Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 371. (Read 1276826 times)

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.

Actually, did you know that Satoshi had plans for a decentralized marketplace from day 1, built right into bitcoin.exe (when it was still windows only)? Evidence is in v0.1 of the Bitcoin source code.

as far as i concern;

we shall build our own blockchain and distribute "shares" in terms of XCP hold by all xcpers at certain time. by PoS i mean.

we will feel much more comfortable than any other chains.

JL777 had mentioned some revolutionary codec he might be working on but I guess we need to see what btc devs have to say about compromising here

is possible to take advantage  fuzzy logic or approximate string matching client side or some other mechanism for reducing space which counterparty tx could cram into the 40byte OP_RETURN alone or is it simply not feasible?  I'm guessing the latter otherwise devs would have already looked into it and either done it and dismissed it, just from outsider perspective would be interested in newbie friendly explanation of limitations of the 40byte reduction

Yup as evidenced by satoshis quote I posted

Wow, the attitude of the Bitcoin core developers is the polar opposite of what I would have expected to see here.

Gents, I wonder which of the following responses Satoshi would have been ~most likely~ to give upon learning about the Counterparty project.

Would he have -

A) responded with excitement, and honored that others are building upon his work, done all he could to support the shared goals of both projects? Or would he have -

B) said "this is not what Bitcoin is for, you free-riding parasites!" or "I don't recall seeing a BIP for this, you intellectually lazy mofos!" and thrown the project under a bus?

I wonder if a little of the founding ethos may been lost here.

I think CityGlut noted that Litecoin did not have the metadata space required by Counterparty, correct me if I'm wrong, but we would have to petition the devs to add this functionality. It's really a shame that the Bitcoin Core Devs won't work with us.

Hi. Did you burn 1BTC ? Are you frustrated by having to learn the CLI ? Want to sell me your XCP ? I'll personally give you 4.5BTC per 1,000. or (0.00425BTC/XCP) for anything over 5,000 XCP. Don't know how to send ? Don't worry, I"ll buy your private key from you Will use trusted escrow only. PM ASAP

How like litecoin? I think if bitcoin will go this way and litecoin choose other way and come more friendly for new innovations they can have really good possibility come number one some day. Hope satoshi wake up from dead and come write one liner because todays looks like core dev team think they are gods 

Yes, the first point is a good one. I would still be concerned that the merge mined chain would fall out of favor (a side effect of the low market cap).

I'm not sure about the second point. I'd also have to divert the question to someone who could answer it.

It's funny you and others should say this.

I've been asked by many different people on many different occasions about the longevity of bitcoin (apparently I am the resident bitcoin guy  ).
If you had asked me a year ago I would have said bitcoin was the way of the future. Now I have to honestly tell people, "I'm not so sure if bitcoin will be the defacto crypto currency of the future". There is still the possibility, but not with the current generation of bitcoin developers it seems.

I've found myself repeating to them the fact that the current generation of bitcoin developers seem very conservative and close minded. People find this confusing since they view bitcoin itself as such an innovative concept.
These bitcoin developers treat any proposed change to the "original vision" of bitcoin as an attack on bitcoin itself.
The counterparty devs should have known this before even asking the bitcoin devs to change anything.


Maybe what these devs don't understand is that when you stop growing and innovating you start losing (microsoft vs apple anyone?).

As I understand it XCP is in no danger. They will just continue on with the method they are using now (regardless of how ideal or efficient it may be). The devs certainly won't risk changing their precious original concept just to thwart Counterparty. And if something is changed, we will adapt. Etherium plans to use their own block chain, why can't we? yes its extreme, but the option is there. It would certainly make downloading the blockchain a lot less painful.

Robust because of the hashrate of the network which provides the security. That is most certainly something that can be recreated in time.

No as mentioned before, counter party needs a robust system like bitcoin to operate

There is always the option to create our own protocol (coin,) to build on. One that meets the specific needs of Counterparty improving greatly on Bitcoin, and then allowing 3 - 6 months for the difficulty to get to a point where, security is feasible enough to start running counterpartyd on it; perhaps Counterparty could run on top of XCP, which would be a clone of some other coin that meets our needs or possibly a modded version.

.. the ability to move offchain at will?.. If the company and chain are as one, there is no conflict.

Only threats which exist are from the bitcoin devs and their hostility towards innovation
, I just want know what protects bitcoin protocol from its devs, and what protects other protocols/companies/organisation with vested interest (both in time and finance), from the devs

If the chain was strictly following updates from BTC, it would be no weaker than if it was on BTC, the only risk might be a 51% attack but an established merge mined chain like DVC perhaps doesn't have that anyway?

Obviously I no dev but could you create a 100% PoS that mapped addresses to BTC?[/list]

Not kidding, I honestly did laugh while reading this.

XCP people threatening lawsuits over their choice of poor design implementation that leaves them vulnerable to any whim the BTC devs might have for changing protocol.

Counterparty might provide benefits, so it would probably be good if it succeeds, but this is not a viable argument route haha.

From a business point of view it wouldn't make sense unfortunately.

• The liquidity of the underlying asset on which Counterparty is based will directly influence acceptance and utility. The USD denominated derivatives market is larger than say the CAD market.
• The market capitalization of the blockchain upon what Counterparty is based must be significantly higher than Counterparty. Otherwise, it would be economically viable to attempt to attack the known weaknesses in the blockchain protocol and gain a disproportionately larger advantage in Counterparty.