Time to Move Bitcoin 2.0 tech (Counterparty/Mastercoin) out of "Alt Coins"

[crazy_rabbit]

It's time to move Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies like Mastercoin and Counterparty out of the AltCoin cesspool. These are legitimate BITCOIN technologies, built on bitcoin, using bitcoin, supporting bitcoin and promoting bitcoin.

I understand the rational that AltCoins shouldn't be up here in the normal Bitcoin Talk but these days Bitcoin 2.0 Tech is a big part of the future of Bitcoin. For goodness sake Overstock is thinking about distributing Shares of their company via the blockchain!

It's time to take Mastercoin and Counterparty out of the At-Coin section. These are in many ways the future of bitcoin and it no longer makes sense to treat them like some sort of random scam coin.

[juju]

It's time to move Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies like Mastercoin and Counterparty out of the AltCoin cesspool. These are legitimate BITCOIN technologies, built on bitcoin, using bitcoin, supporting bitcoin and promoting bitcoin.

I understand the rational that AltCoins shouldn't be up here in the normal Bitcoin Talk but these days Bitcoin 2.0 Tech is a big part of the future of Bitcoin. For goodness sake Overstock is thinking about distributing Shares of their company via the blockchain!

It's time to take Mastercoin and Counterparty out of the At-Coin section. These are in many ways the future of bitcoin and it no longer makes sense to treat them like some sort of random scam coin.

I agree with this, only issue I see is who is going too make the call on what is considered just an Altcoin and what is Bitcoin 2.0 technology. If this were too happen, I could see us needing specific boards for the most popular blockchains, under the Altcoin Section or some other new section. For most of us it is pretty easy to distinguish a technology like Ether compared to a coin like DOGE.

This type of expansion reminds me of what happened to: http://forums.d2jsp.org/ - this just started out for Diablo 2 trading, but now has evolved into a trading forum for many popular games.

[DannyHamilton]

If altcoins such as Counterparty and Mastercoin don't like being in the "AltCoin cesspool", their users are welcome to create their own forum.

No need to clutter up bitcointalk with counterpartytalk and/or mastercointalk.

Note: This discussion belongs in "Meta"

[crazy_rabbit]

If altcoins such as Counterparty and Mastercoin don't like being in the "AltCoin cesspool", their users are welcome to create their own forum.

No need to clutter up bitcointalk with counterpartytalk and/or mastercointalk.

I would agree, except neither of them really are so large yet to be able to support their own forum successfully in a proactive way. What if there were a "Bitcoin 2.0" section on it's own, separate from the Alt-coin section. The problem being the Alt-Coin section is that it's just so much crap it's impossible to see the forest for the tree's. It's a nightmare and it impedes these projects ability to connect with other bitcoin 2.0 interested people.

There are so many fascinating Bitcoin 2.0 technologies coming out that should still be kept under the Bitcointalk umbrella. If overstock for example does go through with a stock offering using Bitcoin, it's going to be through one of these Bitcoin 2.0 technologies. Why not keep that discussion here?

Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies are core future features of bitcoin- however they shape up to be implemented and they will serve to make bitcoin much, much, stronger if they succeed.

As for what is considered Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies- i would argue it's anything built off the Bitcoin Blockchain. If it starts with Bitcoin, it's Bitcoin. If it doesn't start with Bitcoin, then it isn't. Tree-chains, side-chains themselves might be a bit blurry as to where they fit, but they should still fit under the Bitcointalk umbrella. What Bitcoin does and Bitcoin 2.0 Techs do, has repercussions for both parties, they should be able to open discuss here.

[xDan]

agreed, these are definitely a different "market" and interest group than most alts.

maybe a bit presumptuous to call it "bitcoin 2.0" though.

[crazy_rabbit]

Wow this got buried from the front page to > Other > Meta in record time. Compared to the nonsense that gets posted up top no one has a chance to do any real bitcoin discussion anymore. WTF?

[BadBear]

Moving it to Meta isn't "burying" it. It's for discussion about the forum, and the people who moderate and administrate the forum check it regularly. Posting elsewhere makes it much less likely for it to be seen. For example, I have the entire Meta board added to my watchlist, so any new threads created here immediately pop up on my watchlist (threads moved here do not), and I'm able to react to threads that need a moderator's attention much faster. Bitcoin Discussion? Not so much. You're only hurting your chances of a response by intentionally posting threads in the wrong section.

[Lucky Cris]

Wow this got buried from the front page to > Other > Meta in record time. Compared to the nonsense that gets posted up top no one has a chance to do any real bitcoin discussion anymore. WTF?

