Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 15. (Read 1277015 times)

Scammers under the name "counterparty community" are posting stuff on facebook urging people to "reverify" their passphrase or lose access to their wallet. I hope no one will fall for this but report as fake news to facebook & block

Age of Chains is nominated for the world's first ever Crypto Game Award:

https://cryptobitgames.com/cryptobit-awards-voting-is-live/#bestgame

Voting literally takes 3 seconds and would mean the world to us.

Ultimately, winning this award would bring more attention to our project as well as to Counterparty as a whole.

So make sure to cast your vote now - thank you! 

The vote ends already June 10th.

Hi guys I've found a problem in xcp. The thing is, I've independently verified price sucks and is not gone x10 where my sells are, can a dev look into this?

Counterparty Meetup Tomorrow NYC https://www.meetup.com/ru-RU/Counterparty/events/ktgzqpyxjbhb/

Counterparty Newsletter 06/04/2018

https://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-newsletter-06-04-2018/

At current times can we find reasons to buy this currency? I believe that yes, considered as a rival of contract currencies or similar, Counterparty(XCP) can yes return to the top 100 or even among the 50 most sought, but what's missing for this? Anyway this is an issue model that we should motivate the developers to think about a long term solution or everyday innovation.

Trying to pump this dead horse ?

XCP Airdrop will be done, approximately 400 000 000 tokens to XCP holders.

Is there a good article that compares and contrasts rootstock from xcp?

xcp, they have virtually no social media presence at all and next to no ICO promotion. So unlikely to see any excitement over the Airdrop.

They haven't even started promoting yet, their plan is to have something tangible to show off prior to that unlike many other projects. The project is still very much alive.  and they do plan to promote.

I saw in Coin Market Calendar that the Counter Party held an Airdrop to get the Coin Web (XCO) by just holding it.

but why now the Counter Party in Bittrex goes down to 160,000 Satoshi, can anybody explain to me?

New game on the block at Counterparty XCP You too can become part of the Mafia now! Get started with some cool blockchain cards from https://mafiawars.io/card/PRTCTNRKT

Increasing the block size to 2mb was such a small common sense change given the scaling problem in the second half of 2017, I lost faith in blockstream when they reneged on that simple change. That happened in plain sight, so no need for any conspiracy theories.

Blockstream's behaviour created the forces that led to Bitcoin cash, and that means people like me can move on and just hold equal amounts of both versions, and leave guys like you arguing with your 'opponents'. I don't know which version will succeed,  maybe both,

Much of this is a false misrepresentation of the history to back the BCH narrative. You say you aren't partisan, but you're spreading their falsehoods. Nothing in the "original vision" of Satoshi was against second layer solutions. Second layer solutions are not about Blockstream collecting fees, but about enabling real ways to scale transactions while maintaining decentralization of nodes.



I know what a zealot is. It's a personal attack because you know it's a term with a negative connotation that you're using to pigeonhole and assume what someone believes rather than try to understand where they're coming from. It's also not an argument.


Repeating your investment strategy a million times won't change the fact that your philosophy on the tech is partisan, demonstrated by your willingness to spread misinformation.


Given that I'm still open to the possibility that scaling *might* require a base level block size increase at some time in the future, but that successful scaling will *definitely* require second layer solutions, it would seem that the only places we differ are in what should be prioritized first, whether or not we believe in using conspiracy theories as partisan narratives, and how much we're willing to invest in the technical strategies that we most believe in.


I'm passionate about being on a "side" that disregards conspiracy theories when other reasonable explanations exist.

The original vision of bitcoin was for on-chain scaling with miners competing in a competitive market for PoW mining of blocks with no barriers to entry, Blockstream changed that, and so BCH was forked to continue the original path, which leaves Blockstream and friends to create a second layer that forces users onto their LN which allows them to collect fees (i.e that's their 'business model', Blockstream is a business who happens to have enough of the core devs on staff to have stopped the common sense increase in blocksize last year). None of that is a conspiracy theory, or related to EDA, just the facts to neutral observers like myself.

Calling you a zealot is not a personal attack, look up the meaning, it describes what you're doing pretty accurately, don't take offense, you responded to me as as a partisan warrior in the bitcoin civil war - I'm not partisan at all bro, you are on one side, I'm on neither (or both depending on how you look at it)!

I'll repeat, I own both versions of bitcoin, I think scaling requires both block size increases AND second layer solutions, you are the one taking sides with passionate fervor.

You mentioned your belief in an "original vision" being represented in BCH, so it's completely relevant. Saying I'm an "argumentative zealot who drank the blockstream AXA koolaid" is not a rational argument, it's a personal attack, based on a conspiracy theory that you seem to believe in, in the face of any alternative, reasonable explanations.



You're resorting to made-up conspiracy theory propaganda rather than referencing reasonable arguments.




It's fine that some people have decided to hedge their bets like that and try to stay neutral from an investment perspective (as long as you are holding *all* the Bitcoin forks in equal value amounts, if that's what you truly believe in), but from a philosophical perspective, you don't seem to be neutral at all. You seem to, instead, be interested in conspiracy theory attacks against Blockstream, personal attacks rather than reasonable points, and "big blocks now", which shows that you, on the contrary, aren't philosophically neutral.

EDA  is not relevant to anything i said, you're not making sense at all, you're an argumentative zealot who drank the blockstream AXA koolaid.

I hold both coins in equal numbers and will be happy either way, hopefully both achieve adoption, I just recognise on chain scaling with increased block size was part of the original vision, as was second layer solutions, and bch only exists because blockstream AXA  needs to make revenue from LN, so they obstructed one scaling option to benefit their own interests. Everything else is a smokescreen, do both , bch will end up with second layer scaling like LN too, just with big blocks now when we need increased capacity asap.

If you're going to bring up the "original vision", then be prepared to talk about the EDA, because it was a clear example of how BCH contradicted the "original vision". No doubt, it's easier to ignore any contradictions and just repeat the false premise of BCH being "closer to the original vision", but it's not intellectually honest. No, I'm not a "zealot", but I'm also not a fan of BCH.

I am not talking about emergency difficulty at all, I did not mention it once, so your whole reply is worthless bro, you're not very smart if you reply rebutting points I did not even make ... are you one of those zealot types? Did you read I hold equal amounts of both?