Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 93. (Read 1276789 times)

So it's just that they decided for the simplest no frills solution for the bond but when they tackle with more difficult financial instruments it's very likely they will consider CP?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38zbap/overstock_announces_cryptosecurity_exchange_and/crzfz38

Medici CTO:

Oh, that one. I assumed it was a troll, too.

Now in retrospective, the post history is pretty telling:


It appears to be certain that Counterparty wasn't the only horse in the game, and it seems likely that OpenAssets isn't going to be the only technology used either.

Different guy but I am equally as bemused at the news. I had read that coindesk article before and did not think too much of it because it contained some positive pieces.
my background is as an OSTK investor who decided to invest also in CounterParty, as a first cryptographic currency after reading the following:

https://i.imgur.com/JyNYE6E.png

that news you linked article clearly states:



Surely not.? So either OSTK was hiding the truth from them or the devs here were embellishing things. Because The above quotes seems to go at odds with Judd Bagley's latest statement on reddit.

Now I'm wondering if what I assumed was a troll post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2z5ilv/overstock_10k_during_2014_we_acquired_a_249/cpg82tn?context=3
by username MediciCTO was actually someone in a senior position at Overstock, whether there was some personal beef and as a result whether we have been looking at a story which is has been significantly embellished by developers here in order to prop up share price. Or whether the burden lies on the cloudy communication from OSTK. I think it is a disaster.  I have learned that this environment is a wild west where anybody can and will tell you anything to try and move the market so it would not surprise me. Much like penny stock markets or the dotcom boom.
some will make a killing while some will lose out. I'm very much in the latter camp now and don't see any way out of the hole unless colored coins has a fatal weakness that pushes OSTK to come back. CEO can be a hot head so if it's a personal beef the two companies had I would rule that one out permanently  

Um, Robby Dermody and Evan Wagner left the Medici project back in February. Did you miss that news?: http://www.coindesk.com/lead-developers-leave-overstocks-medici-project/

Sometimes elegant systems are preferred over feature-rich systems.

It's possible that the steps to reach the final asset are too complicated to sell to companies who wish to implement blockchain based assets.

NXT: USD -> Bitcoin -> NXT -> asset
Counterparty: USD -> Bitcoin -> XCP -> asset (?)
Color Coin: USD -> Bitcoin -> asset

?*: Is it possible to trade Bitcoin for a Counterparty asset directly?

All the features in the world don't mean anything if nobody wants to build on them.  Just look at NXT.  So the question is, does anybody want to build on them?  It would be nice to hear from Symbiont but they aren't in the business of looking after XCP investor sentiment.

I think they want to rush to beat NASDAQ to market. They also inferred.previously they would start with vanilla bitcoin then move to other sidechains and alt ledgers as t his first bond issuance is just a subset of Medici (bridge them across I suppose). No idea whether this has since changed though, I don't place a lot of faith in their abilities to make honest and accurate forward looking statements.

My very best guess: the news about Nasdaq and Overstock might be connected.

I tend to believe it makes sense to use a colored coins like system for plain settlement, due to the much lower overhead, compared to global consensus systems such as XCP. It's clear that this comes with significant limitations though.

1) What is a stable wallet? Counterwallet is one is it not?
2) righr , that's a good point; however counterparty and counterwallet supports multisig. I think they may also be support ledger wallet in the future.. They have certainly been in discussions with the devs there..ledger is another hardware wallet, that has suffered less problems than trezor
3) you don't need any intermediary coin to register assets in counterparty either...xcp cost is for anti spam and advanced features colored coins could not recreate.

