Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 117. (Read 1276789 times)

http://www.coindesk.com/lead-developers-leave-overstocks-medici-project/


Does anybody know anything about the "new business"? Does it have anything to do with Counterparty? Or, is it something Darmody and Wagner are doing outside of Counterparty? I haven't seen this discussed and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this.

Thanks!

Can someone please help with this error on logging in after asset creation:


Thanks everyone.

how do you define "trustless"? 

I think it is undebatable that the bitcoin blockchain is at this point of time the most secure as well as the most tested platform - all other aspects, well there is only one, and that is confirmation time, are debated in lenghts, when the project was in an earlier stage. vitalik buterin put it quite simple: blockchains are not usable for high frequency trading - for that you need centralized exchanges. for all the rest it does not matter if confirmation time is 20 sec, 1min, 10 min or an hour.

the discussion about bitshares and especially dpos is interesting and I'm not really against this mechanism, but you have to understand, from a very simple and logical point, that these systems are not as (close to) trustless as a POW is. we will see what comes in the future

Ethereum Slot Machine DApp : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ORk_lGwaSE

Cool stuff! Illustrates the potential of smart contracts.

How smart contracts have working in testnet? Are there any problem or that will working just like devs have plan?

It was mentioned by some Bitshares dev that such an implementation would suffer from... I forgot what the argument was. I therefore asked here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14120.0

Smart contracts make it possible to implement pegged assets and other interesting solutions.

@ Matt you described very well how fiat could be brought into Counterparty respectively on the Bitcoin blockchain. The mechanism you described is simple and will work as long as the issuer is honest and/or does not loose funds. There is the imminent danger of fractional reserve banking hanging over such a system.

BitAssets like BitUSD in Bitshares have no such centralized counterparty and so there is no default risk like with the model Matt described. This http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/ does a much better job at describing how it works than I ever could.

@baddw Bitassets are fundamentally different from the issuer backed crypto-fiat tokens described by Matt! It would take a tone of coding work to bring something like BitAssets to Counterparty.
And to create 1 BitUSD 3x (not 1x) the value in BTS has to be put up as collateral. The blockchain / code ensures that there is not fractional reserve banking.

I don't want to advertise Bitshares though (just responding to incorrectnesses). What I want is to see the Counterparty team recognizing such fundamental long term challenges (volatility and counterparty risk issue; proof of work) and present solutions!

Exactly, a $50 fee isn't even a real deterrent for someone who has deep pockets. So why would you attach such an arbitrary amount to membership?

There may be some better way out there to verify that humans are humans, but I haven't heard of it.

This message was too old and has been purged

But that goes against the idea of producing tools for the entire world; everyone's opinion should be important, not just those with deep pockets.

This message was too old and has been purged

Its enough lower I think.

request: make the cost for joining the foundation a little cheaper; $50 USD is pretty excessive in my opinion.

I understand the price is an incentive for keeping the process fair and trying to weed out those who would attempt to have 300 accounts, but setting the bar at $50 is a bit ridiculous considering it is a huge amount in many third world countries. And if counterparty's true aim is "to power the decentralization of finance and support the creation of superior, frictionless, decentralized financial tools" then allowing a far larger pool of members

Even as someone who lives in a first world country, I am hesitant to spend $50 on an annual membership. Perhaps making a lottery for those who cannot afford the $50 would be a good way to foster larger community involvement in the foundation.

Another issue is that the bitcoinfoundation itself only charges $25 USD for an annual membership.

   What bad news? Why XCP suffers this big dump? I don't have XCP now and I am trying to buy some if the price goes lower.

Yes, exactly.  A "BitAsset" such as "BitUSD" could just as easily be created in Counterparty as in BitShares (and I am a BitShares owner/supporter).  These can easily be sold and pegged by reputable third parties acting as banks in order to transfer fiat to CounterpartyUSD without having to use Bitcoin or XCP tokens as intermediaries.

I guess the main difference is that BitUSD in BitShares can be created out of thin air, so to speak, by anybody willing to put up $1 worth of BitShares as collateral.  A CounterpartyUSD would require an asset issuer.

You peg a Counterparty asset to the fiat of your choice so that you have a digital token with a constant value. The process is...

1. Some company makes a Counterparty asset that is always redeemable for $1 per unit. They sell those tokens on their super reputable bank site for $1.00 per unit (or more to build in profit model).
2. Users who want to buy stuff, like a stock on Medici, would buy those crypto dollars with regular fiat, skip all the volatility of Bitcoin, and have digital dollars in the cloud, so to speak.
3. Users could trade away the digital dollars to other people, sell them back to the institution they were created by, or simply buy things with them. They would always be redeemable for $1.00 unless whoever issued it went broke.

This just puts fiat on the blockchain, kind of.

I agree that for now Bitcoin is the best option for marketing counterparty. Also agree about the "time tested" factor which is another reason to be on the Bitcoin blockchain. So no doubt that for now Bitcoin is the best option.

I doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain it is the safest option given (delegated) proof of stake (DPOS) alternatives like BitShares. DPOS is more decentralized and cheaper than POW (Bitcoin's funding of security through dilution /issuance of new coins is a real cost; simple calculation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6852307). Whether it is more "safe" depends on your definition of "safe" and security is hard to measure anyway (different attack vectors). To me it is obvious that Bitcoin in it's current form (POW) can not serve the purpose of a global ledger at scale. I guess that the Counterparty team is thinking about alternatives but it would be nice to see that they do.

An Overstock representative here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiyRV99eEI (dont find the exact spot atm) also said that a crypto asset that has the value of a fiat currency is needed to facilitate buying of company shares. Who would want to buy a completely volatile asset in order to buy company stock with it? That volatility is a risk for a non trader. BitShares has solved this too with BitAssets / market pegged assets (http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/).

I am not saying Bitshares is the solution. What I want to say is that I as an investor would be more confident if I saw a publicly visible long term vision to those problems (Bitcoin's POW and volatility risk) by the Counterparty team. I do believe though the Counterparty team is capable of meeting the market's needs.

This message was too old and has been purged