Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 253. (Read 1276936 times)

I have just read the last pages, and I am in a very bad mood...

Guys, we must recognize that Counterparty is very useful but XCP is useless.
Even Swarm won't use XCP, and community even thinks it is better for XCP because of risks ?!...Are we kidding ?

What happens with community's minimal ambition, competition and risk tolerance ?

Did you notice that even Maidsafe is ahead us !!! What a "chaotic IPO" !!!!
Nxt is 10 times more valuated, and its assets exchange, which was after CP, is not better but far more used now. Battle lost.

Everyone has left the thread. The first month was really exciting, but almost nothing happens since. 1 or 2 pages per week...
It is the first coin nobody talks about value, like a taboo ! Very lately, they were news like talks with overstock, xbet.io, a kind of privacy with mixing , swarm on press, even coindesk and NOBODY CARES !

Community hopes XCP to rise in value with bets and CFD, but at the moment the vast majority of the wolrd don't even use bitcoin, nor bets, nor CFD...
XCP is 10 years ahead...and we all know what eventually happens. When the market will mature at least, there will be 20 better competitors...In 20 years, we will read that CP was the first but 10 years later another Coin/Protocol was created and has been leading the market since. Same causes, same consequences.

Counterparty devs (who are exceptionnal) seems to have philantrophic goals ! I even think we are over-helping competitors to copy / steal us...

I am provocating and challenging our really smart community to at least discuss real answers to XCP use and plans for valuation.
Please don't answer :
- "Sell your stake !"
- "HOOOODL"
- "It is a troll"
- "I am confident we wil find someday something"
- "Just work freely for CP"
- "It is for the technology sake" or it is an experiment"
It is for shitcoins supporters.

I can't see XCP successful if we can't answer precisely why, and even when or how much. Chance is not an option.

Sorry for be provocative, but we can't have a XCP as low as 0.0035 BTC anymore, it is insane. It should be in the top 5 easily NOW.

Agree


The NXT developers are among the best funded out there, but not from the IPO sale.  They sold some shares at higher prices post IPO.  There are several full-time developers backing NXT and they have completed way more innovative work (written a whole cryptocurrency from scratch) than the XCP devs (XCP is ~6KLOC... it doesn't have its own blockchain nor does it have its own p2p networking code).  At least take a serious look at the NXT project before commenting on it.


There is no fundamental difference between issuing an asset on XCP or NXT than launching in IPO for a new cryptocurrency.  They both carry risks for investors and are unregulated.  You speak of "real-world recourse", but that is not something that bitcoin and cryptocurrency is about.  In fact, it's intrinsically unsupported.  You are talking about bringing regulation, the established system, into the cryptocurrency realm.

Many in the cryptocurrency movement don't want handholding and regulation.  Many want to discern NXT and XCP from copy and paste pump and dumps themselves.  For example, many of us burned bitcoin and took the "leap of faith" and invest into the XCP IPO, others bought XCP on the exchange. There is always a risk and always a leap of faith.

I am a burner of btc for xcp so I basically followed the project over since its birth - great progress, however I still think xcp is underused and does not catch up with the great development of the protocol.

non-technical question/idea for the use of xcp regarding fundraising to the developers:

I think we all agree that the liquidity of the protocols currency is not enough to use it for fundraising. we should have all learned from the mastercoin/maidsafe disaster of pegging a currency for fundraising and avoid it. the second way of using two currencies for fundraising is given by protoshares/bitcoin in the btsx snapshot: it was much better to use the dutch auction (?) than the pegging by mastercoin, but still has its downsights.

When I read Swarms announcement yesterday I had a third idea of using a protocols native currency: I like Swarms general idea, but think it is half-baked at this time. So I did not decide to send large sums of btc. However I had the idea that this would be a great point of using xcps unique feature, that it can be taken in escrow on the blockchain: Imagine I could send an amount of xcp and decide for a finite time if I like the route the project is going and decide after the end of the timeframe if I would stick to the project. Is something like that possible?

I think it is the least artificial use of a protocols currency for fundraising, well basically it is the currencys practical use case.

From an economics perspective this has a lot of advantages, it avoids scams for the investors, it adds a use case for fundrasing. from the fundraisers perspective it adds some uncertainty regarding the amount of money, but on the other hand it adds an incentive to work properly and stay commited to the idea - I think this is in great coherence to the counterparty protocol. the second point from the fundraisers perspective is the liquidity of xcp - this has to be given by ongoing fundraising as well as different time spans of investors on chain escrows.

I think it would add on the least artifical way liquidity to the native currency
Comments?

Well. The NXT decentralized asset exchange only supports trading between NXT and assets, not assets and other assets. It also doesn't have automating distribution payments (dividends). Not to mention, there are various security issues with NXT, such as address collisions. These are very important factors to be considering, and are quite a bit more significant in the grand scheme of things than whether a block takes 1 or 10 minutes.

From a financial perspective, NXT is much worse. All existing NXT coins were distributed across only 71 different addresses, and remains very centralized today (from a financial perspective). Not only that, but reliably forging NXT blocks requires a lot of NXT, making the rich richer. This is made worse by making it possible to 'lease' forging power to other users, which makes mining pools more popular.

So in summary, NXTCoin is missing 95% of Counterparty features, makes the rich richer, is objectively less secure, and encourages mining pool centralization and forging multiple times simultaneously. Presumably that's why they decided to call it forging.

What part of my post was overstated? If there are any inaccuracies in what I said, I'd be happy to correct them.

I didn't say that funding for developers was bad. The developers in Counterparty had the same opportunity to participate as everyone else and obviously they are invested in their own platform. Their fortunes are more intimately linked to the outcome of the platform than if a bunch of money was handed over to them to take care of.

