Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 315. (Read 1276817 times)

Defending 'type-b Bitcoin' as economically viable (with unlimited one way issuance) shows a complete misunderstanding of very basic economics - in order for proper functionality as a store of value, or financial instrument (it's not the same as buying your bitcoins in the morning and spending them for some lsd on silkroad in the evening - the medium of exchange type use)  - there has to be a relative stability in  price (or minimally the instability has to be relatively predictable). In this case it is completely unpredictable - because you always have to sell to someone to get regular Bitcoins, but they never have to buy to get type-b bitcoins: no one is going to use a decentralized system that is far higher risk than a centralized one.

Furthermore here for example is the last block: 295094
Reward: 25 btc
Fees collected: 0.05852852 BTC
25:0.05852852 That's .00234 - So we can expect .234% of the total hashing power working on the type-b bitcoin chain (if it reaches the same transaction volume - unlikely, and actually less considering the ridiculous one way redeem-ability). And this is going to be a secure network?

  

Thanks for the explanations

non-technical so explain like I am five - can we simply take all our msc/xcp/assets and move them to the new sidechain?

It's an enhancement and not a threat. You need to differentiate a few things: there are protocols like XCP and MSC and there is some kind of communication with the Bitcoin protocol, for example the initial proof-of-burn (XCP) or fundraising-for-dev (MSC), the several data-storing schemes like using multisig transactions to encode transaction information or the DEX which directly interacts with the Bitcoin layer. It appears they are building the groundwork for an even more frictionless communication between Bitcoin and X.

anyone can answer this?

If 2way peg is possible we might not need btcpay, just transform btc to xbtc trustlessly

So can someone explain how this sidechain innovation project would affect projects like counterparty and mastercoin?

YES, I export  unencrypted and Bitcoin-Qt format. The blockchain address has more than one BTC addresses, is that the problem?

Have to say that you consider very comprehensive

You need to export unencrypted and Bitcoin-Qt format.

Try this.... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6145226

I tried to transfer xcp from blockchain address to counterwallet. I take private key from the blockchain BTC wallet under the option " Export unencrypted". When I imported the private key to counterwallet, it shows "Not a valid private key". Anyone know how to solve this problem? Many thank.

yup.

anyway who do you think has more value:

the notary who notarizes a contract

the trader who negotiates a deal with two parties for that contract

the dude who brings those parties to the trading floor

----

bitcoin is one of those, xcp and mastercoin is another, the dude well ...

There is no commercialization of bitcoin core development going on here. Adam and Austin are seeking to employ core developers as a way of supporting work on bitcoin core. There are some developers who are working with them as contractors or early employees. There are also some developers and community members who are working with them in an unpaid capacity because we see what they are doing as beneficial to the future of bitcoin. From my vantage point this is more along the lines of core developers influencing the direction of this company than the other way around.

Speaking personally, I highly value my independence as an open source developer and my involvement was conditional on that remaining the case. It is vitally important that there are some core developers who are free to work on aspects of bitcoin that are vital yet may not immediately affect the bottom line of their employers, just as it is important to have developers making decisions which are in the interests of users not industry. It is my understanding that Adam and Austin are working on a non-profit aspect of this endeavor as well, sortof like the Mozilla foundation, which would be strictly independent from the for-profit apparatus. I'm sure details of that will emerge in time.

There are no changes to bitcoin required for nearly all of what we are working to accomplish, although a few aspects would be greatly enhanced by some bitcoin core changes (e.g. support for the return peg). These changes will be proposed and reviewed like any other and not given any special treatment. Part of why you are starting to see some PR about this company is that we want to start the conversation now about the nature of these changes and the necessity for their adoption.

Regarding your third question, these public side-chains are 100% decentralized and uncontrolled by any single party. There is also a concept of "private accounting servers" which is a high-volume centrally managed transaction server that naturally would have operator fees involved. However the code for running and/or auditing either of these would be 100% free, fair, open-source, unrestricted and unencumbered. The day this stops being the case is the day I quit.


That's probably all I can say about the company itself. I'd be happy to entertain any questions about 2-way pegging, side-chains, in-chain user assets, distributed exchanges, and private accounting servers. (Some details of which I already posted to this thread previously).

Hello Mark. Thanks for sharing. A few questions if that's okay?

1) There are rumors circulating that your group, including (AdamBack and AustinHill) have organized the miners to sign-up to agree to changes in bitcoinclient to allow this initiative to succeed. Will you be able to speak to exactly whether this is true or whether this will be just Luke-Jr's pool for now? Source: "Working with mining pools to discuss further utilization and expansion of merged mining" http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/

2) This startup company that is backing this initiative (we heard that you are funded as well) to implement sidechains seems to essentially be the first time a company is influencing bitcoin core dev decision making, directly. Can you speak to the relationship between this company and the bitcoin coredevs involved in this project? Should we assume that the core devs are now giving preferential treatment to companies that want to advance their own bitcoin initiatives by paying core devs to work for them? This would seem to be a pivotal point in bitcoin's development cycle.

3) Lastly, if your startup company intends to profit from sidechain implementation, why should companies like mine trust you to allow us to build on these new chains? If you can now influence bitcoin development to your own company's interests, it seems that all sidechain capabilities will be built to advance your corporate interests first, above all other companies. The awesome opportunity with Counterparty is that the devs have created a simple, free, and fair protocol that does not put Counterparty's dev interests above the interests of startups building on their protocol. However, with Adam Back and Austin Hill creating a "for profit" company on bitcoin core and pushing their agenda (profit seeking which is okay) companies like mine now have new risk to consider with these new features. You are creator of this protocol feature and possibly our direct competitor, as well.

TL;DR: Are we seeing the commercialization of the bitcoin core devs with this new project to launch side-chains?

Thanks
BTT

Thanks Maaku

I am one of the unnamed core developers working with Adam Back on this project. (Though as a part-time consultant - most of my time is still spent on self-directed projects paid for by community donations.)


They absolutely can. We just think that unless there is an economic difference from bitcoin and other existing p2p issued coins, there's absolutely no justification for doing so.


You realize that bitcoin has the same problem, once the subsidy drops to a negligible amount?

Transaction fees are one solution, or you can have the coins demurrage in the side chain allowing for a perpetual reward. (Demurrage with pegged currencies is possible, as the pegging mechanism provides friction). There are other mechanisms being considered as well.


Approximately the same incentives as Counterparty, which also forgoes the scummy currency issuance model.

The asset issuance and smart property contracts layer is free infrastructure that is difficult if not impossible to monetize directly, yes. But there are an infinitum of profitable services that can be built on such a layer.

a) It appears that the side chains cannot offer any block rewards.
b) They would need to achieve a certain level of hashing power.
I am not sure how b) would be possible without a)
c) Another note, I read elsewhere is that. The value of the 'betacoin' on the side chain can never exceed 1 BTC. As coins can always be moved from the Bitcoin blockchain into the side chain.
While this seems like a nice way to experiment. I am not sure what are the incentives for the AltCoin developers (zero profit).

If someone more technical can review the details and post a ELI5 that would be great.

adam was writing about this a few days ago in the counterwallet chat, any comments, especially by the developers on that?

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/#.U0XaLPl_ulc

it could solve quite a ton of problems, doesn't it? is there a problem with the migration of xcp on that chains?

No, it's just that Blockscan, e.g., doesn't provide volume data or order book depth, etc..