read the core dev comments about blockchain spam, and for that matter the dogecoin devs comments about blockchain spam as well.

IIRC, they changed their attitudes positively towards Counterparty recently. Those kinds of comments now only come from competing projects.

They had to with Bitcoin tanking and Overstock putting Counterparty on the map. I won't be surprised if they implement the 80kB OP_RETURN soon.

80kB?  LOL, that would be pretty big.  We don't want to store PNG images or XML documents in the blockchain, just a little financial data.

80 kB was supposed to be introduced last time, but they reduced it to 40 kB at the end. That is what caused such a friction here.

PhantomPhreak has said 80 kB is ideal for Counterparty, and that 40 kB is too low.

[Matt Y]

The bashing of viacoin makes zero sense because:

Fact 4.  Viacoin implements BTC core devs' suggestion that Counterparty get its own blockchain and stop parasitizing theirs.

Simply read the core dev comments about blockchain spam, and for that matter the dogecoin devs comments about blockchain spam as well.

IIRC, they changed their attitudes positively towards Counterparty recently. Those kinds of comments now only come from competing projects.

They had to with Bitcoin tanking and Overstock putting Counterparty on the map. I won't be surprised if they implement the 80kB OP_RETURN soon.

80kB?  LOL, that would be pretty big.  We don't want to store PNG images or XML documents in the blockchain, just a little financial data.

80 kB was supposed to be introduced last time, but they reduced it to 40 kB at the end. That is what caused such a friction here.

PhantomPhreak has said 80 kB is ideal for Counterparty, and that 40 kB is too low.

Take the "k" off of "kb" and you're good to go I think.

[weex]

Yes it was bytes not kilobytes. Think 40 or 80 letters, rather than 40 or 80 pages of text.

[PhantomPhreak]

The bashing of viacoin makes zero sense because:

Fact 4.  Viacoin implements BTC core devs' suggestion that Counterparty get its own blockchain and stop parasitizing theirs.

Simply read the core dev comments about blockchain spam, and for that matter the dogecoin devs comments about blockchain spam as well.

IIRC, they changed their attitudes positively towards Counterparty recently. Those kinds of comments now only come from competing projects.

They had to with Bitcoin tanking and Overstock putting Counterparty on the map. I won't be surprised if they implement the 80kB OP_RETURN soon.

80kB?  LOL, that would be pretty big.  We don't want to store PNG images or XML documents in the blockchain, just a little financial data.

80 kB was supposed to be introduced last time, but they reduced it to 40 kB at the end. That is what caused such a friction here.

PhantomPhreak has said 80 kB is ideal for Counterparty, and that 40 kB is too low.

Take the "k" off of "kb" and you're good to go I think.

There isn't any ideal amount for Counterparty, which now has full support for multiple encoding methods. The only advantage of using OP_RETURN is that you don't have to recover the dust amounts later with http://redeem.bitwatch.co/, which we're going to do automatically later anyway.

[Fernandez]

The bashing of viacoin makes zero sense because:

Fact 4.  Viacoin implements BTC core devs' suggestion that Counterparty get its own blockchain and stop parasitizing theirs.

Simply read the core dev comments about blockchain spam, and for that matter the dogecoin devs comments about blockchain spam as well.

IIRC, they changed their attitudes positively towards Counterparty recently. Those kinds of comments now only come from competing projects.

They had to with Bitcoin tanking and Overstock putting Counterparty on the map. I won't be surprised if they implement the 80kB OP_RETURN soon.

80kB?  LOL, that would be pretty big.  We don't want to store PNG images or XML documents in the blockchain, just a little financial data.

80 kB was supposed to be introduced last time, but they reduced it to 40 kB at the end. That is what caused such a friction here.

PhantomPhreak has said 80 kB is ideal for Counterparty, and that 40 kB is too low.

Take the "k" off of "kb" and you're good to go I think.

ha ha, now I see the issue.

Though a few years on we will have mBs of OP_RETURN and would laugh at those who laughed at those who suggested kB.

[GeminiSimba]

Hey what do you all think about this Bitcongress platform that is being developed? Apparently it's been created using counterparty so it's very relevant to us here as well and looks like they want to decentralize the ability to vote for legislation and laws and such. I think this is just amazing and definitely a huge step in the right direction for upgrading how we deal with the government.

http://bitcongress.org/

[TechGen]

Clearinghouse is not on Bitcoin. You're either on Bitcoin or you're not and Clearinghouse is not. It could be made to work with Bitcoin because Clearinghouse is a clone of Counterparty, but then, Counterparty is already on Bitcoin. If being on Bitcoin were not such a huge advantage the Counterparty developers could move it to another chain in a day or so. They won't because there is absolutely no reason to be on another chain, but it is possible. Any flexibility and security feature that Clearinghouse has, it has because the Counterparty developers wrote the code and open sourced it on GitHub so that other people could use it as well.

There are  plenty of reasons to be on another chain.  Faster blocks, friendly relations with chain devs, quicker/better implementation of new features/bugfixes/etc.

Your absolute denial of them makes your position less reasonable and thus weaker, not stronger.

As for the forced choice between "either on Bitcoin or you're not"...treechains are coming!

http://bitcointlv.com/en/Agenda/Day-2-October-20

Yes, this is what I'm learning. I will say for certain, I know that a big social gaming co might be the first to make this jump to clearinghouse. From what I'm told, they simply weren't happy with counterparty for whatever reason. Though they haven't ruled out counterparty, they seem to be more intrigued with clearinghouse. I have no idea when this will happen, but I'm told the first move will be merging a type of betting game on the platform as an experiment. I was also told that they are even exploring offering company shares through the platform as well. Meanwhile, I'm still just sitting here trying to figure it all out.

Is there any way of proving this whatsoever?

Check your messages, that should provide all the proof you need.

[nakaone]

any comments by the counterparty team regarding this strange SEC stuff?