Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 75. (Read 1276789 times)

Interesting Valuewalk article.

yeah.. assuming the article isn't completely sensationalist. I think in retrospect,  listening to institutional investors opinion on OSTK managment antics, previous controversy (in and out of wall st) eg: http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/11/14/8360711/index.htm http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/03/overstock-com-judd-bagley/ http://garyweiss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/closing-file-on-criminal-and-junkie.html and  actually taking the time to analyse any of the CEO's jumbled speeches "you may think you own stock but you don't".. let me tell you about cede and co etc.. which all seem to follow an identical prompt it becomes more reasonable to believe a less than amicable split occured due to a cloudy or misaligned future vision and lack of any real prowess in the field; for starters.., I along with others fell into the camp of supporting OSTK as they are a multinational and were talking the same book as us (and bitcoiners in general)..glossing over the less than favorable elements of the perceived relationship, and frankly that's just greedy and short sighted.

i think the news the split wasn't all rainbows and inicorns also lends credence to the theory that Overstock did indeed dump XCP on the market, immediately summoning the decline from 0.10 to near todays level

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11707187
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11707223

 Byrne and co did a massive disservice to any investors of this project, and everything about it was handled simply awfully. Trusting investment decisions on this tweet https://twitter.com/overstockceo/status/520254771890884608 and the announcement re:partnership at the inside bitcoins conference, then assuming that us as public investors would be privvy to the fact a silent pivot was done in the shadows ceasing the working relationship for  OSTK to instead champion a competing project has resulted in huge losses for many who brought in on at the wrong time on good faith and had the rug pulled from underneath them.

My only early hint that things might have turned sour was noticing xnovas resolved ip location had changed from utah, and later a few politician non-answers or stuttered deviations from byrne when quizzed about medicis background stack, but i dismissed both as mostly irrelevant . Public investors only found out the real answers when coindesk decides to extract the story from the horses mouth, although there had been rumblings for a while. That was wholly inappropriate
.
In regulated markets this would have resulted in huge drama and lengthy legal battles. A relative corporate behemoth ran roughshod through the price of this promising technology, by making numerous misleading quotes .. here in crypto land we just have to suck it up, focus on the many other real merits of the project and work together to support it in any way, whether that if it is simply evangelizing, commiting to github, visualizing and fitting in use cases, or simply being active in the community.

I know there have been a few insinuations from "Medici CTO" on reddit that infer t0 might incorporate counterparty buta factoring in those vague comments seems like a fools game after all this nonsense. I hope we can once and all forget about Medici.

Isn't this quote very similar to how one can describe CP?: ""We have a smart securities system, it's a layer on top of bitcoin, it encodes execution data and publication data in transactions, publishing to the blockchain, so all the data is on the bitcoin blockchain," Krellenstein said.

I think it is...

Puts a different slant on what actually happened with the parting of their working relationship  

Thanks!

some juicy drama within

http://www.coindesk.com/why-symbiont-believes-blockchain-securities-are-wall-streets-future/

Excellent presentation. TY

http://tabbforum.com/videos/blockchain-and-distributed-ledgers-solving-real-problems-in-financial-services

^^^ Fair enough.

That same first post speculates that Symbiont used a fork of Counterparty for testing their security issuance which would explain the lack of Counterparty transactions in that block.  No one knew Symbiont's first and thus far only product release would not use Counterparty until they issued their most recent announcement.  Or if anyone did know they made sure not to mention it in this thread or in the above-referenced one.

The first post in that thread which was made 18 days ago says "FACT: No Counteparty transactions in that block."

That should pretty clearly answer a and b for you. There was an additional conversation about it in the public Sktype chat, which any XCP investor/potential investor should be in. The Skype channel has been mentioned in this thread and is also on the Counterparty site: http://counterparty.io/support/

Not sure if the link works, but I can add people if it doesn't.

There is a public Skype Counterparty Skype chat that anyone can join. If you PM me your username i can add you to it.

This thread?

https://counterpartytalk.org/t/what-exactly-happened-on-block-368-396/1391/12

Nothing was made clear in that thread until Symbiont issued their most recent announcement.  I'm not sure why you think a) the realization that Symbiont's security issuance does not use Counterparty, and b) Symbiont's most recent announcement, took place at different times:


According to the posts in that thread (and this thread), those two things happened at the same time.

Well, there was the thread on Counterparty that discussed it and it was also discussed in the Skype chat. You could have also looked at the block and transactions yourself to find out what was the case.

Yes, their smart security issued on the bitcoin blockchain.

Blockchain security?

Was it made known previous to this most recent announcement from Symbiont that their blockchain security would not incorporate Counterparty?

There are no bounties for translation currently. If you're interested, here's the Counterwallet localization page: https://www.transifex.com/counterparty/counterwallet/

1) it's normal. A XCP transaction has to be a valid BTC transaction so it requires a non-dust amount of BTC  to be sent.

2) I don't know.

Two questions since I am pretty new to Counterparty.

1) I've created an account with counterwallet, bought some coins and transferred them to my wallet. Now, my wallet also shows a Bitcoin balance of around 5000 sats. But I have never transferred any BTC to my counterwallet. What is this about?

2) I realized that there is not a translation of counterwallet for all languages. Are there any bounties to translate the wallet? I've got some experience in translations.