Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 361. (Read 1277015 times)

http://www.zjcad.com.cn/images/post1.jpghow about this ,it was used

+1 to the above.

+1 to JG's post. no one should be painting the BTC core dev's in a wide brush. I was very sad to see some of JR's posts but am not taking him to represent the entire BTC community from which I and all of you are also part (even if one has 1 10 or 10000 btc's).

I have been around 100 companies and valuations in the VC arena for 20 years, assisting them at various stages from pre-seed to IPOs and 2nd offerings.

Based on my experience: At this juncture it is actually the first mover advantage and its benefits mainly in network security and in being proven through endless attacks that gives BTC the best chance to be the biggest and brightest not only now but in the future (not to say that there won't be more alternatives). Smart money is now building the BTC eco-system and is bringing numerous applications that will drive adaptation and penetration better. Smart money will feel much safer building around the "monster"(in positive sense) of the space and only engage in new project in limited scopes at this juncture. This is meaningful in my humbled opinion.

While it is true that market capitalization @ $7Bilion is a fraction of the potential for the entire space, BTC was and in my opinion will be the arrowhead in years to come and in bringing the space to the TRILLIONS.

NXT and ETH and others have long ways to go and unfortunately many attacks to overcome. I wish them all the best success but they will take time.  

This is why I am a firm believer in 1) CP being on top of the BTC blockchain 2) in it adding a great value to BTC and contributing to its penetration 3) that the core devs from both projects must find the common ground above and behind the wild kid jr's attitude. "

4) Peter todd's wise words in one of the posts above said it the best: "but remember our real competition isn't each other, it's enormously larger field of centralized finance. I strongly believe that we have far more to gain by working with each other and growing the tiny field of decentralized finance in general then we have to gain by pointless in-fighting.

BTW: I have no doubt that creative solutions will be found for reducing the TPS issue with BTC in the future. In fact, I have seen a presentation in one of the conferences proposing a 50% increase in speed (above my head how) by credible PHDs and researchers. It will come.

i suggest burn LTC once again,then XCP team can burn more ltc,you can sell this buring for R & D funding，and if bitcoin have problem,then can use LTC block chain for Reduce risk

Great Job! Love where this is going

Thanks a lot for the opinion from another Core Dev of Bitcoin.

To be fair, Counterparty plans to use OP_RETURN from the beginning, and using CheckMultiSig is just a workaround added just before the official release because nobody knew when the core 9.0 would be out and whether OP_RETURN will be added.

Now imagine Counterparty did not add CheckMultiSig and kept waiting for OP_RETURN added in this core and now suddenly find that OP_RETURN has been reduced to 40 bytes at the last minute.

If we calm down and it will not be difficult to understand that the devs of Counterparty don't want to use CheckMultiSig at all. They and all the community are looking forward to removing CheckMultiSig and using OP_RETURN for the good of bitcoin and, to be honest, also reducing the trading fees caused by CheckMultiSig.

Nobody is arguing that Counterparty has to use checkmultisig. Current situation is that, the functionalities are designed for 80 bytes OP_RETURN. With only 40 bytes OP_RETURN, counterparty are forced to keep using checkmultisig against the benefit of both communities.

Thank you for making this post. I agree with everything in it.

What do you suggest that we do going forward? Unfortunately, I don't think that using a side-chain (with hashes of Counterparty messages in Bitcoin), or a chain with merged mining, is really an option for us, because of the security issues and the implementation-complexity involved. I also don't think that approaching miners individually is a viable option. It's too important to this project that it be built upon standard, default settings of Bitcoind. We can't let the relaying of Counterparty transactions depend on promises that particular mining pools will apply a certain patch to their copies of Bitcoind regularly. None of those options is at all worth the risk.

Counterparty was designed wholly around 80-byte OP_RETURN, not CheckMultiSig, which we started using only as a temporary measure and which we'd be glad to stop using completely. Would you support raising the size limit on OP_RETURN back to 80 bytes, so that we may do so directly? And would you support allowing an OP_RETURN output of arbitrary size, with an appropriate fee structure? (See this post.) I'm sure that the latter option is best for both Bitcoin and Counterparty in the long run.

Very good!Cool!

Cooperation please between BTC and XCP!

Do not paint all criticism with a broad brush. Not all critics have the same experience or point of view.

I was the original author of the 80-byte OP_RETURN: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738

I have been working in this space for years, and have already created in-blockchain software, and directly observed problems in the field from in-chain solutions, years ago. See https://github.com/jgarzik/pybond and https://github.com/jgarzik/smartcoin.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process has also been around for years, and new proposals are added frequently: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

It is not my job to hold everyone's hand, be your nanny, and fix everybody's software.  If you like decentralized development, you should know that.

There is a demonstrable engineering flaw.  CheckMultiSig() is built for ECDSA public keys.  Counterparty is not storing ECDSA public keys there.  When you use a system outside its design specifications, there are bound to be negative side effects.

From this we may conclude, contra to the hyperventilating on this thread,

• I'm a supporter of 80-byte OP_RETURN -- I wrote the damn thing
• I'm well versed in in-chain data projects -- I wrote some myself
• Counterparty went outside the bitcoin design specification in their use of CheckMultiSig
• This feature may be going away anyway, for other reasons
• Plenty of innovation is going on in the bitcoin space.  It is not "censorship" to point out all the parties who are innovating, while managing to not exploit bitcoin design quirks

To repeat (admittedly it is getting tiresome), do not paint all criticism with a broad brush, and not all critics have the same experience or point of view.

