[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 401.

Bountyful

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 03:15:35 PM

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

I believe that I brought this idea of subscription fees for the asset in discussion previously here: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,150.0.html

I am not sure what the devs have decided, but the recommendation by Global_trade_Repo and by GLaDOS were very helpful.

It's my view that asset issuance will be hobbled by this 5XCP price and this will also depress the value of XCP as companies cannot build quickly enough on the platform.

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 13, 2014, 02:58:10 PM

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 02:10:26 PM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 13, 2014, 01:33:43 PM

Quote from: deliciousowl on March 13, 2014, 01:28:14 PM

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

The vast majority of those assets were created before the fee was put in place.

At some point they should probably be given an option to pay for issuance (before block xx) or relinquish asset rights ~

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 02:10:26 PM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 13, 2014, 01:33:43 PM

Quote from: deliciousowl on March 13, 2014, 01:28:14 PM

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

The vast majority of those assets were created before the fee was put in place.

BitcoinTangibleTrust

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Digitizing Valuable Hard Assets with Crypto

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 01:04:38 PM

Quote from: BitcoinTangibleTrust on March 13, 2014, 12:19:34 PM

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 02:21:46 AM

Can you explain in which way the Private keys correspond to the ownership of the physical gold stored? Is the gold only redeemable by private key and in no way by your request without being provided that key on behalf of an owner to make the redemption?

Great question and I will add this question and answer to the FAQ, as well.
We have one custodian partner with whom this is currently working and for which we are still testing, but our approach is as follows:
Step 1: Customer who purchase gold through our platform will supply us a bitcoin address to send their Counterparty Goldcoin. We will assume that they are the owner of the address and they have the private key for that public address.
Step 2: We track the public address of each Goldcoin we issue on Counterparty and update our custody database which we share with our custody partner.
Step 3: We have provided our custody partner a digital signing application that requires the owner of the public address to digitally sign our redemption verification message with their private key. Only successful signature will allow for the release of the gold and they still need to provide contact information at redemption, as well.
Given that we don't have the private key, we cannot sign for the gold ourselves.

What do you think? Does this sound reasonable?

It sounds promising. How is this going to work if someone sells their Goldcoin on the DEX to another person? It will now be associated with a new Pub/Priv key. Will the application in question use an active Node to verify the Blockchain?

I've added your first question to our FAQ. I will add this one as well. Here's our answer to the follow-up and I'll update the FAQ (without code) if you consider this response acceptable.

The Counterparty API allows us to query the bitcoin public address for each asset we issue. Therefore, we are always able to tell which address has the asset. We don't even need to hunt through the blockchain. Counterpartyd api command get_asset_info: http://counterpartyd.readthedocs.org/en/latest/API.html#get-asset-info tells us which bitcoin address owns the asset and that address will need to use its private key to successfully sign for redemption.

Thoughts?

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 13, 2014, 01:33:43 PM

Quote from: deliciousowl on March 13, 2014, 01:28:14 PM

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

You don't think a higher escrow amount would have worked better than a 5 xcp asset fee? We have hundreds of Asset names already parked - imagine what it will be like when the user base is 50x ?

grandpa_seth

sr. member

Activity: 316

Merit: 250

Simcoin Puny Humans Communicator

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on March 13, 2014, 01:40:45 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Bellebite2014 on March 13, 2014, 11:54:25 AM

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

I like #625, except maybe get rid of the gray XCP underneath Counterparty. The logo with just Counterparty all in the same blue looks good.

jimhsu

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 264

Quote from: edok on March 13, 2014, 12:08:37 PM

Quote from: xnova on March 13, 2014, 11:30:24 AM

Latest Counterwallet development update (with new screenshots):

https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,79.msg1235.html#msg1235

This looks awesome, great work.

Can confirm that it works as good as it looks. We flattened out a ton of bugs this week (more to go though).

kdrop22

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

BitcoinTangibleTrust
Will you be selling Silver on your site as well. The reason I ask is because the spot price of one ounce gold coins is > 1400$.
Beta testers/Early adopters of the service are not going to be spending large amounts. You need to get a few users on board for a smaller amount(possibly using smaller coins or sliver), then have them provide reviews and build trust in the community. Once trust is established larger orders will start to come in.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Bellebite2014 on March 13, 2014, 11:54:25 AM

They all look bad ... Current one is still the best option.

