Author

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 350. (Read 1276826 times)

sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.

Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.

Yes, I agree with you and with this method will never be really used.

The intent of introducing pay to pubkeyhash encoding is, as stated above, for a worst-case scenario. We will never use this kind of encoding by default, and it will only be as a last resort if we have no other viable alternatives. I suspect that if things ever did get to that point with Bitcoin, we would also strongly be considering a different block chain as well. We are hopeful this situation would never have to happen, but this provides an assurance to investors and people that use the Counterparty network to build and transfer value that it won't just 'disappear' overnight.

Thanks for the explanation.

I wonder though what was the logic in declaring this publicly. Since it is a last resort of sort.

I (want to) assume that there is some line of communications between you guys and the BTC devs. I am sure not all liked the language and attitude of Luke jr. etc. PP was going to PM Mike Hearn etc.

So it seems that this announcement might be counterproductive no?

Creating unspendable outputs is hardly the worst thing in the world. It happens every time someone loses a private key. Even if Counterparty created a thousand of them for every one of its transactions, it would still be adding enormous value to Bitcoin. All concerns about storing data in the blockchain are ideological, not practical; encoding in spendable (or better yet provably prunable) outputs is merely ideal, and there are a lot of things about Bitcoin's design, for instance, that are very, very far from that standard.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.

Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.

Yes, I agree with you and with this method will never be really used.

The intent of introducing pay to pubkeyhash encoding is, as stated above, for a worst-case scenario. We will never use this kind of encoding by default, and it will only be as a last resort if we have no other viable alternatives. I suspect that if things ever did get to that point with Bitcoin, we would also strongly be considering a different block chain as well. We are hopeful this situation would never have to happen, but this provides an assurance to investors and people that use the Counterparty network to build and transfer value that it won't just 'disappear' overnight.

Thanks for the explanation.

I wonder though what was the logic in declaring this publicly. Since it is a last resort of sort.

I (want to) assume that there is some line of communications between you guys and the BTC devs. I am sure not all liked the language and attitude of Luke jr. etc. PP was going to PM Mike Hearn etc.

So it seems that this announcement might be counterproductive no?
sr. member
Activity: 390
Merit: 254
Counterparty Developer
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 

You have at least one working eye, an internet connection, and you can hopefully click on the pages on top. People are so lazy nowadays, incredible.

What about requiring the issuer to put collateral (xcp) into the system. For example: I issue LTC within Counterparty and have to put up xcp worth the amount of LTC that is bought from me. This would make the system more safe/reliable and boost the demand for xcp. 

The Counterparty distributed exchange doesn't work with blockchain-based currencies other than the one it is built on (Bitcoin). The reason for this is that it would necessitate enhancing all of the software to download and integrate with the additional blockchain and daemon (e.g. litecoin and litecoind). Moreover, the security of the Counterparty network as a whole would be only as strong as the weakest chain, if XCP were free to "float" across chains in some way. The implementation complexity would also rise greatly, and it would significantly enhance the complexity of the Counterwallet UI. At this point at least, the tradeoffs here seem not worth the benefits (however this may change in the future). Our first concerns with Counterparty are security and simplicity of implementation, and the latter highly influences the rate of development that we have been able to deliver at thus far.

On the DEx you can trade Counterparty user-defined assets. This is an emerging area, and I can tell you, that by the end of the year, this will be exponentially more useful than it seems now.
sr. member
Activity: 390
Merit: 254
Counterparty Developer
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.

Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.

Yes, I agree with you and with this method will never be really used.

The intent of introducing pay to pubkeyhash encoding is, as stated above, for a worst-case scenario. We will never use this kind of encoding by default, and it will only be as a last resort if we have no other viable alternatives. I suspect that if things ever did get to that point with Bitcoin, we would also strongly be considering a different block chain as well. We are hopeful this situation would never have to happen, but this provides an assurance to investors and people that use the Counterparty network to build and transfer value that it won't just 'disappear' overnight.
full member
Activity: 518
Merit: 100
i want my xcps back
 busoni,Should not be because of your mistake, let us bear all the losses

Good luck to you
I really don't want to see that happen
 Smiley Smiley Smiley
full member
Activity: 518
Merit: 100
Can we also create an unofficial wiki, that any one of us can edit. That way we would be able to add how to's and other instructions without waiting for the developers.
This will really help in easing newbies into the product.

