Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 335. (Read 1276823 times)

Primecoin no, it is simple PoW.
PPcoin is PoS/PoW.

Obviously we don't need PoW because we already completed our distribution phase so we would have an entirely PoS currency. NXT is an example of pure PoS albeit a crappy one.

Primecoin isn't any more energy efficient, it just produces prime number strings of possible scientific value (instead of useless leading 0 hashes); PPC is, but it's only 1 PoS block per 4 PoW blocks, which I don't think is very noticeable when PoW mining returns are much higher than PoS returns; someone can correct me on this though.

Is mastercoin really moving to dogecoin?

Are ppcoin and primecoin the energy efficient ones alternative to PoW.

Sorry I've done some googling and I can't find any reference. I've heard it mentioned many times that satoshi thought mining was the inherent weakness of bitcoin. This quote seems likely because control of mining (which is what we see today with the large mining cartels) would lead to control of the network but I can't for the life of me find any reference to it...

Am I crazy?

Regarding the dust-up over whether to stay on Bitcoin and PoW or move to something else/create something else that is PoS... etc.

Right now XCP is in the "proof of concept" stage. An incredible amount has been done, but much is still under development, not only in terms of code, but in terms of gaining traction in any markets for which XCP can potentially be a solution. Until the concept is "proven," it has much to lose and little to gain by creating its own blockchain, or hitching a ride on a less secure and less trusted blockchain. When creating a new product or service, you don't want too many variables in play at a time; you need something stable, and Bitcoin provides that stability. I agree with Matt Y; if XCP needs to migrate to another chain for whatever reason, there will be a time to do so. But moving now just adds another element of "unproven-ness" to this proof of concept.

I never said Counterparty wasn't leading in terms of functionality.
Nor did I say that Counterparty has taken no risks. But huddling behind bitcoin for protection is obviously an aversion to risk when we know that we have more to gain by leaving then by staying.

What you suggested in your previous post was that at a later time if it becomes necessary CP will move to another or its own blockchain (this would be reacting and piggybacking from one solution to the next).
What I suggested was a proactive decision to move not from one solution to the next, and the next, and the next (which is what will invariably happen should we continue down this road), but to move to a final solution.
Our own blockchain would be the final solution. You admitted it yourself. Why don't we just jump ahead a few years then and save ourselves some wasted time? We are wasting time trying to play nice with bitcoin when we could be growing.

According to you "PoS" is a trend and bitcoin has been around "forever". You know they thought email was just a trend? They said it was pointless and stupid and we would never have a need for it. But some people, they saw it for what it was. It wasn't a trend, it was a solution.

You calling PoS a trend shows where your mindset is.
To anyone outside our community bitcoin itself is a trend, or a scheme, or a fraud. You are equating what you and I know to what the world thinks it knows.

My comment regarding counterparty having less adopters was and is evident by the list of trading over the past two months on the exchanges. Any new adopters would have had to buy XCP from poloniex. We can see there has been very little trading on poloniex. So very little XCP was bought. I would also assume the majority of XCP bought on poloniex was from XCP holders. Obviously that is just a theory and is inconsequential anyway.

Read the rest of the text you quoted.

Will there be a time to possibly consider moving off Bitcoin? Maybe, I have no idea. That time is not now, though, and it would be premature to start having those discussions in my opinion. I hope that clears up my point of view a bit.

Counterparty is very active and is currently leading the second generation space with regards to functionality.

Counterparty is not piggybacking from one solution to the next, it is staying on Bitcoin. You are the one suggesting the project moves to another blockchain, then denouncing that very thing in a later post as you say "are we doomed to have to follow trends" while you pitch a PoS solution that is itself a new and upcoming trend in the digital currency space, while Bitcoin has been around forever and is much harder to consider a "trend".

Do you feel Counterparty has taken no risks? The project has been rife with risks from day one, and those risks are gradually being mitigated and eliminated.

What decentralized exchange is winning the race of "usage"? What decentralized financial market is winning the race of usage? Nobody. Let's check back on that in a few months or so.

So, according to you, early adopters sold some or all of their positions in XCP, and that somehow decreased the number of total XCP holders. How are you able to infer that everyone who has bought XCP over the past few months already held XCP?