Why Counterparty used proof-of-burn to initially distribute XCP

https://www.counterparty.co/why-proof-of-burn/

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this outside of the Counterparty community. This blog post should help clear up any confusion by providing us with an easy place to direct people who have questions related to proof-of-burn.

a solution within the bitcoin protocol would be much better, the charme of xcp and msc is the network security and that you do not need to move your bitcoins on any exchange to get them

maybe we can just use pos

^^ I've found a couple threads and commented where appropriate. More technically savvy people will have more luck, though.

This is the most relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/216d8e/coin_secrets_op_return_metadata_in_the_bitcoin/

And here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/216ajq/this_is_fucking_ridiculous/

Hey, there are a lot of threads over on the Bitcoin Subreddit talking/lamenting about recent and ongoing failures of centralized exchanges... Would people here help me watch the Subreddit and mention Counterparty where it's appropriate? Just to point people in the right direction. I'm sure that a lot of the readers there don't know about Counterparty and they'd be interested to learn that there's another real option to MtGox, Vircurex, and so on. We're obviously really close to the release of Counterwallet on Mainnet, and when that happens, Counterparty's distributed exchange will be really easy to use. Anyone will be able to trade BTC, XCP, USD vouchers, etc. without any risk of the trading platform suddenly going under, freezing withdrawals, running away with their money, or whatever.

Bitcoin capitalization is tiny compared to the vast potential of this industry and Winklevoss and Silbert are basically nothing in the hierarchy of the financial world. Many real sharks in the world of finance are looking for possible alternatives in decentralized solution industries and I doubt they would be willingly come in to the position where Winklevoss brother could happily dump upon their heads. Make something worthwhile and differentiate yourself enough from the army of clones, you will see how receptive other big guys are to you. Etherum is a good example.

There is very litter lock-in effect with Bitcoin compared to things like Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter etc. Users could easily move from one crypto to another if they want to. Many people idolize Bitcoin when comparing Bitcoin to Internet which imo is gravely mistaken. Bictoin protocol is not the Internet protocol, blockchain tech protocol is and Bitcoin just happens to be the first application of the protocol. Don't idolize Bitcoin and mistake it with blockchain protocol which is the essence of decentralized movement while Bitcoin is not. XCP should move on and grow where its tech can prosper the most.      

can we hear from some actual other bitcoin developers besides just luke-jr? In all my time here I always see him stirring up drama and being controlling/a douche.

You think people like the Winklevoss and Second Market are somehow ideologically aligned with Bitcoin above other cryptocurrency?  They just want things to stay simple, but if the wind shifts and it becomes obvious something else is overtaking Bitcoin those are the investors who are ready to bail off a sinking ship.

It's difficult to conceive of a reality other than the one we're currently living, but that's what we're faced with here.  One where Bitcoin might wind up having an inferior feature-set when compared to one of its clones.

I agree, but Open Transactions is its own, its not on top of Bitcoin. So technically, OT helps the entire crypto economy, not just Bitcoin's.

Can Counterparty work using P2SH Multisig on the bitcoin blockchain?

That's where our views differ.

I have no doubt Bitcoin will become really massive no matter the attitude of BTC core developpers. Network effect and infrastructure are everything, you can't beat Winklevoss and Silbert ETF, hardware wallet and 40 petahash with just useful new features. And even if that put BTC developper in a very despicable position of power, it's still a good thing because would BTC one day be overcomed by an altcoin, then the whole concept of digital scarity would be fuck up.

Also Open Transaction will enable a lot of stuff that will add Counterparty-like features on top of Bitcoin, that will happen no matter the amount of energy Bitcoin developpers put into screwing Satoshi's vision.

It's sad but I think the truth is Counterparty have a lot more to lose than Bitcoin if there would be a schism between XCP and BTC.

As far as I am concerned, following this whole thread since 200 pages ago, moving away from the Bitcoin blockchain seems the best option medium/long term as it provides so much more planning security to Counterparty. The only counter argument to this approach I heard is that we would loose the Bitcoin network's hash power and therefore decrease network security but if our service indeed would spawn demand and thus make XCP more valuable, hash power would increase as well. Do we even need POW, why not move to POS?

What can we gain by moving off the BTC blockchain?

+ Faster txs
+ Planning security from external peoples decisions regarding our vital resources
+ All the features in the blockchain CP wants (message space as large as desirable)
+ A native community, coming from the adopted blockchain (Litecoin, Florincoin, XCPcoin, whatever), where WE are the main concern/project instead of being one idea in a sea of projects.
+ No compromises
+ Anything on a long wishlist that can be implemented in our own transport layer but cant/wont in Bitcoin


What does it cost?

- Time to evaluate desired options
- Time to program and migrate
- Time we loose towards competitors (which can be offset by staying on BTC blockchain as long as neccessary, while deploying our target blockchain simultaneously, then migrating when ready)
- ? Network security? -> Only if we use POW, POS would probably even pose a gain in regards to decentralization and network security

+1. I am working on an alternative coin because I don't see a world where  Bitcoin is the only relevant blockchain. XCP should consider going where you are welcomed and going where the infrastructure is most conducive for the XCP's tech to flourish. Everyone sticking with Bitcoin will be losing the DEX competition to other DEX exchanges with 1 minute confirmation. Bitcoin mainstream adoption is still tiny to be considered anything of permanent advantage. Bitcoin mainstream adoption can't even be compared to for example Myspace in their respective fields.