[ANN] [XCH] ★ ClearingHouse - Freedom by Blockchain ★

[toffoo]

After playing around with Counterparty for a few weeks I've found that one of the show-stopping failures of its design is the fact that after placing a buy order you must stay online until the orders match, with Counterwallet open for the BTCpay to go through.  If the buyer's Counterwallet is no longer open, your sell order will match but the BTCpay will never happen, the match will expire, and your order may or may not be rematch with another order, or the same unfunded order again.  This causes the market bid/ask to get crossed, and the orderbook to get stuffed with tons of fake bids that no one intends to fill.

Just curious if Clearwallet will suffer some from the same design flaw and if you have any strategy to alleviate it?

[blaaaaacksuit]

Hi to everyone,

I have read this entire thread. also watched the video.

I have one question.

Is it just me or is the clearinghouse system flawed?

If I have understood everything correctly. First of all no more xch can be created ever after the 45 day viacoin exchange period. Yet everytime you do something within clearinghouse like for example create an asset or contract to do so requires the destruction/burn of one or more xch. This would eventually mean that the world would run out of xch, so then what?

At that point the suns diameter would be about the size of the current orbit of mars so I think we have some time.

[deadmanwalking]

Hi to everyone,

I have read this entire thread. also watched the video.

I have one question.

Is it just me or is the clearinghouse system flawed?

If I have understood everything correctly. First of all no more xch can be created ever after the 45 day viacoin exchange period. Yet everytime you do something within clearinghouse like for example create an asset or contract to do so requires the destruction/burn of one or more xch. This would eventually mean that the world would run out of xch, so then what?

At that point the suns diameter would be about the size of the current orbit of mars so I think we have some time.

cmoffat asks a valid question. I'll wait for a real answer from btcdrak.

[jokumat]

If I have understood everything correctly. First of all no more xch can be created ever after the 45 day viacoin exchange period. Yet everytime you do something within clearinghouse like for example create an asset or contract to do so requires the destruction/burn of one or more xch. This would eventually mean that the world would run out of xch, so then what?

Fees in XCH are not carved in stone forever, they can (and will) be repeatedly adjusted for XCH to be slightly deflationary in the future, that is all. You can have for example 0.1% decrease in supply of XCH each year and this can go on forever, geometrical sequence never ends.  

Such a shortage of XCH as you desribe would be a real paradise for XCH owners. But there is no need to worry about this.

I am somewhat worried by another thing. If very many VIAs are sold this way and there is no limit, a large portion of VIA supply will be in control of one man (Drak), this is dangerous. Large concentration of ownership will undermine confidence in VIA on the market. VIA will be ridiculed by rival coins with (pretended) fair distribution and so on.

[jokumat]

After playing around with Counterparty for a few weeks I've found that one of the show-stopping failures of its design is the fact that after placing a buy order you must stay online until the orders match, with Counterwallet open for the BTCpay to go through.  If the buyer's Counterwallet is no longer open, your sell order will match but the BTCpay will never happen, the match will expire, and your order may or may not be rematch with another order, or the same unfunded order again.  This causes the market bid/ask to get crossed, and the orderbook to get stuffed with tons of fake bids that no one intends to fill.

Just curious if Clearwallet will suffer some from the same design flaw and if you have any strategy to alleviate it?

Valid point. I have the same experience. But this was only when you used BTC to buy something as I described before. If you used XCP to buy another asset, this was not a problem. By analogy I expect similar problems here when VIA is used to buy some other asset on the decentralized exchange. This is why I said that XCH will be useful for trading on the decentralized exchaange. VIA will be more useful for direct payments (and fees of course).

But maybe Drak has different plans. He should explain this.

[btcdrak]

If I have understood everything correctly. First of all no more xch can be created ever after the 45 day viacoin exchange period. Yet everytime you do something within clearinghouse like for example create an asset or contract to do so requires the destruction/burn of one or more xch. This would eventually mean that the world would run out of xch, so then what?

Satoshi called destruction of bitcoins a donation to everyone else. XCH running out completely seems highly unlikely.

I am somewhat worried by another thing. If very many VIAs are sold this way and there is no limit, a large portion of VIA supply will be in control of one man (Drak), this is dangerous. Large concentration of ownership will undermine confidence in VIA on the market. VIA will be ridiculed by rival coins with (pretended) fair distribution and so on.

