Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 253. (Read 1276789 times)

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.

Functionality-wise, Counterparty has the most features live and available right now. It is also important to note that Counterparty can trade directly against BTC on the Counterparty decentralized exchange - something others cannot do.

The major difference and in my mind though is that Counterparty is developed under the same principles as Satoshi. The platform was developed for the people to use and *never* was there and will there be some IPO that favours and enrichens the developers. The developers of the platform had to buy in exactly the same way in which everyone else during the proof of burn period.

All other platforms either:

* Have an extremely small number of large holders, or
* Have a 'social contract' to 'richly reward early adopters, or
* Have raised funds in a commercial fashion,

Counterparty is built by the people for the people.

The peg with Mastercoin in the Maidsafe crowdfund wasn't the problem, in itself. It was, rather, the fact that Mastercoin was pegged to a value well above its market price.

I like what I have read about counterparty and my sixth sense is that it is more legit than competitors. However, I am not technical minded at all.

Could someone please explain the difference between counterparty and some of the other cryptos purporting to do the same thing, like mastercoin, namecoin, ethereum etc?

thank you