Evidently not. The sad thing is... I've never came across a thread about Countypary or Bitcoin 2.0 Tech, because I'd be all over it! Lol. I'm constantly checking the latest posts, but I only go through the first couple of pages. Of course it only takes a new thread a minute before it's on page 6

But this makes your point, I get it.

[EFS]

Wow this got buried from the front page to > Other > Meta in record time. Compared to the nonsense that gets posted up top no one has a chance to do any real bitcoin discussion anymore. WTF?

This discussion is about BitcoinTalk forum and it belongs to Meta.

Edit: BadBear already explained it.

[ForgottenPassword]

Well, one problem is that altcoin developers will simply build their coins using the Bitcoin blockchain so that they can call it "Bitcoin 2.0 technology" and avoid being lumped in with all the other coins in the altcoin section.

The other thing is, "Bitcoin 2.0 technology" is a very misleading phrase. Mastercoin/counterparty are not part of or "officially" supported by the Bitcoin protocol specification nor are they included in the reference client. It's possible future changes to the Bitcoin protocol or reference client could break them.

Bitcoin has been studied carefully by some of the most respected cryptographers in the world, these other projects (by projects I am referring to all altcoins/technologies) have as of yet not been and could have really dangerous flaws (intentionally or unintentionally) for all we know. In the early days of Bitcoin serious problems were discovered such as the time billions of BTC were mined in a single block requiring a hard-fork.

Until these other projects have been carefully audited/studied it is obviously a bad idea to be trusting them with millions of real dollars like people are right now, they need to grow slowly and naturally and people should know using them carries significant risk. Calling them Bitcoin 2.0 is not only misleading but extremely dangerous as people may think that they are officially part of Bitcoin and have been carefully studied since 2009 (technically since 1998 as Bitcoin is clearly based off of Nick Szabo's work on Bitgold), which they have not.

You may claim that mastercoin/counterparty are different to other altcoins but they carry much of the same risks until the projects have matured as much as Bitcoin has. Taking them out of the altcoin section sort of implies they are safer, when they are not.

PS. about the thread being moved, I didn't even see it until it was moved to Meta. I honestly think more people will see it here and it is clearly the correct section.

[richardramirez9]

Can't stop the free market imo, altcoins will be here forever 

[Anduck]

If altcoins such as Counterparty and Mastercoin don't like being in the "AltCoin cesspool", their users are welcome to create their own forum.

No need to clutter up bitcointalk with counterpartytalk and/or mastercointalk.

I would agree, except neither of them really are so large yet to be able to support their own forum successfully in a proactive way. What if there were a "Bitcoin 2.0" section on it's own, separate from the Alt-coin section. The problem being the Alt-Coin section is that it's just so much crap it's impossible to see the forest for the tree's. It's a nightmare and it impedes these projects ability to connect with other bitcoin 2.0 interested people.

There are so many fascinating Bitcoin 2.0 technologies coming out that should still be kept under the Bitcointalk umbrella. If overstock for example does go through with a stock offering using Bitcoin, it's going to be through one of these Bitcoin 2.0 technologies. Why not keep that discussion here?

Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies are core future features of bitcoin- however they shape up to be implemented and they will serve to make bitcoin much, much, stronger if they succeed.

As for what is considered Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies- i would argue it's anything built off the Bitcoin Blockchain. If it starts with Bitcoin, it's Bitcoin. If it doesn't start with Bitcoin, then it isn't. Tree-chains, side-chains themselves might be a bit blurry as to where they fit, but they should still fit under the Bitcointalk umbrella. What Bitcoin does and Bitcoin 2.0 Techs do, has repercussions for both parties, they should be able to open discuss here.

Hilighted the important parts. For example: We've not even seen Ethereum working. Just words about how Ethereum supports everything.

Also, I support what ForgottenPassword said in this thread.

[Anduck]

Noob question for sure.

If a coin or protocol isn't Bitcoin, then by definition isn't it an "Alternative Currency" ?

Is Mastercoin or Counter Party, Bitcoin?


~BCX~

"Alternative Currency" is a bit hard to define. Maybe every non-mainstream currency is alternative currency?
Altcoins are alternative to Bitcoin - they're based on Bitcoin.

[theymos]

Stuffing your altcoin's transaction data into the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't make it not-an-altcoin. The main sections are for the Bitcoin currency and things that you can directly do with bitcoins. If I can take my bitcoins, deposit them into your site, and then do something interesting without explicitly converting to a different currency, then your site can go in the main sections. For example, a casino could use a Counterparty currency as "chips", and this would be OK for the main sections as long as the casino could automatically convert deposited BTC into these chips. Similarly, if someone was selling Overstock shares for BTC, then this trade would be OK for the main Marketplace regardless of the technology used to handle the Overstock shares. (But don't try any nonsense like saying that every unit of an altcoin is a share in a company...)