You could also say the same about the amount of funds stored at exchanges. If this became a problem I would certainly take steps to minimize any concern but I doubt this will be a problem. FYI Otoh controls 1.5MM viacoins and it's not been a cause of concern.

[cmoffat]

xcp high value would also be a flaw. Lets say that at some point in the future due to the lack of available xcp that 1 xcp is worth $1,000. No one in their right mind would pay $1,000 just to complete one single transaction on clearing house. The system would eventually be to expensive for anyone to consider using.

[blaaaaacksuit]

If I have understood everything correctly. First of all no more xch can be created ever after the 45 day viacoin exchange period. Yet everytime you do something within clearinghouse like for example create an asset or contract to do so requires the destruction/burn of one or more xch. This would eventually mean that the world would run out of xch, so then what?

Satoshi called destruction of bitcoins a donation to everyone else. XCH running out completely seems highly unlikely.

I am somewhat worried by another thing. If very many VIAs are sold this way and there is no limit, a large portion of VIA supply will be in control of one man (Drak), this is dangerous. Large concentration of ownership will undermine confidence in VIA on the market. VIA will be ridiculed by rival coins with (pretended) fair distribution and so on.

You could also say the same about the amount of funds stored at exchanges. If this became a problem I would certainly take steps to minimize any concern but I doubt this will be a problem. FYI Otoh controls 1.5MM viacoins and it's not been a cause of concern.

Isn't Satoshi supposedly holding something like 980,000 BTC? 

[PilotofBTC]

xcp high value would also be a flaw. Lets say that at some point in the future due to the lack of available xcp that 1 xcp is worth $1,000. No one in their right mind would pay $1,000 just to complete one single transaction on clearing house. The system would eventually be to expensive for anyone to consider using.

Exchange fees are paid in Via.

[btcdrak]

After playing around with Counterparty for a few weeks I've found that one of the show-stopping failures of its design is the fact that after placing a buy order you must stay online until the orders match, with Counterwallet open for the BTCpay to go through.  If the buyer's Counterwallet is no longer open, your sell order will match but the BTCpay will never happen, the match will expire, and your order may or may not be rematch with another order, or the same unfunded order again.  This causes the market bid/ask to get crossed, and the orderbook to get stuffed with tons of fake bids that no one intends to fill.

Just curious if Clearwallet will suffer some from the same design flaw and if you have any strategy to alleviate it?

Valid point. I have the same experience. But this was only when you used BTC to buy something as I described before. If you used XCP to buy another asset, this was not a problem. By analogy I expect similar problems here when VIA is used to buy some other asset on the decentralized exchange. This is why I said that XCH will be useful for trading on the decentralized exchaange. VIA will be more useful for direct payments (and fees of course).

But maybe Drak has different plans. He should explain this.

As it stands there is no way to auto-settle contracts where VIA is one half of the trade so at the moment there is no solution. However, because we are in control over both Viacoin and ClearingHouse, there may be changes we can make. This is the important thing to understand here. Mastercoin and Counterparty have been trying to work around a very unwilling bitcoin for all this time. If we need to change something in Viacoin, we can do it without fear. Those projects on the other hand have to dodge bullets as Bitcoin Core outlaws more and more stuff to block what they deem as blockchain spam.

[MuffinMaster]

After playing around with Counterparty for a few weeks I've found that one of the show-stopping failures of its design is the fact that after placing a buy order you must stay online until the orders match, with Counterwallet open for the BTCpay to go through.  If the buyer's Counterwallet is no longer open, your sell order will match but the BTCpay will never happen, the match will expire, and your order may or may not be rematch with another order, or the same unfunded order again.  This causes the market bid/ask to get crossed, and the orderbook to get stuffed with tons of fake bids that no one intends to fill.

Just curious if Clearwallet will suffer some from the same design flaw and if you have any strategy to alleviate it?

Valid point. I have the same experience. But this was only when you used BTC to buy something as I described before. If you used XCP to buy another asset, this was not a problem. By analogy I expect similar problems here when VIA is used to buy some other asset on the decentralized exchange. This is why I said that XCH will be useful for trading on the decentralized exchaange. VIA will be more useful for direct payments (and fees of course).

But maybe Drak has different plans. He should explain this.

