Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 364. (Read 1277015 times)

Great stuff, looking forward to seeing what you've created!

very excited to see it

Almost surely a multi billion dollar market in the making. No sweat here.

To my untrained eye it appears that the recent buy order volumes are impressive. Lots of folks tend to forget that price means NOTHING without that precious volume.

Dear Halfcab: There is no uncertainty, as assured by the devs including Bitcoin's JG. this will get solved one way or the other. The price movement to 0.005 or 6 or 4 or even 0.02 really means nothing. hang in there and see where we are a year from now. dont think days. think long term.  I know that you are.

All this uncertainty and the price goes up go figure

On a sidenote, the counterparty video is coming along ! Get excited ! Trailer is coming tomorrow or Tuesday

I agree with that. There are a lot of similarities between the Coiledcoin attack, and the reduction from 80 bytes to 40.
No member of the core dev, gave any rational arguments to justify this reduction.
There is no other choice than to see this decision as an attack directly against XCP and MSC.

This kind of attack highlights a serious problem that goes far beyond the consequences for XCP and MSC.
The whole community should be involved to protect Bitcoin of such conduct.

Sounds worse

Mastercoin needs more than 80bytes in OP_RETURN for asset issuance. Theirs seems to be a different problem.

I still don't see what mastercoin is doing about this ....

Just finished reading through the past 8 pages of this thread. Thx for both the bitcoin devs and counterparty team for engaging in this open discussions, very insightful. The fact is both teams do a tremendous job at their respective projects and have incentives for innovation to thrive within the bitcoin community. Its great to see this open discussion, we have to remind ourselves that our incentives are still very much aligned. There might be some differences on implementation details, but great to see it being worked on.

my only personal quip after reading through the discussion is seeing counterparty being judged harshly for not following the 'rules'. Bitcoin being the ultimate maverick project itself, isn't it reasonable to expect that there will be other maverick projects(some of them unforeseen, like counterparty) that will tend to blossom under the shelter of bitcoin from time to time.

In those instances, ofcourse there will be ample valid reasons to throw the book at them and there are going to be more than one 'right' way that the project could be implemented(here again there can be more than one valid argument). For a project like counterparty, that has so much in common with the founding spirit of bitcoin itself. Wouldn't it be best aligned for the whole community to err towards making decisions that will facilitate smooth progression of the project?

I guess the philosophical question would boil down to, are innovations going to be 'encouraged' or 'guided' ?

I personally think that the desicion does sent a strong message to the community as a whole.


Just my two cents.

The other issue I see here is that, much like the Internet as a whole, Bitcoin has its own 'network neutrality' concerns. Any conversation of explicitly "white-lableing" or "filtering" specific content, beyond being an untenable political situation, leads down a slippery slope as -- much like ISPs filtering an prioritizing traffic based on the nature of the content or 'ransom money' paid -- the result is a centralization of power and an inconsistent, inferior experience for the end user. Isn't Bitcoin supposed to be about the opposite?

Just as Satoshi's original quote mentioned, miners vote with their CPU cycles (or, more appropriately today, the cycles of their pool participants). If an individual miner wishes to take this kind of action for their own reasons, then there is and should be nothing stopping him or her. However, suggesting institutionalizing and/or operating in this discriminating manner at a higher, more organizational level is dangerous and -- as Satoshi's quote made clear -- something that goes against the principles that Bitcoin was founded upon. Pooled mining PoW has already produced an alarmingly centralized situation for Bitcoin is it stands. Why add more fuel to the fire there?

In my opinion, the better plan is that we continue to utilize bare multisig (at least for our larger transactions) until 80-byte OP_RETURN is hopefully made available in the next minor update of the core client (what, 2-5 months?), and then move to that. This would, of course depend on bare multisig sticking around during that time period, but it being removed from the core client would imply a patch update, where 80 byte OP_RETURN could be re-enabled. I'd hope that bare multisig would be phased out in a release after OP_RETURN was added, but if it is a "flash cut" where both are done in the same release, we have options. OP_RETURN could persist in this 80-byte state until a more elegant fee-for-data structure was fully vetted and folded into the core client.

Eventually, they worked it out.

Jeff has already made a few proposals, all of which have been addressed and argued against by Peter, and Jeff has failed to respond to Peter's arguments.

No, I believe the Coiledcoin attack should be a part of this discussion. I would never have known about it if it hadn't been brought up, so I investigated what happened. What Luke-jr did to Coiledcoin was similar to a bully on the beach coming along and kicking apart a sand castle some kids were in the middle of building, saying it was in the way of people walking on the beach as justification. He used computing resources which did not belong to him, but were entrusted to his care, to sabotage another project.

This discussion has shown some serious problems with Bitcoin, a high degree of consolidation of centralized control, which needs to be addressed. Proof of work mining was the main turn-off as a gross waste of resources and energy when I first learned about Bitcoin. It would be good if Counterparty and Mastercoin could migrate away from Bitcoin, preferably to a PoS or proof of contribution blockchain.

Absolutely not. Luke-Jr (and jgarzik) are being completely unreasonable, and they need to be called out for it. Luke-Jr's most recent 'proposal' is indeed ludicrous, and yes, he's doing nothing but trolling (intentionally or not).

No one officially represents Counterparty, but if Peter did, then he'd be doing an admirable job of it, IMO.

There are two different points that keep getting conflated: Counterparty as it is currently functioning and Counterparty as it was meant to function. The former is with bare multi-sig outputs, and the latter is with 80 byte OP_RETURN outputs. Whenever anyone asks how Counterparty is hurting the Bitcoin network, Jeff and Luke refer to the problems that come with bare multi-sig outputs, and gloss over the fact that, if not for an arbitrary, last minute decision to reduce OP_RETURN to 40 bytes, Counterparty wouldn't be "harming" Bitcoin in the way it currently is.

The questions should rather be asked: If Counterparty used OP_RETURN, how would it harm the Bitcoin network?

Peter,  I admire you immensely and I enjoy you work and respect your passion. However, I'm disappointed that your response (as a paid Counterparty representative) seems equally mixed with personal anger against Luke-Jr and insightful comments on how to resolve our issues. Your post above accusing Luke-Jr of trolling and calling the proposal "ludicrous" was unnecessary to help us move forward and may have set us back.

Neither jgarzick nor Luke-Jr have made any personal attacks on anyone in the Counterparty team during this exchange. If we wish to continue to make progress together on this issue, I must ask that you refrain from making personal attacks against other bitcoin core devs, particularly as you officially represent Counterparty.

Yes, we have our differences and we may not like each other that much, but I would ask that we keep our focus on the commenting on the merits of the solutions proposed. If I recall, it was you who said we must stay in the herd with the greatest numbers for the greatest security. I agree with you and hope that you'll agree with me to keep our exchanges professional so we can stick together.

EDIT: I will also that ask that you and Luke-Jr discuss the Coiledcoin 51% attack accusations separately from this thread, if that's okay.

Florincoin now supports 528 bytes of data.

The idea of Florincoin is to use the transaction metadata field for purposes like this. You will not find any resistance from our development team upon attempting to implement such a protocol atop our blockchain.

In fact, we would work with you to accomplish this goal.

Hi Adam! You may want to re-consider NXT as a platform..I saw your video and your only objection was that its expensive to issue an Asset on the nxt platform, the fees are currently being worked on. You already know nxt is very fast and have you tried out the new asset exchange? there are hardly any bugs and its been running live on the testnet for weeks, scheduled for release in a few days / week

You can play on the testnet if you haven't already. Just click here: http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

The client is simple and intuitive. You can pick it up in 5 minutes.