Noob question for sure.

If a coin or protocol isn't Bitcoin, then by definition isn't it an "Alternative Currency" ?

Is Mastercoin or Counter Party, Bitcoin?

Mastercoin is a normal scamcoin (more scammy than usual, in fact). Apparently it's common to transact in BTC using Counterparty, but Counterparty also has its own currency. I suspect that Counterparty has no really useful technology, but all I can find about their technology via Google is marketing fluff (bad sign), so I can't be sure. They both use the Bitcoin block chain for timestamping instead of doing their own mining. I think that this is often a good idea, but it doesn't mean that they're not altcoins (or that they're actually useful).

By the way, if you're already using the Bitcoin block chain, then why are you even creating a currency? Just use BTC. From what little I've read about Counterparty, it looks to me like their XCP was included just to enable pump-and-dump. (The BitDNS proposal that I co-authored in 2010 was probably the first to propose using the blockchain like this, but it just used BTC.)

[crazy_rabbit]

Stuffing your altcoin's transaction data into the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't make it not-an-altcoin. The main sections are for the Bitcoin currency and things that you can directly do with bitcoins. If I can take my bitcoins, deposit them into your site, and then do something interesting without explicitly converting to a different currency, then your site can go in the main sections. For example, a casino could use a Counterparty currency as "chips", and this would be OK for the main sections as long as the casino could automatically convert deposited BTC into these chips. Similarly, if someone was selling Overstock shares for BTC, then this trade would be OK for the main Marketplace regardless of the technology used to handle the Overstock shares. (But don't try any nonsense like saying that every unit of an altcoin is a share in a company...)

Noob question for sure.

If a coin or protocol isn't Bitcoin, then by definition isn't it an "Alternative Currency" ?

Is Mastercoin or Counter Party, Bitcoin?

Mastercoin is a normal scamcoin (more scammy than usual, in fact). Apparently it's common to transact in BTC using Counterparty, but Counterparty also has its own currency. I suspect that Counterparty has no really useful technology, but all I can find about their technology via Google is marketing fluff (bad sign), so I can't be sure. They both use the Bitcoin block chain for timestamping instead of doing their own mining. I think that this is often a good idea, but it doesn't mean that they're not altcoins (or that they're actually useful).

By the way, if you're already using the Bitcoin block chain, then why are you even creating a currency? Just use BTC. From what little I've read about Counterparty, it looks to me like their XCP was included just to enable pump-and-dump. (The BitDNS proposal that I co-authored in 2010 was probably the first to propose using the blockchain like this, but it just used BTC.)

Regardless of whether or not something is a scam, people building things on top of the blockchain is a reality. I can understand the 'don't bloat the blockchain' thinking, but by not engaging the bitcoin 2.0 crowd there are no productive discussions about how both can coexist- be it on the blockchain or on some sort of side chain, merge mining, etc, etc, etc.....

I think both sides would find a more satisfying solution if there could be better crosstalk. Ignoring bitcoin 2.0 projects, or relegating them in "alt-coin land" doesn't seem as productive as it seems spiteful.

[jackjack]

Stuffing your altcoin's transaction data into the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't make it not-an-altcoin. The main sections are for the Bitcoin currency and things that you can directly do with bitcoins. If I can take my bitcoins, deposit them into your site, and then do something interesting without explicitly converting to a different currency, then your site can go in the main sections. For example, a casino could use a Counterparty currency as "chips", and this would be OK for the main sections as long as the casino could automatically convert deposited BTC into these chips. Similarly, if someone was selling Overstock shares for BTC, then this trade would be OK for the main Marketplace regardless of the technology used to handle the Overstock shares. (But don't try any nonsense like saying that every unit of an altcoin is a share in a company...)

Noob question for sure.

If a coin or protocol isn't Bitcoin, then by definition isn't it an "Alternative Currency" ?

Is Mastercoin or Counter Party, Bitcoin?

Mastercoin is a normal scamcoin (more scammy than usual, in fact). Apparently it's common to transact in BTC using Counterparty, but Counterparty also has its own currency. I suspect that Counterparty has no really useful technology, but all I can find about their technology via Google is marketing fluff (bad sign), so I can't be sure. They both use the Bitcoin block chain for timestamping instead of doing their own mining. I think that this is often a good idea, but it doesn't mean that they're not altcoins (or that they're actually useful).

By the way, if you're already using the Bitcoin block chain, then why are you even creating a currency? Just use BTC. From what little I've read about Counterparty, it looks to me like their XCP was included just to enable pump-and-dump. (The BitDNS proposal that I co-authored in 2010 was probably the first to propose using the blockchain like this, but it just used BTC.)

