Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 338. (Read 1276823 times)

Short answer: you're assuming the data exists to validate at all client-side. Unfortunately that's not something you can assume. If you're just putting hashes of Counterparty data in the blockchain what is a client supposed to do if they can't find the corresponding data? If they assume it doesn't exist then you can be sybil attacked by someone who later reveals the data and changes the consensus out from under you. On the other hand, if you assume it must exist, and wait until you find that data, a trivial attack is to put fake hashes of alleged counterparty data in the blockchain.

You missed the part where I said "no-brute-forcing" - I'm talking about something quite different that takes advantage of what P2SH^2 does. However, the rest of your post would work and is actually pretty clever, so sent you a tip all the same.

Mistake here, there are approx 4.27 times more XCP than MSC

Both use the bitcoin block chain so confirm times are the same.
There are no new coins of either.  There are more Mastercoin than Counterparty
Since they are on the bitcoin block chain, they use the same algorithms of bitcoin, they are not separately mined, or merge mined, they use the bitcoin protocol as the fundamental layer.

The feature sets are fairly similar, the implementations have significant differences.  Both of these change rapidly though as they are under heavy development.

So where do mastercoins come from?  How are they made and why can't unlimited be made. I don't understand how you get mastercoins if you can't mine them. For me Mastercoin looks like another ripple with unfair distribution and no mining.

I think I like the philosophy behind Counterparty better than mastercoin. So my personal choice would be Counterparty.

- Now I am just looking to have technical questions answered. What are the differences between the technical protocols of Mastercoin vs. Counterparty.
- What are the confirm times of blocks on both of these coins?
- How many coins will there ever be on both of the coins?
- What algorithm do they use that is comparable to mining?
- What features does one offer that the other can't offer?

The best person to answer these questions is probably Bellebite2014

So where do mastercoins come from?  How are they made and why can't unlimited be made. I don't understand how you get mastercoins if you can't mine them. For me Mastercoin looks like another ripple with unfair distribution and no mining.

I think I like the philosophy behind Counterparty better than mastercoin. So my personal choice would be Counterparty.

- Now I am just looking to have technical questions answered. What are the differences between the technical protocols of Mastercoin vs. Counterparty.
- What are the confirm times of blocks on both of these coins?
- How many coins will there ever be on both of the coins?
- What algorithm do they use that is comparable to mining?
- What features does one offer that the other can't offer?

Why should I pay attention to XCP and not to MSC? 

I'm just waiting to hear what this has to do with me, and why I am being referenced here.

I don't know if this meets all of the requirements stated, but based on a quick skimming of P2SH^2 and your Proof-of-Publication paper, here's a rough idea of an "attack" to store arbitrary data.  This would require a tiny amount of brute-forcing, and it is not dust/fee-efficient, but I think it would work.  I was unable to find the "2.0" discussion.

Long answer: re-read my paper on about proof-of-publication and how Bitcoin mining really works.

Short answer: you're assuming the data exists to validate at all client-side. Unfortunately that's not something you can assume. If you're just putting hashes of Counterparty data in the blockchain what is a client supposed to do if they can't find the corresponding data? If they assume it doesn't exist then you can be sybil attacked by someone who later reveals the data and changes the consensus out from under you. On the other hand, if you assume it must exist, and wait until you find that data, a trivial attack is to put fake hashes of alleged counterparty data in the blockchain.

Now you can try using something like the zookeyv concept I wrote about in #bitcoin-wizards last summer - I remember you saved a copy of that discussion - but then you run into a simple economics problem: if you can attack an individual system in one go, the cost required for security is going to be very high compared to the cost per transaction. Thus it's best if you spread that cost across multiple systems/uses, and force any attacker to attack them all at once. Anyway, this is all pedantic: Counterparty gains enormously in security by using the Bitcoin blockchain, and there's fuck all that Bitcoin can do about it if the Counterparty devs encode their transactions correctly.

In fact, here's a really good test to see if you understand this stuff: Suppose P2SH^2 was implemented and everything other than pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions was disabled. How can embedded consensus systems take advantage of P2SH^2 to survive without resorting to the brute-forcing parts of the hash to encode the data and without resorting to using any data embedded in any part of the transaction other than the scriptPubKey? If you can guess why, you'll be a lot closer to understanding what proof-of-publication actually is; I'll give 50mBTC to the first person with a correct answer.(edit: unless your name is Gregory Maxwell! already told him) I'll give you some further hints: the solution in this scenario ends up creating huge amounts of unspendable outputs in the UTXO set, it is blocked by Gregory Maxwell's "P2SH^2 v2.0" idea where hashes can self-prove their hashes without proving a pre-image explicitly, and finally is actually cheaper for the embedded consensus system modulo the IsDust() rule.

I assume that PhantomPhreak moderates this thread? I would suggest reviewing BelleBite2014's posting history and using that to consider either issuing a stern warning or possibly blocking him from posting his deconstructive negative commentary altogether.

I think I speak on behalf of the community when I say that if someone does indeed post a misinformed post, or embellished rhetoric, that I would rather see that on the thread by itself, then to also see a community member bashing that person.

I am really interested in this coin but am confused on how I get coins into a wallet? Do I buy the coin by trading or do I mine it with this burn the coin method?  Either way it look like I am spending bitcoin on it?

+1
Great

Yes it is, go post somewhere else, thanks.