4) no wonder since they can centralize some components and keep control by using colored coins. As well as earning fees by routing tx and tracking assets



Biased, intentionally crafted comparison table by coinprism devs to represent their developments in the best possible way whilst throwing the others under the bus. They have been message about incorrect information but refused to update it.

the following entries for example


are ALL marked as an X in the counterparty table column (ie they claim counterparty does not support any of those features) when in fact the platform supports every one of those.

only coinprism open source? seriously?.. That's just negligent. They have purposefully left of a bunch of argument points that would paint coinprism in a less positive light an

e.g open assets doesn't support true spv, requires use of either a centralized asset tracking server or running your own server, does not allow locking of assets (their genius solution is to delete the private key   ), not compatible with vanilla bitcoin addresses, stores certain data in centralized manner, (they try and somehow push this as a benefit  )  DOES NOT HAVE DECENTRALIZED EXCHANGE FUNCTIONALITY, unwieldy tracking of complex colors, opens gates for asset tracking gateways to monetize transactions - their business model (and likely some reasons nasdaq chose it )


Counterparty  has at least:

* the same functionality as colored coins (it costs 0 XCP to create an asset, only bitcoin is required)
* decentralized asset trading with automatic order matching <-- this is the reason we're here...
* assets that can pay distributions (dividends)
* assets can be customized (divisibility, callback, locked or issueable, total amount, description)
* peer-to-peer betting
* broadcasts
* contracts for difference
* smart contracts

I love the counterparty project but I think Overstock and others went for colored coin because

1) They have a working wallet which is stable. Counterwallet is unstable for me

2) Colored Coin can be stored on Trezor. People want a safe way to store large amount of money!

3) There is no intermediary coin with Colored coins

4) Nasdaq will use Open Assets

I don't think much need to be done for restoring trust in XCP but the minimum is a "working" wallet + Trezor and and an efficient decentralized exchange

Good Luck guys

 would like to get some info about the latest news about  CP team and project.

To me, the biggest difference is that open asset based system is not a decentralized exchange, so at last they need a solution for one unless what they want is another centralized exchange. Before BTC script supports escrow, introducing a new currency is a must in building DEX.

Yeah, they probably made tens of dollars...

Yes, something is in place to make sure XCP is burned in transactions where it's required.

So the Counterparty protocol checks to make sure XCP was burned when scanning for transactions?

Hi guys, we can understand this reaction. To be honest, this development was news to us as well. As it is, we do not work at Overstock any more and have no visibility or influence into their decisions.

you can check my post history, I am the last person talking bad about the counterparty developers, but if you announce working together with overstock and that is no longer the case you should make it crystal clear.

I remember back in feburary that it was posted here as well as on reddit that despite the developers leaving overstock still plans using the counterparty protocol - if this would have changed it would be nice to know.

this is an open source project and transparency regarding direction would really really help counterparty.

It's just a bond, and the blockchain is used only to prove ownership. In this case, a colored coin based solution is the simplest. However, I don't see how other features (beyond what a bond needs): such as  on chain decentralized exchange, auto dividends distribution, to be implemented in that platform. I am still curious how they implement Medici. If based on colored coin, I am afraid it is still a centralized exchange.

Btw, the fact they are leaving counterparty is obvious when two devs left for their new company.

Thanks. Its pretty upsetting how loudly the partner announcements were shouted from the rooftops.. I remember byrne talking about moving cp devs to Utah, allocating multimillion $ budge to build medici on countoerarty foundation, even at baggleys presentation in new York recently nothing seemed to have changed.  remember reiterations that yes, cp was still going to play an integral part in Medici after that reddit post were Patrick accidentally " let it slip" , yet neither overstock or cp devs clearly came forward to reveal this project is now seemingly not running on counterparty at all. This is drastically different to how it was pitched to us.

In a traditional market these kind of stock manipulation shenanigans could never fly under the radar. You simply cannot make those kind of  absolute statements and simply back turn on them in private to partner with a competing project. This whole overstock ordeal ran roughshot through the price of this coin, its been nothing but vague information, conflicting stories, doublespeak and, empty promises that predictably moved the price for insiders (pump/dump based on fabricated promises) and left public investors taking a wild gamble by reading between the lines simply hoping the earlier statements were true and honest.

Shame on everyone who tried to misrepresent the importance of counterparty to overstock; you've caused many people to lose their funds by believing in your vision and trying to invest in it.