As it stands there is no way to auto-settle contracts where VIA is one half of the trade so at the moment there is no solution. However, because we are in control over both Viacoin and ClearingHouse, there may be changes we can make. This is the important thing to understand here. Mastercoin and Counterparty have been trying to work around a very unwilling bitcoin for all this time. If we need to change something in Viacoin, we can do it without fear. Those projects on the other hand have to dodge bullets as Bitcoin Core outlaws more and more stuff to block what they deem as blockchain spam.

that's a really good point. this alone can make via a powerhouse.

Viacoin is in a position to truly innovate.

[btcdrak]

I want to be clear. I am not hating on Bitcoin, it's just their position is different and in many ways I sympathise with their standpoint. It just not very practical for downstream projects. That was my main motivation for all this... I have been thinking about doing it since October 2013. Since no-one filled the gap, I eventually went for it.

[btcdrak]

CoinDesk: http://www.coindesk.com/viacoin-team-implements-smart-contract-protocol-built-altcoin-block-chain/

[stuipooi123]

sounds good

[Bitcycle]

CoinDesk: http://www.coindesk.com/viacoin-team-implements-smart-contract-protocol-built-altcoin-block-chain/

Very nice!

[Soul_eater_123]

I think you should make it clear that people are essentially buying XCH coins with VIA in the equivalent of an IPO/ICO.  Using the word "burn" just confuses matters as burn in crypto-currencies means putting coins beyond use in some way.  The VIA exchanged here can and will be used.  Why use the word "burn" at all?

[CrypJ]

Will there be an XCH/BTC trading pair?

[hamm3r]

Ok, so what if all VIA get sold for XCH.. Then what determines the price of VIA? Still free market or?

Also do you use BTC to buy some VIA to pay fees or can you trade XCH back for VIA? Getting there. just a lot to take in lol.  I'm still not sure what to do. If all sell VIA for XCH, there will be loads of those and noone will be holding any VIA, resulting in lower price per XCH and higher price of VIA; am i missing something? This stuff makes me feel kinda dumb lol...

[Soul_eater_123]

I think you should make it clear that people are essentially buying XCH coins with VIA in the equivalent of an IPO/ICO.  Using the word "burn" just confuses matters as burn in crypto-currencies means putting coins beyond use in some way.  The VIA exchanged here can and will be used.  Why use the word "burn" at all?

I think it is because you can get the coin (XCH) right away.
IPO / ICO usually means that there's a launch date and the coins are not available yet.
Therefore, it is prefectly okay to call it burn or better word "exchange" Via for XCH

Most IPO/ICOs give the coins right away - the ones that don't are the exception.  Also why that would make it necessary to use the word burn is absolutely unclear.  

It is likely that what was initially going to happen was exactly that - the VIA used were going to be destroyed .i.e. burned.  
Now it has been changed to a straight sale (probably because someone has realised that those VIA are quite valuable now).  

If that is the case it is only reasonable to change the word "burn" as it is being intentionally misleading to continue to use it.  

Burn has a distinct meaning that relates specifically to the destruction of coins.  

Selling coins, whether on an exchange, IPO/ICO or via other means is not called burning and never has been.

[masternode]

I think you should make it clear that people are essentially buying XCH coins with VIA in the equivalent of an IPO/ICO.  Using the word "burn" just confuses matters as burn in crypto-currencies means putting coins beyond use in some way.  The VIA exchanged here can and will be used.  Why use the word "burn" at all?

I think it is because you can get the coin (XCH) right away.
IPO / ICO usually means that there's a launch date and the coins are not available yet.
Therefore, it is prefectly okay to call it burn or better word "exchange" Via for XCH

Most IPO/ICOs give the coins right away - the ones that don't are the exception.  Also why that would make it necessary to use the word burn is absolutely unclear.  

It is likely that what was initially going to happen was exactly that - the VIA used were going to be destroyed .i.e. burned.  
Now it has been changed to a straight sale (probably because someone has realised that those VIA are quite valuable now).  

If that is the case it is only reasonable to change the word "burn" as it is being intentionally misleading to continue to use it.  

Burn has a distinct meaning that relates specifically to the destruction of coins.  

Selling coins, whether on an exchange, IPO/ICO or via other means is not called burning and never has been.

While he referenced burn, I thought he clearly described this as a fire sale.