if xcp runs on top of btc, then wouldn't overload and pollute the btc blockchain if it became successful? or is it like ftc, that only locks in one chksum of the sidechain every 10 minutes, reducing the effect on bitcoin?
Luke-jr may not like it, but if they're paying their transaction fees...
with just transferring BTC in the BTC network, the tx fees become burdensome fast. this is the problem that occurred when the price went up to $1200. All of a sudden it became "cheaper" to use Visa/Mastercard.
imagine having to pay a large group of people with BTC, the costs would be very very high.
now imagine that all of those people have some meta-token using XCP. the XCP system knows who they are and only requires 1 BTC transaction to do a pay all payment to the entire group
http://counterparty.io/docs/pay_distribution/this saves a lot of tx fees and unnecessary BTC transactions.
so yes perhaps XCP does "pollute" in some case, but in other cases it allows for efficiencies that help BTC network squeeze more TX into 1 block that it otherwise could never achieve.
another use case, which has not been developed is the payment of recurring subscription services.
in this case a user address would send a "subscribe" type message to another address, or a smart contract, which would mark his address with a subscription token which presumably would be used to give access to some online service or content. the contract would then deduct some amount of XCP (or SJCX or BCY ) at set block intervals specified in the contract. The contract would also know to delete the seubscription token if the subscriber address ever defaulted on payment (did not have enough funds to make the scheduled payment).
in this case, it would allow the bitcoin network to support possibly millions of subscription transactions over long periods of time, without needing to do a btc transaction each month. that allows BTC to scale to handle more transactional capacity without having to do large increases in blocksize which some people are again.
Couldn't one create a "send to many" transaction in his wallet? I think every wallet offers that possibility now. Does have counterparty advantages there? I think the resulting btc transaction should have the same size like it was done on the bitcoin network only, right?
Regarding fees... the blocksize restriction will make fees only worse when price is rising. You surely can say that the fee structure will not be sat down since too many people feel we need higher fees to pay the miners. In fact we would need less miners because the too high reward led to the current situation of too many miners competing.
i thought the send to many has limitations as to how many address you can squeeze in (25?).
so if I have an XCP coin that say 500,000 people own some piece of, and i want to pay a dividend. in XCP i can use the "pay all" code and just send one transaction to the network, not to all 500,000 addresses.
explain to me now how your method has the same economics as this method?
my way using XCP has 1 tx, your way would result in 500,000 transactions... am i missing something here?
thus, if what you say comes true "blocksize restriction will make fees only worse when price is rising"; then I am correct in saying that there is a significant advantage to using smart contract and the already built-in smart contracts (i.e., pay all) within counterparty.
furthermore, this does not exist yet, but once the EVM is running, it would I think be cheaper and possible to create transactions via smart contract that execute the distribution of some tokens based on external files in another block chain.
so therefor one could allocate value without needing to do tons of transactions.
a very good example of this would be paying miners.
right now miners get paid in all sorts of different coins, but the main one still being bitcoin.
this obviously has transaction costs associated with for the mining pool, which I assume get passed on to miners, or miners must wait some time until their payout is big enough - in which case they have counterparty risk.
if the miner were given an option to accept some sort of meta-token that represents something of value USDCoin, BTCProxyCoin, SJCX, XCP, whatever... at large scale payouts could happen with less bloat. As the contract would reference some locator info meta data to another blockchain (say on SJCX) and the XCP software would interface with that blockchain to retrieve that information to calculate payments.
but i'm getting way ahead of the state of the art of this industry...