+1

Unfortunately, the current one isn't really an option, in our opinion, because it doesn't look modern or professional enough. The 3D effect, for instance, is rather dated.

PhantomPhreak

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 300

Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder

Quote from: deliciousowl on March 13, 2014, 01:28:14 PM

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

1) Distributing the XCP is very difficult technically, because of rounding issues.
2) The two possibilities are economically equivalent, and the total number of XCP doesn't matter so much, because of the divisibility.

deliciousowl

sr. member

Activity: 432

Merit: 250

Asset fees should not be burned because then we are diminishing the total supply. Since there is no mining, or additionally BTC burning going on, why don't we change the protocol to distribute asset fees among all holders of XCP?

porqupine

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 101

Quote from: BitcoinTangibleTrust on March 13, 2014, 12:19:34 PM

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 02:21:46 AM

Can you explain in which way the Private keys correspond to the ownership of the physical gold stored? Is the gold only redeemable by private key and in no way by your request without being provided that key on behalf of an owner to make the redemption?

Great question and I will add this question and answer to the FAQ, as well.

We have one custodian partner with whom this is currently working and for which we are still testing, but our approach is as follows:

Step 1: Customer who purchase gold through our platform will supply us a bitcoin address to send their Counterparty Goldcoin. We will assume that they are the owner of the address and they have the private key for that public address.

Step 2: We track the public address of each Goldcoin we issue on Counterparty and update our custody database which we share with our custody partner.

Step 3: We have provided our custody partner a digital signing application that requires the owner of the public address to digitally sign our redemption verification message with their private key. Only successful signature will allow for the release of the gold and they still need to provide contact information at redemption, as well.

Given that we don't have the private key, we cannot sign for the gold ourselves.

What do you think? Does this sound reasonable?

It sounds promising. How is this going to work if someone sells their Goldcoin on the DEX to another person? It will now be associated with a new Pub/Priv key. Will the application in question use an active Node to verify the Blockchain?

BitcoinTangibleTrust

member

Activity: 111

Merit: 10

Digitizing Valuable Hard Assets with Crypto

Quote from: porqupine on March 13, 2014, 02:21:46 AM

Can you explain in which way the Private keys correspond to the ownership of the physical gold stored? Is the gold only redeemable by private key and in no way by your request without being provided that key on behalf of an owner to make the redemption?

Great question and I will add this question and answer to the FAQ, as well.

We have one custodian partner with whom this is currently working and for which we are still testing, but our approach is as follows:

Step 1: Customer who purchase gold through our platform will supply us a bitcoin address to send their Counterparty Goldcoin. We will assume that they are the owner of the address and they have the private key for that public address.

Step 2: We track the public address of each Goldcoin we issue on Counterparty and update our custody database which we share with our custody partner.

Step 3: We have provided our custody partner a digital signing application that requires the owner of the public address to digitally sign our redemption verification message with their private key. Only successful signature will allow for the release of the gold and they still need to provide contact information at redemption, as well.

Given that we don't have the private key, we cannot sign for the gold ourselves.

What do you think? Does this sound reasonable?

valarmg

full member

Activity: 237

Merit: 100

Quote from: vishi_tup on March 13, 2014, 08:33:15 AM

The 5 XCPs while creating an asset get destroyed or 'burnt'. They don't go to Developers.

Ok, thanks, that makes sense. Thought I read somewhere that the XCPs went towards project development bounties.

So bitcoin get burnt to create XCPs, then XCPs get burnt to create asset classes. Makes sense.

Quote from: lonsharim on March 13, 2014, 10:36:59 AM

If the value of XCP goes up, you can expect the cost of issuance to go down proportionally. 5 XCP is set only as a deterrence so that only people serious about issuing assets will do so.

Thanks. If asset creation is the main usage of XCP then seems that this cost would be very important to the XCP value which would be a strange basis for the XCP economy. But I'm reading more, and it seems that XCP will be used for other things like betting as well.

IamNotSure

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

About the logo (/x/post from the counterparty forum / logo post)

I think it was initially designed by Jimshu and I have redone it in illustrator if someone want to take a look too (PM me for the file)

If there is an interest, I can do some rework on the current one on Saturday, with the same philosophy, makes some variations, and post the results.

BTW: counterwallet lastest images are looking awesome !!

edok

full member

Activity: 167

Merit: 100