Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 369. (Read 1276826 times)

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 21, 2014, 03:45:24 PM

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

I don't know if it has been created yet. Please see:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5845721

Ignoring petertodd's slanderous lie there, I will reiterate why his idea is based on a false assertion:

Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).

I agree with what you said. Is it correct that we are not at the stage where the fee can be distributed across the network? At the moment those fees we are talking about would be taken by the miners but there is nothing to stop those fees disbursed across the network in the future.

Am I correct to say that we don't disagree that:
1) Counterparty messages are financial transactions
2) There is scope to include Counterparty messages in the blockchain as long as :
a) It doesn't cause undue burden on the network
b) It doesn't open the door for other abuses of data storage in the blockchain

Counterparty requirements
1) 80 bytes of data
2) Counterparty transactions are relayed through the network as normal transactions

Do you think it is possible to reach an agreement from your side on how we can achieve these requirements? If so can you think how this could be possible?

samperi649

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: samperi649 on March 22, 2014, 06:17:10 PM

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?

Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

Look who is talking about decentralisation

samperi649

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 22, 2014, 06:51:29 PM

Quote from: porqupine on March 22, 2014, 06:42:13 PM

Quote from: samperi649 on March 22, 2014, 06:17:10 PM

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?

Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

I was under the impression Zerocoin was supposed to merged on top of bitcoin originally - I haven't read their white paper in detail though.

Originally. But the original concept was completely impractical (and still had the centralised trust issue).

Quote from: porqupine on March 22, 2014, 06:42:13 PM

Real-world utility is essential to the value and success of a crypto-currency, therefore most of the alt projects just seem like moot (especially at the stage where even bitcoin lacks wide-spread adoptation). On the other hand blanket opposition to any kind of innovation on the bitcoin blockchain seems just as counter-productive.

The idea behind side-chains is that you will be able to simply move bitcoins across multiple blockchains, with different properties of their own, and back again.
This makes them real-world usable, and free to do almost any kind of innovation.

Oh Really?!! You and your co-mates harassed Matt Green to the core that he wanted Zerocoin to be a true decentralised cryptocurrency. Dude! its not an altcoin. Its Zerocoin.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: porqupine on March 22, 2014, 06:42:13 PM

Quote from: samperi649 on March 22, 2014, 06:17:10 PM

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?

Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

I was under the impression Zerocoin was supposed to merged on top of bitcoin originally - I haven't read their white paper in detail though.

Originally. But the original concept was completely impractical (and still had the centralised trust issue).

Quote from: porqupine on March 22, 2014, 06:42:13 PM

Real-world utility is essential to the value and success of a crypto-currency, therefore most of the alt projects just seem like moot (especially at the stage where even bitcoin lacks wide-spread adoptation). On the other hand blanket opposition to any kind of innovation on the bitcoin blockchain seems just as counter-productive.

The idea behind side-chains is that you will be able to simply move bitcoins across multiple blockchains, with different properties of their own, and back again.
This makes them real-world usable, and free to do almost any kind of innovation.

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Quote from: samperi649 on March 22, 2014, 06:17:10 PM

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?

Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

I was under the impression Zerocoin was supposed to merged on top of bitcoin originally - I haven't read their white paper in detail though.
Real-world utility is essential to the value and success of a crypto-currency, therefore most of the alt projects just seem like moot (especially at the stage where even bitcoin lacks wide-spread adoptation). On the other hand blanket opposition to any kind of innovation on the bitcoin blockchain seems just as counter-productive.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: samperi649 on March 22, 2014, 06:17:10 PM

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?

Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

samperi649

member

Activity: 61

Merit: 10

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 22, 2014, 06:13:00 PM

Quote from: led_lcd on March 22, 2014, 06:07:24 PM

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 21, 2014, 03:45:24 PM

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

I don't know if it has been created yet. Please see:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5845721

Ignoring petertodd's slanderous lie there, I will reiterate why his idea is based on a false assertion:

Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: led_lcd on March 22, 2014, 06:07:24 PM

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 21, 2014, 03:45:24 PM

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

I don't know if it has been created yet. Please see:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5845721

Ignoring petertodd's slanderous lie there, I will reiterate why his idea is based on a false assertion:

Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).