Your proposal is really very idea
And very good
At least I feel very good
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000
Reality is stranger than fiction
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 

The talk with BTC devs to eliminate XCPs way of work + the upcoming change in MAXCoin made many people sell XCP for MAX for some time.

But that's just my point of view.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 

You have at least one working eye, an internet connection, and you can hopefully click on the pages on top. People are so lazy nowadays, incredible.

What about requiring the issuer to put collateral (xcp) into the system. For example: I issue LTC within Counterparty and have to put up xcp worth the amount of LTC that is bought from me. This would make the system more safe/reliable and boost the demand for xcp. 
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 

You have at least one working eye, an internet connection, and you can hopefully click on the pages on top. People are so lazy nowadays, incredible.

It's just difficult to monitor NXT, Counterparty and all the other projects closely at the same time...
sr. member
Activity: 432
Merit: 250
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 
Not really. You can only trade assets issued in the DEX (BTC is the only exception), not other coins, unless someone issues an asset here to 1:1 map that coin and you trust him/her.

This may be possible in the future, who knows...
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 

You have at least one working eye, an internet connection, and you can hopefully click on the pages on top. People are so lazy nowadays, incredible.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com
Once xnova figures out how to make Counterwallet look beautiful on mobile, and main net is going, things are going to get exciting around here.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 
Not really. You can only trade assets issued in the DEX (BTC is the only exception), not other coins, unless someone issues an asset here to 1:1 map that coin and you trust him/her.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.

Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.

Yes, I agree with you and with this method will never be really used.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Can anyone tell me what happened in the last three days here? Any reason for the recent little price drop?  
What about something like this http://www.nxtcoins.nl/50-2/ for Counterparty?

And another, more general question regarding the DEX: Can I atm only trade BTC to XCP on there or more? Let's say n the future there will be more con (LTC for example) can I then, after I bought LTC with BTC on the DEX, withdraw those LTC into my LTC wallet? 
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.

Ah that makes sense

I don't see this as a threat as you state, even if the protocol is capable of parsing it, the client is not yet sending this transaction. This ensures continuity for XCP in the short term, its a business continuity plan in an adverse situation that has not been triggered. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. In the meantime, XCP has a way forward even if the situation deteriorates from where we stand currently.

PP has always been against creating transactions with unspendable outputs. It looks like the devs are looking after worse case scenarios, nothing more than that. If counterwallet were to start sending these messages, I would agree with everything you are saying. But we are not there yet and hopefully will not be.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
I think that the ability of getting XCP with proof-of-burn should be postponed to the time when there will be a stable client.

Are you high ?

Or are you sending this from a time machine from beginning of January 2014 Huh
newbie
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
I think that the ability of getting XCP with proof-of-burn should be postponed to the time when there will be a stable client. It will help the distribution of the coin. If not there will be another distributed exchange with large-holders(who risked their money into a thing that didn't worked at the time) which will be very unhealthy for the counterparty system.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Great news! Pay-to-PubKeyHash Functionality Added
https://www.counterparty.co/pay-to-pubkeyhash-functionality-added/

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question but I don't understand the implications - what does " it will be enabled on mainnet with block 293000" really mean since bare multi-sig is still the default method used going forward at least in the near future. Is the protocol capable of automatically switching to pubkeyhash if it fails to create a bare multisig transaction and relay it successfully.  

It means the protocol will parse this kind of encoded transactions from block 293000, but it does not mean the client will encode in this way.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Up till now, all the counterparty devs have done are respectable and admirable. I really appreciate the fairness, transparency, non-greedy they have shown us. I think even counterparty fails in the end (which I think unlikely), it is still a great project that have great devs and great community.

Therefore, I am really sad to see the devs try to (or have to) use this method to defend this project. Maybe just me, I don't want to see someone succeeds in a battle by threatening others that they will do something really bad, even I know they have good motive and I am in their side.

As we all know, XCP lives with BTC together. Even I have quite some XCP myself, I don't want to see XCP succeeds by hurting BTC, and finally hurts XCP itself. Moreover, I know that we will not win the battle if we use this method.

If counterparty is really successful and this mothod is used, I believe the core dev of bitcoin has no choice but filtering all counterparty transactions to protect the bitcoin. They have to do this, because if counterparty succeeds, each counterparty transactions will introduce around 3 unspendable BTC transactions and these transactions cannot be removed from the blockchain except explicit filtering.
Jump to: