Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 276. (Read 1276789 times)

If you do it as you describe, then the output will require 2 signatures and the counterparty payload.   So would that not mean again a change in the protocol?

You create a M-of-N (e.g. 2 of 3) multisig transaction that is actually a counterparty transaction to, say, transfer an asset from one address to another. The multisig inputs specify the 2-of-3 requirements, and the multisig outputs specify (i.e. embed) the counterparty issuance data. The inputs would just have the minimum multisig BTC amounts, with a normal fee going to the miners (i.e. overage between the inputs and outputs). As soon as the required parties sign the inputs, they are then 'spent' (thus, making the transaction active, and counterpartyd "seeing" it and adding it into its ledger)...before that event, the transaction is not yet recorded as an accomplished action on the counterparty ledger itself, but is in more of a pending state.

(Adam can correct me if I'm off on any of this, as it's more his area.)

Could you explain via an example?

I gather you need to have at least as 2 out of 3 to be able to do this.

I was talking about adding support for multisig inputs (which right now is not supported). The data is encoded via multisig outputs.

How will you add Multisig if you are need to use Multisig to encode the payload?

Counterparty has a Skype developers chat

Any developers that are interested can add me to their Skype contact list ("xnovaxcp") and I'll get you invited into the channel.

I agree it would be a great feature to support. This will most likely require multisig inputs to properly implement, so that funds are held in 2-of-3 P2SH addresses, where the client has 2 keys -- one being a backup key only sent when the account is initially made -- and the server has 1. That is, unless someone has another way to properly do it (in a non client-side-only "fake" way that could just be bypassed through regenerating the BIP32 wallet elsewhere)..

We have a plan to add multisig inputs to Counterparty at some point in the future (Adam would be able to comment on the exact timeframe here.)

Anonymity - and not for the sake of breaking the law, but just on the usability level. For example with Bitcoin it's very simple to donate to an open-source project for $5 or $10, where a person often wouldn't want to, if it involved given out their credit card info. It's making financial and escrow requiring functionality much more user accessible.

I don't know much when it comes to professional gambling.

I am really looking forward for an easy to use betting implementation. even though I do not assume mass market adoption, I think this is brutally interesting for professional betters due to the possibilities of low-risk arbitrage betting.

these people also tend to be looking for edges

cross post: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,346.msg2378.html#msg2378

Thanks for the link.
The ROI that they advertise seems way too high to be true. Also, they have only had their domain for a month, so I'm very wary of their legitimacy.

What do you know about GigaCoiner?

One possible interested company to use xcp if someone can contact they. https://gigacoiner.com/

I always understood colored coins to be about coloring individual satoshis. The way it was described originally as a concept was simple, you send coins to an address and declare those outputs to be colored, and then those outputs are tracked through the blockchain by any colored coins client. Simple and it works.

When we start talking about using OP_RETURN instead of satoshi-based denominations, IMO we've diverged from discussing colored coins and are more discussing what people think they are getting with colored coins, but what isn't actually colored coins as per the original vision.

People who favor the idea of colored coins care about the concept being based on Bitcoin, and having the ability to move back and forth between BTC and BTC-based assets.

Counterparty fits this bill equally as well as OpenAssets, but then again, the Counterparty devs have never presented their platform as "colored coins". Counterparty provides what people want from colored coins but goes well beyond it by providing a DEx for betting. The way Counterparty did it, I think is the epitome of how it should be done, because otherwise people get colored coins and then ask themselves "OK now what?"

The line between what is Counterparty and what is colored coins begins to blur when you move beyond the simple original vision of satoshi-based colors. If it's the case that coloring satoshi outputs just doesn't work, and OpenAssets is the real way forward for colored coins, killerstorm should really make a formal PSA.

Barring that, it looks from an outsider's perspective that the company behind Predictious, a centralized for-profit betting service, is presenting OpenAssets and coinprism as "colored coins" for customer acquisition. When I found out coinprism wasn't using colored coins as I always knew it, I was confused. We could really use some clarity from the colored coins project on this.

I have to ask this then.  How is CounterParty assets different from ColoredCoins?   How is the implementation different from ColoredCoins?   In both technologies, we stuff additional information either in OP_RETURN or in a multisig address.  However,  what is the difference in validating the information?

vaporware?

Distributed exchange isn't a part of colored coin protocol, but it is possible to build a distributed exchange on top of colored coins protocol.

There's nothing proprietary about XCP, and XCP is only really ever needed in Counterparty for features that Colored Coins could never implement, such as betting, for which its existence is very useful.

The Colored Coins protocol can only ever allow for two features: creating and sending virtual tokens. There isn't even the possibility of having a distributed exchange, much less any of Counterparty's other features.

I am also optimistic about this coin, good coin surely someone gossiping

Ok good to know it's planned.

For now I prefer to keep my XCP in my 2FA blockchain wallet because of this feature lacking.

Robby has this slated for future integration into Counterwallet. Not sure of the timeline.