Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 86. (Read 1276789 times)

^^ nice links, thanks.

Launch is when Ethereum launches and starts accepting pull requests again.

and another competitor..

http://www.startupbootcamp.org/blog/2015/july/fintech-sbcstartupoftheweek-otonomos.html
http://www.otonomos.com/



One thing I've noticed with this multitude of blockchain startups spouting off buzzwords is they promise the world; everything is possible with their solution, yet at the current time the product is barely fleshed out beyond a concept stage. It's either a splash page contact form to request more info or a dead road to nowhere. Almost no working code.  This particular example above charges a minimum of $800 for company incorporation (with a load of overpriced extras possible to add to cart). You can't do much else beyond that at this point despite how exciting the marketing blurb sounds. It's really reminiscent of the dotcom boom.

Speaking of smart-contracts, anyone know the ETA on counterparty's mainnet launch? I thought it was initially due in spring but there's barely been any discussion on it aside from a press release last year.  I understand testing takes time but Colored coins and co have no smart contracting. I fear counterparty could lose ground on a huge asset it has with advanced smart contracting on the bitcoin blockchain.

Building on this fantastic recent article http://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-and-the-future-of-audit/

yet another heavyweight officially steps into the blockchain arena..

http://www.coindesk.com/deloitte-blockchain-auditing-consulting/

http://rubixbydeloitte.com/

93 confirmations here (so far) - https://blockchain.info/tx/b59db953e7b8a0d7280f39b68874c2f46fecf3d21258c110fd2a96c5b1770def

Still waiting over 13 hours for an XCP deposit still showing ZERO confirmations...whats going on? Saw some chatter in polo trollbox.

https://www.blockscan.com/tx?txhash=b59db953e7b8a0d7280f39b68874c2f46fecf3d21258c110fd2a96c5b1770def

deliciousowl, I believe the protocol is still being actively developed, correct?

Agreed. Legacy financial institutions are beginning to realise the disruptive nature of blockchain tech applied to aging markets

Yesterday SWIFT published a CFP http://www.swiftinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Call-for-Proposal-Blockchain-in-Securities-Transactions_v7.pdf

CounterParty may be far from the only player in this game (I've counted perhaps 15 buzzword spouting startups up from 10 2 months ago), but it is it is built upon a stable foundation - extensively battle tested, does feature a dedicated community that doesn't over-emphasise focus on gimmicks and talented hardworking developers who weren't profit oriented from day 1. I think it is in a great position to take advantage of this fintech paradigm shift over the coming years.

Well said. Developers and early adopters are currently the first-class citizens of the Counterparty ecosystem. A healthy, rigorous and well-tested protocol will benefit everyone in the long term.

No, Counterwallet is sometimes wonky because advanced Javascript is notoriously unpredictable and the developers made it to accelerate Counterparty development in the space. People are encouraged to contribute to development, or create their own wallets as needed. Some recent problems were caused by changes in the BTC network, I believe.

The core focus on development is always on the protocol itself, and not GUIs. Which makes sense if you think about it... If development was focused on Counterwallet, it might not be wonky but the protocol wouldn't be as stable as it is today... which is exponentially more worrying if you think about it.

Essentially CW is a public service that the devs started (essentially as a favor) for others to continue, be inspired, and use some basic functions. As their extensive Wall Street partnerships show, it wasn't a necessity per se, just an asset to the community.

As it is open-source, there is nothing stopping people from developing/hiring developers to continue development. If you are doing crowdsales, token sales, or hosting your own instance, then this may in the end be a profitable endeavor for you.

You can see the same 'idea' in Counterparty-GUI, which is highly modular and can be customized into any kind of wallet you need.

As counterintuitive as it may seem at first, Counterparty tries to adapt everything for developers rather than end-users. In the first few years of development, this is actually a brilliant idea.  

Is that why Counterwallet can be so wonky?

Nice to see Symbionts Mark Smith speaking tomorrow at STN '15 & Digital Currencies + the Blockchain later this month alongside potential future industry bigwigs like Blythe Masters and various other movers and shakers in the scene.

I think CounterParty has long needed a professional business presence far away from the ADHD amateur coin-trader audience of this altcoin section to find it's legs and their position in NYC is strategically ideal IMO..  

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-reports/NY-FinTech-Report.pdf



when not using OP_RETURN, bare multisig is used



That's unfortunate, it's one of the first results shown when googling colored coins vs counterparty and doesn't reflect accurately on the current landscape.

What does Counterparty use now instead of OP_RETURN?  It sounds like this change won't enable any new functionality (that anyone has proposed yet) but will make for a healthier Bitcoin/Counterparty network.

Using OP_RETURN encoding is pruneable, and generally a lot less hackish. As eustress said, it's essentially Counterparty/Bitcoin doing their mutual parts to cooperate on a more intuitive level.

I'm happy to have bought some XCP a month or so ago. Following this project with interest now Price seems to be going in the right direction again

ColoredCoins made it and is not changing it.

http://blog.coinprism.com/comparison-coinprism-counterparty-mastercoin/

anyone can get in touch with the author of this chart?

Seems like it's still a little misleading with a bias towards colored coins- (as pointed out here for example): http://blog.coinprism.com/comparison-coinprism-counterparty-mastercoin/#comment-2100778494

OK, it sounds like it's not an unexpected change so not "news" per-se.

Relevant new thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3d0uhg/bitcoin_core_version_0110_released/ct0tjpk

Relevant old thread - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7478502

https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/issues/690

https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/pull/691

TLDR - if enough people upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.11.0 and relay the 80-byte OP_RETURN transactions, then most Counterparty transactions will be encoded this way and can consequently be pruned from the UTXO set. The Counterparty Protocol will be doing it's bit to be the best steward of the Bitcoin Network that it can be.

These are a good read - http://blog.coinprism.com/2015/02/11/80-bytes-op-return/ & http://bitzuma.com/posts/op-return-and-the-future-of-bitcoin/

more space for ethereum contract ?