Regardless of whether or not something is a scam, people building things on top of the blockchain is a reality. I can understand the 'don't bloat the blockchain' thinking, but by not engaging the bitcoin 2.0 crowd there are no productive discussions about how both can coexist- be it on the blockchain or on some sort of side chain, merge mining, etc, etc, etc.....

1) Why would that be bitcoin 2.0?
2) AFAIK a potential bitcoin 2.0 is for sure NOT bitcoin.
3) It's like your old idea of making testnetcoins a valuable altcoin: non-sense

[crazy_rabbit]

Stuffing your altcoin's transaction data into the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't make it not-an-altcoin. The main sections are for the Bitcoin currency and things that you can directly do with bitcoins. If I can take my bitcoins, deposit them into your site, and then do something interesting without explicitly converting to a different currency, then your site can go in the main sections. For example, a casino could use a Counterparty currency as "chips", and this would be OK for the main sections as long as the casino could automatically convert deposited BTC into these chips. Similarly, if someone was selling Overstock shares for BTC, then this trade would be OK for the main Marketplace regardless of the technology used to handle the Overstock shares. (But don't try any nonsense like saying that every unit of an altcoin is a share in a company...)

Noob question for sure.

If a coin or protocol isn't Bitcoin, then by definition isn't it an "Alternative Currency" ?

Is Mastercoin or Counter Party, Bitcoin?

Mastercoin is a normal scamcoin (more scammy than usual, in fact). Apparently it's common to transact in BTC using Counterparty, but Counterparty also has its own currency. I suspect that Counterparty has no really useful technology, but all I can find about their technology via Google is marketing fluff (bad sign), so I can't be sure. They both use the Bitcoin block chain for timestamping instead of doing their own mining. I think that this is often a good idea, but it doesn't mean that they're not altcoins (or that they're actually useful).

By the way, if you're already using the Bitcoin block chain, then why are you even creating a currency? Just use BTC. From what little I've read about Counterparty, it looks to me like their XCP was included just to enable pump-and-dump. (The BitDNS proposal that I co-authored in 2010 was probably the first to propose using the blockchain like this, but it just used BTC.)

Regardless of whether or not something is a scam, people building things on top of the blockchain is a reality. I can understand the 'don't bloat the blockchain' thinking, but by not engaging the bitcoin 2.0 crowd there are no productive discussions about how both can coexist- be it on the blockchain or on some sort of side chain, merge mining, etc, etc, etc.....

1) Why would that be bitcoin 2.0?
2) AFAIK a potential bitcoin 2.0 is for sure NOT bitcoin.
3) It's like your old idea of making testnetcoins a valuable altcoin: non-sense

1) Why would that be bitcoin 2.0?

- Thats what the press calls it, for lack of a better word.  source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/03/mastercoin-maidsafe-crowdsale/

2) AFAIK a potential bitcoin 2.0 is for sure NOT bitcoin.

- It runs on bitcoin, which can't be said of Litecoin for example, and it affects bitcoin users and miners (nodes have to hold much larger bitcoin chains, miners have to decide to filter or not their transactions). That makes it pretty relevant for bitcoin in my opinion. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean these people aren't going to still do it and you're not going to still have to deal with it. If the two (or more sides) could talk about it in a better way, maybe a better solution could be found.

3) It's like your old idea of making testnetcoins a valuable altcoin: non-sense

Yeah that was a bad idea, I admit although I thought it reasonable at the time, but time has moved on. That said, mastercoin and counterparty are nothing like testnetcoins.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Hey crazy_rabbit, Mastercoin is not Bitcoin 2.0. It is an altcoin that chose to leverage the Bitcoin blockchain for it's own network security, while creating it's own competing currency.

They are not Bitcoin 2.0. That's a marketing gimmick. They're altcoins.

[crazy_rabbit]

Hey crazy_rabbit, Mastercoin is not Bitcoin 2.0. It is an altcoin that chose to leverage the Bitcoin blockchain for it's own network security, while creating it's own competing currency.

They are not Bitcoin 2.0. That's a marketing gimmick. They're altcoins.

I notice you say "mastercoin" but not "Counterparty" is that on purpose? Do you honestly think there is a difference between the two?

[DiamondCardz]

MSC is an alternate cryptocurrency. It is not "Bitcoin 2.0". Just because it uses technology which involves Bitcoin doesn't mean we all need to know about it and that it needs to have it's own section on Bitcointalk.

Same applies for Counterparty - well, at least the second half of the sentence previous to this one does apply. I'm not well informed on Counterparty and what it is, because to be honest, I don't really care about alts anymore.