Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 203. (Read 1276789 times)

Luke-jr and maybe some other bitcoin devs is like little kids who don't want play together with neighbor house kids in their sandbox, but there is coming day when they grow up and ask XCP and MSC join to play same game   Thats why there no need other chains.  But that is just normal because neighbors kids have bigger trucks and better toys and they have only sandbox.

A nice bump in price. Its still way undervalued compared to its potential.

I would have liked to see XCP move platform or go on an independent chain like DPOS, but the developers doesn't seem to be interested in this.

You're a moron, Matt isn't

MST ?  lol       *MSC

and that "one shot" asset was funded with more $ than all the other assets altogether.. 

When did this happen and was there any announcement?

Coinmarketcap.com has a "Assets" tab now, listing the 3 active platforms (Mst, XCP, Nxt)

My first Impression was it is like they created a "Crypto 2.0" Tab. No need to go and see the first Tab anymore. The future is on this tab. The traders will go here.

My 2nd impression is that XCP will the one benefiting most. MST is clearly a "one shot" with only one asset in one year time, and NxT is not on bitcoin. The Counterparty assets are the only one growing today by the way.

Not to mention dogeparty, clearinghouse, or cSFR, all based on Counterparty are missing.

Hey,

I don't have an issue with you. If I did I would try to find a more productive way to deal with it than bashing your ideas for no reason other than my dislike of you.

I donated six months of my time to Counterparty along with a bunch of money (and additional time) in the founding of BetXCP. I care a lot about Counterparty and want nothing more than to see its eventual wide scale success. Thus, when I hear ideas that I think are bad, I react strongly to prevent the project from being derailed. Adam, Evan, and Robby can all attest that I am fairly vocal about anything I may disagree with, without much regard for who presented the disagreeable thing to me.

Why I dislike the idea....

1. At this point I see Via as little more than a clone coin with a clone of Counterparty laid on top of it. Certainly there will be other alternatives later and they may be a better fit.
2.Putting all those dev hours to help another development team keep up their own fork of open source software at the expense of the parent project just seems wrong. This will slow down development of Counterparty overall to give users a faster block time on a new chain that offers nothing of value except a faster block time.
3. The timing of this idea is too early. If Counterparty were to do something like this, it would probably happen months down the road, after they make the hires they're looking to make and the project develops a bit more.

Dogeparty is the best thing to happen to Counterparty in a long time. I fully understand if Counterparty devs are "providing any level of support" to Dogeparty, as I'm sure they do with Via and anyone else they're working with. I won't bother listing the differences between Via and Dogeparty and why I'm a bigger fan of Dogeparty, because most reasons should be fairly obvious.

Cliffs: I think we just happen to disagree frequently. If you have ideas I agree with, I will publicly acknowledge them and support you.

Matt you really must hate me or something, as everything I suggest apparently is a "terrible decision".

I'm starting to accumulate a list.

It's like saying that it would be a "terrible decision" back in the 1980s for Sybase or Oracle to have supported more than 1 operating system for their DBMS.

Would love to hear analysis and logic used to present why providing support for other blockchains is a "terrible decision".

And to know whether providing any level of support to Dogeparty would fall under this category of "terrible decision"?

Using development resources to help keep a fork up to date would be a terrible decision at this point in Counterparty's timeline.

and those alt chains are secure?

if people see that counterparty high tx is worth to bitcoin community, they would merge mine the sidechain, making it secure.

Bitcoin miners should be more willing to merged mine the sidechain, than supporting other monetary systems, and wasting additional hashing power.

Merged mining is free.  xcp adds value to btc, not competing.

side chains are not very secure according to some and who know when and if they will ever be production grade, might as well use a regular exchange.


whether we like it or not the fact is that there are well over 500 blockchain networks out there right now, and that means a lot of unsed transactional capacity

someone will take advantage of that transactional capacity.

We have a new Counterparty meetup group kicking off in Boston!

http://www.meetup.com/Boston-Counterparty-Meetup

... first session will be on Tue Sep 30th.

should wait for sidechain, make a faster block time there, and boostrap that with the current xcp holder at a random block X, rather than going with viacoin or other obscure ones.

Benefit is the monetary system still relates to bitcoin where people are more willing to supports than clone coins.

I follow this project since Jan and i think this is a really good project!Dev is always working hard.Good job guys!

people can also grab your IP and steal your bitcoins... hasn't happened to me but I know people 

seriously if you are going to do IRC clock your IP or use TOR

http://superuser.com/questions/528816/how-to-hide-public-ip-adress-on-irc-channel

This is a great example of why the core xcp dev's should take a snapshot of current xcp holders and do a parallel XCP system on viacoin, clearly the software is complex and needs the support of the core developers but some people want the faster block time.

Then we get the best of both worlds.  Direct access to BTC, and also a faster trading system for people who don't care to pay dividends in BTC.  And financial benefit for XCP holders.  Sort of like a 2:1 split.

Plus for some projects it is too expensive to use the btc blockchain.  And let's face it BTC likely won't be getting much cheaper.

I'll shut up now ... Since I know my ideas are not welcome.

Speed of transactions on ClearingHouse using VIA...which became moot once transactions stopped matching due to bugs.

We're glad you're here.
I'm just curious: why did you go with ClearningHouse initially, and not Counterparty?

Just FYI, I have brought my JLTRADINGCOIN trading token, which was the first actual trading token on ClearingHouse, to CounterParty due to bugs constantly encountered on the ClearingHouse platform.
Essentially, I was unable to sell JLTRADINGCOIN's to BCT members' buy orders and had a PM inbox full of "I'm unable to purchase your coin due to errors" messages.

Anyhow, I'm hoping the CounterParty platform does better!

JL

Thanks Matt, Chrome is working great!