Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 339. (Read 1276823 times)

Why do you call these "Mastercoin posts"? I see no connection to the developers or foundation. Perhaps I'm missing something.  

More clueless clowns with their worthless 2 cents, this is EXACTLY what XCP needs. Keep it coming, please.

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.

Why do you call these "Mastercoin posts"? I see no connection to the developers or foundation. Perhaps I'm missing something.  

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

The Twitter spambots which have historically posted positive news on Mastercoin (as well as many other projects, to be fair), are now posting links to bellebite2014 posts to disparage Counterparty: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxtbed5dggmwqd/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.09.35.png

A sample of the Mastercoin posts these accounts make: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw89c9dyozvx1dj/Screenshot%202014-03-30%2015.24.41.png

I don't know who is in charge of these accounts or what they are hoping to accomplish, but linking to the biggest troll in this thread as a source of Counterparty news is hilarious.

The simplest (and most common) way to get Crypto.Cipher up and running under Windows is using the installers at
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python

Any help on this error ?

I second the request. This Bellebite2014 persona has done enough damage to the community with its extremely antagonistic posts. Please stop.

Halfcab, I will ask one more time, consider taking your Alts off the forums.

Would it be accurate to say that Counterparty is a decentralized equivalent to ripple as a protocol for exchanging iou's?

Halfcab, I will ask one more time, consider taking your Alts off the forums.

Halfcab, I will ask one more time, consider taking your Alts off the forums.

More clueless clowns with their worthless 2 cents, this is EXACTLY what XCP needs. Keep it coming, please.

Jeff/Luke Jr

I understand the points you are making about the OP_Return issue, but I think you are phrasing your arguments in an non conciliatory manner.  I think its fine if a decision is not made to increase OP_RETURN to 80 bytes, however I think some of the arguments made against this are inappropriate and analyse Bitcoin in too much of a narrow way.

A core advantage of Bitcoin is that clients accept transactions as long as it meets the requirements, nothing more, nothing less.  All transactions, whoever sent them, whatever the purpose, once in a block are treated equal.  It doesn't matter if the data in the transaction is a genuine financial transaction, a political message about a Times newspaper headline in 2009, a Christian prayer, a hash of a document being used as a notary service or anything else.  If this principal is lost, Bitcoin is weaker, less useful, less flexible and less likely to succeed.  What Bitcoin allows is innovation without permission and new alternative uses that nobody has even thought of yet.  This could go far beyond just financial transactions.

I understand many are concerned about the data storage requirements of those running full nodes and network capacity issues.  This is of course a genuine problem.  However I think its wrong to think that some data is more important than other data or has more of a right to be in the blockchain.  Some new protocols may have alternative implementation methods that take up less data in the blockchain.  If possible, lets try to implement these protocols in this way.  However ultimately, Bitcoin needs to be free and open and all users and protocol developers have the right to be able to use Bitcoin in whichever way they wish.  When kindly asking people to modify their protocols to take up less space, we should recognize this principal.

Many thanks