That's exactly the problem 2-way peg tries to solve: having a non-issued interface with bitcoin from an outside chain.
You can also coinswap with other person as a shortcut.


Link please?
I can give you this one where he proposes merged mining to have multiple chains with different rules and uses:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28696

Some more history to learn from:

http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1551

INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)

It certainly will with that mentality.



So it's better for counterparty to just react, instead of act? Are we really doomed to just follow the current trends? Piggybacking from one solution to the next?

What about actually taking a fucking stance? What about making a decision instead of letting other people make decisions for us.
This is the worst business advice ever. Is it a risk? Sure! But those that never take risks have nothing to gain.


Winning the race of utility but not usage?
I would posit that counterparty has less adopters now than when it started as some early adopters have sold out and moved on.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

The world's largest energy wasting scheme is going to continue, with or without us.  Counterparty can certainly adapt if that ever looks like it's going to change.

PoS is still an emerging field.  IMO there are, shall we say, "issues" with all existing PoS implementations.  It hasn't been rigorously tested to nearly the same extent as PoW.  Most "PoS" coins out there are hybrid PoW/PoS anyway.  I do think that PoW will eventually be superseded by PoS, just for efficiency's sake, but when the time comes, Counterparty can just hop to the leading PoS coin instead of having to create one.

You are welcome to fork Counterparty if you feel so strongly about its direction.  Or move to one of the alternatives such as NXT, BitShares, or Ripple, all of which have their own take on the blockchain and protocol implementations.  I for one am somewhat invested in all of them, but I want to see them all succeed, and I really do like Counterparty from both a philosophical and technical standpoint.

I'm sure that the devs are flexible and will remain so, but the core idea for Counterparty was to build upon Bitcoin and leverage its security, its blockchain, its nodes, its miners.  They are not going to abandon that lightly.  It may come to that point some day, and they might already have some contingency plans in place, but it is still very early days and there's no reason to jump ship so quickly.  Rome was not built in a day.  IMO Counterparty is already winning the race, and the release of the Web Wallet will be a huge step up in average-end-user functionality.

We shouldn't be supporting the worlds largest energy wasting scheme in the future.
And this doesn't address the difference between PoW and PoS security.
We don't need that hashing power with a PoS blockchain.

Hope you're not wrong
We can change a problem are discussed
Wish us luck

You asked for a benefit, I gave you one. I didn't say it was the only consideration.

I think the best way you'll advance this argument is if you can weight the risks and opportunities side by side.

Ha-ha
You are a straightforward person very frank
Hope to make friends with you
To provide useful information for each other
Is a good idea?

Counterwallet is the next step in development on the usability side of the project. People that do not want to use a web wallet, should not use Counterwallet. They should continue to wait until a viable alternative which meets their needs is developed and released.

I did not say that Counterparty should move off Bitcoin in the future.

Running on Bitcoin is not strangling the adoption of Counterparty and my view is that both Bitcoin and Counterparty will be better together than they are apart.

Apple's purse is not a good construction?
I have full confidence in the future of coins
The developers think very thoughtful

If Companies are going to issue Stock on the DEX - or merchants are going to hedge their received BTC payments - security IS a must. Merchants use Coinbase/Bitpay for their transactions - are they sacrificing security?
Deterministic Wallets are very secure - btw if you don't want to use a Web Wallet with Bitcoin - you do have to run BitcoindD or QT. Plus you are supporting the Network by running a Full Node.

Bitcoin was also hard to mine early on in it's development and you had to build from source I don't see why this should be any different. The reward is that you get to be an early investor - just like the people who Mined Bitcoins when the difficulty was low.

What do you mean by paying Tax? You are paying for transaction fees - everyone should pay this! Not to mention that they are minor for the advantages Bitcoin provides. The developer's are a different story - in this discussion so far, aside from a few people (Peter Todd) they have been overwhelming condescending, and in many ways unreasonable about things without any adequate logic supporting this. Nevertheless I think it's part of a development process and open-source community that you have to deal with people you don't really like and don't really agree with, and still progress to reaching some kind of understanding.