Edit: overlap with what baddw said

Funding is good.  Of course I agree, but the Counterparty developers obviously had the means to self-fund, and as far as I can tell have made more progress and put more end-user-usable work into the product than the developers of other Bitcoin 2.0 projects such as Mastercoin and BitShares.  NXT stands out as having not raised much money at all, only 23 BTC?  And that was apparently after most of the work had been done?  And all NXT were distributed to some 70 individuals?  I'm sorry but if you are talking about developer funding being an important part of a coin/token/DAC platform, I don't see how you can really support NXT.

I agree that Bitcoin/DACs creates a new form of ownership, whether recognized by law or not.  However, when I'm sending real-world money (or tokens representing substantial amounts of real-world money) to another real-world person who is supposed to be doing real-world work, I would like some real-world recourse if they decide to abscond with it.  Once the coin/DAC has been created, it's open-sourced and in use by many people, and there's fair-market pricing available for it, I am willing to buy into whatever, but anything "IPO"-like requires a leap of faith in the people, not the cryptography.  I am sometimes willing to make that leap, but only in very small amounts.

Do you have some dust BTC in this address? Seems you just did a unconfirmed transaction with this address.

while selling swarm for xcp. I don't have xcp.  means?

Mine was in response to something overstated, but it seems you have come back to agree with my point.  Funding for developers is good.  I believe Bitcoin has introduced a new kind of "legal ownership" that does not require lawyers and institutions to confirm.

I prefer decentralization of interest for the ongoing viability of a platform. I prefer that technology as important as important as we are uncovering is owned by the people who it will serve, and not by a select few.

Yeah!  We want to give millions of dollars to kids straight out of college, with no strings attached or legal ownership structure in place, so they can produce an open-source product which can then be copied by anybody!

(Perhaps over-stated, but then so was yours.)

Any progress with this?  I need to be able to send XCP.

I can't take the lies anymore.

Go compare NXT's UI (http://nxt.org) to Counterpary's UI.  NXT's is definitely winning on the UI front.  Counterparty has feeds, betting and CFDs, which NXT doesn't do yet.  NXT has a decentralised asset exchange with faster trading via 1 minute block times and doesn't waste any energy because it's proof-of-stake.  Counterparty has 10 minute block times and relies on Bitcoin, which requires a couple nuclear power plants to run.

I would not say Counterparty is the most "technologically advanced" either, since it's simply embedding it's protocol inside Bitcoin, something that has disadvantages.  Sure it means less code and less work, but it also means some tradeoffs.

There are advantages and disadvantages when comparing Counterparty with other decentralized exchanges.  NXT is by far the most user friendly I have found.

Yeah! We don't want the developers backing the technology to have any funding!

It's so taboo of Swam's and Ethereum's founders to try to support their work by raising funds.  This is sooooo different than Satoshi whose retargeting parameters for baby bitcoin did not favour early miners.

If Swarm accepts XCP, then the DEX is not endorsing Swarm; Swarm is endorsing Counterparty. Ideally, this sounds like a good thing. It offers tacit support and gives use value (and thereby financial value) to XCP. However, your larger point still stands: this creates a risk for XCP if Swarm encounters significant problems.

At this point in Counterparty's and Swarm's lifespan, this risk is very high for Counterparty if Swarm accepts XCP. Going forward, as more companies raise funds via Counterparty, the risk of any single one of them jeopardizing Counterparty grows smaller. So perhaps now Swarm should not accept XCP, but I don't think this should become a standard for future fundraising initiatives.

Edit: I see that I might have misread your post. You were suggesting a new thread for Swarm in order to decouple Counterparty and Swarm. I don't think you were making the argument that Swarm accepting XCP poses a risk to Counterparty in case Swarm encounters trouble, were you? Sorry if I overstated your position. I agree with your recommendation to decouple the two projects.

The price of XCP vs BTC is better to be determined by the market rather than the Swarm IPO. Therefore, it's risky to accept both BTC and XCP in the IPO. To adjust XCP price regularly will add a lot of trouble to the IPO organizer, but to set a fix rate will hurt the market severely when there's no enough liquidity at all.

Moreover, I suggest to start a new thread for Swarm. I don't think it is a good idea to bind the Swarm project tightly with Counterparty. Counterparty is just a DEX accepting the IPO of Swarm. Nothing more.  I wish all the best to the Swarm project, but in case there's anything not so good happen on Swarm, we don't want to see the Counterparty will be affected. A DEX should not endorse any IPO in my opinion.

This is just my personal opinion and experience:

When the Counterparty team made the initial announcement and made available the code to counterpartyd for everyone, I was naturally skeptical. I cloned the git hub, ran the reference client and looked at the code. From a technical point of view, I could see it was *extremely* tight code. Functionally, it was like they just dropped a bomb on everyone - day 1 on launch, the platform was operational. It was all command lined based so it was technically difficult to evaluate but it worked.

I had never heard of any alt/metacoin that released simultaneously with a fully functioning platform during the 'funding' period (though proof of burn wasn't funding the developers, it was funding the economy of XCP).

Despite what the detractors say, no one can deny the execution ability of a small focused team when compared to the relative juggernauts of the competing platforms.

Counterparty had a smaller team made entirely of volunteers and had much less development time when compared to competing projects. Counterparty now has the most technologically advanced platform and the best user interface.

Makes sense regarding the funding at inception. That is definitely a plus. Is there a broad based consensus that the features on there are better? What about the developer team? Are they more skilled or more serious or even just more full time than competitors?

would you be able to push the plan forward if you cannot reach 4000BTC target ? BTC is expected to exponentially grow annually for the next few years, even 1k of BTC should be plenty to keep your cashflow positive, if fait conversion is done at the right times of course.