Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 68. (Read 1276786 times)

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

Quote from: prophetx on October 18, 2015, 06:29:58 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

Not that I recall. You're welcome to, though.

I sent him a msg in skype.

btw who owns that counterwallet website?

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

Mobile counterparty wallet on the bitcoin reddit front page (currently the second entry down): https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3phfu9/mobile_counterparty_wallet_delivers_1st/

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

Quote from: xnova on October 18, 2015, 04:07:57 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 03:43:08 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

Quote from: xnova on October 18, 2015, 04:07:57 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

Not that I recall. You're welcome to, though.

prophetx

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1010

he who has the gold makes the rules

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 03:43:08 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 03:43:08 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

Have you guys mentioned this to Erik V at Shapeshift?

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

_Someone_ would need to handle the BTC, _only_ in this specific case. Note that this is _only_ the case with BTC, and _only_ if you don't want to place _any_ burden on the user that has the BTC to stick around after they place the order. Basically, Counterparty doesn't have the same degree over escrowing BTC that it does with native assets, for purely technical reasons which have been explained elsewhere.

bitcoinrocks

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously?

deliciousowl

sr. member

Activity: 432

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:39:10 PM

BTC-XCP trading on the decentralized exchange is still supported both in the protocol itself and in the command-line client. The functionality was removed from Counterwallet simply because, based on user feedback, it proved to be rather unwieldy. I.e. it required users to stay logged in to complete the trades, which many users didn't/couldn't do, causing liquidity issues and frustrating users on the XCP side of the trade.

I feel the need to emphasize this further, as it is getting mentioned in rumors rather frequently:

BTC-XCP trading still works if you use the command-line client and counterparty-lib: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-cli

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade.

In practice, services like Shapeshift can do simple XCP-BTC exchange today, and Shapeshift supports XCP. Shapeshift just doesn't use the Counterparty decentralized exchange functionality, though.

bitcoinrocks

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

Quote from: bitcoinrocks on October 18, 2015, 02:33:33 PM

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them?

xnova

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 254

Counterparty Developer

An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.

Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement?

None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders.

bitcoinrocks

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000