Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 205. (Read 1276789 times)

This really exposes a much more important issue about where the Bitcoin 2.0 crowd stands versus the Bitcoin crowd. There seems to be an unreasonable amount of ill will towards people building on top of the blockchain, regardless of if they are paying their fee's or not. Not to mention that if bitcoin is going to work it's going to need to scale to an enormous volume anyway- so it's not like the problem won't need to be solved at some point.

Actually I was surpised and it turned out Eligius seems to be the only hostile pool which is much better than I expected.

There was a bit of heated discussion with Luke-Jr and wizkid057, but I wouldn't call Luke unreasonable. xnova weighted in as well:

https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec/issues/248

Luke must be lucky to be able to deny money like that! He is definitely a prime buying candidate for our Counterparty asset.

That's the way I understand it. Hopefully, all other pool owners are not as retarded as Luke jr

Do you mean Eligius removes all pending transactions of Counterparty when it mines its blocks and those txs have to wait for another miner to include them?

Because Eligius only mines ~5% of Bitcoin blocks.

And no, BitSharesX is not a scam.  I have followed the development of it for a long time.  It is new code, not Bitcoin-based, and the delegate-based block creation process is probably the best implementation of a non-PoW system currently available (aside from "piggyback" coins like XCP).  Daniel Larimer is a very smart guy, and he and the rest of the team developed BTSX in a fishtank, with frequent public testing, comments, and feedback.  He was/is very active in the BTS forums and responded directly to a large number of suggestions, and implemented them if they were worthy.  He communicated when he was switching tracks (he kind of painted himself into a corner with his originally intended way of implementing PoS, and came up with the delegate system as a substitute).

Perhaps it is too bad that the BTSX team raised so much money, but no, all "pre-mined" coins are not inherently a scam.  If we set the bar of "fair distribution of un-mineable coins" at "100% fair" for Counterparty, then BitShares would get at least 75%.  Their system was convoluted, but it was open, transparent, well-communicated and without any post-facto rule-changes.

Is BTSX "better" or "worse" than XCP?  Impossible to answer.  They both are very good in different ways.  XCP lives and dies by its reliance on the Bitcoin blockchain.  It is both a huge strength (maximum security, relative ease of implementation) and a huge weakness (slow blocktimes, complete lack of control over blockchain).  BTSX has its own blockchain which is not hugely wasteful of electricity or any other real-world resource.  It is super fast and responsive.  Whether it is as secure as BTC will have to be shown over time.

I agree, some bitcoiners are against counterparty http://www.coindesk.com/new-forms-spam-bloat-bitcoins-block-chain/

It's a mess really. :-/

It's now possible to search broadcasts by text!!! Thanks mtbitcoin!: http://blockscan.com/search.aspx?mod=broadcast

What is actually bitcoin core team plan, make slowly transferred crypto money without any other features? For me this way sounds only way to kill bitcoin in long run. Or they have some special reason hate 2.0 coins over their own blockchain, some other than small spam what sure help bitcoin also. Lets speak more this and drop price so we can buy again back with lower price

How does it work then if it's blocked?

I think Counterparty and Mastercoin should sit down together and talk about some sort of future together. It's two different developments of the same technology and both are going to face the same problem in the future: the hardcore bitcoin folks. I don't put it past the core devs, or pool owners to eventually block bitcoin 2.0 technologies. It would only make sense to start talking now about some sort of permanent fix. Perhaps a bitcoin 2.0 merge mined chain (or why not use Namecoin anyway?). It would even perhaps give a chance to build a sidechain that was faster, so we aren't waiting for several blocks to confirm for something to update on our bitcoin2.0 wallets.

Yes, XCP is blocked explicitly.

As well as all m-of-n transactions are blocked in general (which are 85 % metacoin transactions) on Eligius.

Furthermore:

SatoshiDice, BetCoin Dice, 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T ("correct horse battery staple"), SatoshiBones and Lucky Bit.

And transactions trying to spend coins received by blacklisted output.

I agree. And no promises that funds are safer than in a bank (big bits warning flag- just incredible). A bunch of developers plugging away on a very useful platform is very different than an ego-maniac developer making outlandish claims in convoluted language. What initially drew me to counterparty was in part the developer's modest and no-nonsense mission statement.

But the fact that fundamentally it is a collaborative project and not a money grab ultimately differentiates it.

I've heard that the main difference is that Counterparty didn't raise any funds. Other projects such as BitShares asked for and received Bitcoins from investors, which makes them liable.

calling Bit whatever they want, yet still has to be backed up by some centralized entities right ? I don't really get it. What are benefits over other 2.0 projects ?

Bitshares is not a scam

I'm not an expert so don't take my word for it, but I think if the SEC have a problem with anyone it would be with people who use CounterParty to issue assets which they class as securities - not counterparty itself and not every asset issuer automatically. In that case it is up to each asset issuer to make sure they comply with any relevant laws (or to make sure they can't be found, lol).

Counterparty separates itself from scams by not being a scam. If there is ever government action in the 2.0 space, Counterparty sits head and shoulders above other projects as there were no funds raised (no IPO). It's worth noting that Counterparty is an open, agnostic platform. Legislation and regulation will occur jurisdiction by jurisdiction while Counterparty is available world wide.

Also, we kind of touched on this in recent posts, but it's worth noting that Counterparty's development team is crushing everyone else. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's somehow a close race between Counterparty and other project devs (if it were even a competition). Even so, we're sitting on devs that are funding our project completely out of their pockets as they work on it full-time (giving them a significantly higher cost per XCP than everyone else). That, above all else, makes me confident in the future of Counterparty. They know what the road map is better than anyone else and they, as intelligent, informed individuals, are continuing to dump time and money into a quickly moving project that appears to be accelerating.

Anyone here follow BitSharesX? It seems like a scam or at the very least a beta project that makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. How does counterparty plan to continue differentiating itself from such obvious scams, and is there a contingency plan for when the SEC or other govt. entity does a crackdown that doesn't differentiate between legitimate projects like counterparty that are done with little hype and plenty of real development vs. altcoins like bitsharesX that smell really bad?

Some of the articles on here discuss the problems with bitshares http://prestonbyrne.com/back-of-the-envelope/

Serious replies appreciated!

Actually, while you may recommend them to burn their money. We are offering a product in exchange for value.