Bountyful

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 22, 2014, 10:09:47 AM

It's not enough to have a couple of pools mine our transactions. We need to keep the block time as close to ten minutes as possible.

Then contact more than a couple of pools. This statement sounds like you wish to force miners to include your transactions; surely you didn't mean it that way?
If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057.
This is with the understanding that Counterparty will seek to migrate to a more acceptable solution long-term.

This is helpful and not the first time Eligius mining pool has offered to help Counterparty. Remember the burn period?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4318549

Nice to see us exploring another opportunity to work together with Eligius, once again.

This is very helpful progress and looks like it can combine with some of the other proposals put forward. I dare say the solutions presented are even working out faster than a BIP proposal review!

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

I don't know if it has been created yet. Please see:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5845721

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 22, 2014, 05:46:58 PM

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

led_lcd

sr. member

Activity: 262

Merit: 250

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 22, 2014, 04:50:45 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 22, 2014, 05:46:58 PM

If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057.

Counterparty can't default to constructing transactions that are not relayed by default by the official, vanilla Bitcoin Core software.

Sure it can. Just setup a few nodes dedicated to Counterparty and have your client relay to them by default.

Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?

Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 22, 2014, 04:50:45 PM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 22, 2014, 04:50:45 PM

If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057.

Counterparty can't default to constructing transactions that are not relayed by default by the official, vanilla Bitcoin Core software.

Sure it can. Just setup a few nodes dedicated to Counterparty and have your client relay to them by default.

I don't mean that it's technically impossible.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: jgarzik on March 22, 2014, 09:38:58 AM

If you can provide a patch that identifies transactional-only Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions uniquely from 80-byte abuse, I will discuss whitelisting it on Eligius with wizkid057.

Counterparty can't default to constructing transactions that are not relayed by default by the official, vanilla Bitcoin Core software.

Sure it can. Just setup a few nodes dedicated to Counterparty and have your client relay to them by default.

prophetx

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1010

he who has the gold makes the rules

Few (I didn't say none) of those arguments pass the smell test.

OP_RETURN and 40 vs 80 bytes: If the miners agree with you, you don't have to care what the network relays. Has Counterparty directly approached miners, to get them to mine 80-byte OP_RETURN transactions? What was the response? If the miners agree, great, let's do it. If the miners don't agree, there is no point supporting it in Bitcoin Core software.
"core devs are censoring and killing innovation!" Counterparty is very clearly misusing a feature intended for ECDSA public keys, in a manner that very clearly results in harm to the overall network, short and long term. Other people/companies/projects are extending the bitcoin protocol and not meeting the same resistance.
To repeat earlier posts, my criticism is not about counterparty in general, just this ONE CheckMultiSig flaw. Fix that, and my criticism is gone.
As Peter Todd has noted, CheckMultiSig has other problems also. It may go away regardless.

Please do not paint all Counterparty criticism with a broad brush. My opinions are my own, and in particular I do not agree with all of Luke-Jr's points or point of view.

There are plenty of ways to innovate and extend the bitcoin protocol. People are doing this every day.

It is always a mistake to base an entire engineering system on a subtle technical quirk that "just happens to work." Counterparty is stuffing its own data where ECDSA public key data is supposed to go. That is clearly not the intended use.

I think from a strategic level one must ask why are some projects unable to communicate intention and influence development, rather than getting into tactical details such as this.

It is quite clear to everyone that p2p systems can be used for all sorts of transactions that make up contracts. If the inability to communicate and resolve needs is causing friction one must ask how the overall system should evolve to mitigate long term harm, while maximizing long term capabilities depth of the network.

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Freicoin is 80% premined.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder