Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 369. (Read 1277015 times)

There's a lot of options for Zerocoin - most recently they've been talking about doing it as an alt-currency, however I was talking to their Ian Miers at the Financial Cryptography 2014 conference a few weeks ago about how Zerocoin could be implemented as an embedded consensus system within Bitcoin. The big advantage there is increasing security. Of course, there's the obvious resistance to 51% attacks that being embedded as opposed to independent provides. But a more subtle advantage is that Zerocoin does require a trusted setup phase. During that phase secret keys are generated, if the keys are not deleted they can be used in the future to produce fake proofs and thus create fake zerocoins. By making Zerocoin be an embedded consensus system, rather than an independent one, it becomes much easier for mutliple Zerocoin's to be setup, each initialized by different, independent, parties. The security of each version is the same - the security of the underlying Bitcoin blockchain - yet you get the advantage of being able to pick and choose who you trust to do the setup phase honestly. I guess we'll see what the team chooses to go with in the end, but in any case if they do not go with the embedded route I'd certainly consider forking the project and releasing a version under that model myself.

You deleted my posts because I keep telling the truth

It's possible. Whether it's practical, is another more complicated issue

This seems fair.

I don't think those requirements are reasonable.
Why does it matter how much data XCP can use, or how the transactions are relayed?
What should matter is that people can use it for A, B, and C goals.
The technical side is just a matter of implementation, not requirement.

I asked you on IRC last night to please clarify what exactly you consider to be a "slanderous lie":


You did not respond. Please do so here we can understand what exactly is your side of the story with regard to Coiledcoin being 51% attacked.

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?

Look who is talking about decentralisation

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.

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

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.

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.

You prefer an altcoin that requires centralised trust, over a decentralised Bitcoin?
Anyhow, hopefully the Zerocash folks will be just another Bitcoin side chain.

Wait for Zerocoin to boot BTC out.

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

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!

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

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

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

Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.

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.

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

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

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.

Freicoin is 80% premined.