why on god's earth do we want to bother FC right now with this exchange site?
havelock is robust enough that there is literally no reason for FC to even consider a new platform, especially when he's in the middle of a product cycle like gen3.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 317. (Read 3917468 times)
If FC says yes to any distributed exchanges is better than the current situation at this point, although, it should support trading against BTC directly. So nxt, msc fall off the table, leaving us xcp and colorcoin.
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Logically if this will be used method of buying securities in bitcoin-space(i highly doubt), soon we'll have USD/XCP exchange in place and John completely skip Bitcoins, and just buy XCP on exchange and then buy AM1 with them, fucking over whole Bitcoin
If BTC is that fragile then we have many many many other problems to overcome.
Counterparty allows for trading directly from BTC to any counterparty asset. For instance, if ASICMINER is a Counterparty asset, you can have a BTC/ASICMINER market. No need to go through XCP first.
Counterparty is open source and non-profit, with a self-funded, volunteer core team. We modeled the effort after Bitcoin and Linux itself, and we feel our founding ethos is the most in line with Satoshi's out of the various 2.0 project out there. Plus, we were the first with a fully functional decentralized exchange, and our technology is the most mature, and has been audited by several security professionals.
We'd love the opportunity to demo or trial the tech with ASICMINER, or at a minimum, jump on the phone or Skype and discuss things further. Any ASICMINER personnel should feel free to reach out to us at [email protected].
Thanks for chiming in, I fully support your project. Like you mentioned you are the first decentralized exchange that actually works. Keep up the great work. Personally I think its a value add to Bitcoin.
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Logically if this will be used method of buying securities in bitcoin-space(i highly doubt), soon we'll have USD/XCP exchange in place and John completely skip Bitcoins, and just buy XCP on exchange and then buy AM1 with them, fucking over whole Bitcoin
If BTC is that fragile then we have many many many other problems to overcome.
Counterparty allows for trading directly from BTC to any counterparty asset. For instance, if ASICMINER is a Counterparty asset, you can have a BTC/ASICMINER market. No need to go through XCP first.
Counterparty is open source and non-profit, with a self-funded, volunteer core team. We modeled the effort after Bitcoin and Linux itself, and we feel our founding ethos is the most in line with Satoshi's out of the various 2.0 project out there. Plus, we were the first with a fully functional decentralized exchange, and our technology is the most mature, and has been audited by several security professionals.
We'd love the opportunity to demo or trial the tech with ASICMINER, or at a minimum, jump on the phone or Skype and discuss things further. Any ASICMINER personnel should feel free to reach out to us at [email protected].
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Logically if this will be used method of buying securities in bitcoin-space(i highly doubt), soon we'll have USD/XCP exchange in place and John completely skip Bitcoins, and just buy XCP on exchange and then buy AM1 with them, fucking over whole Bitcoin
If BTC is that fragile then we have many many many other problems to overcome.
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Because its like classic pump and dump, its just no way this become mainstream method to trade shares, can you really imagine that? Say that John has $ wants to buy AM1 shares, he need to buy Bitcoin, then he need to exchange Bitcoin to XCP(unnecessary step), then he can buy AM1, meanwhile BTC price fluctuates and XCP is going to the moon, final price of AM1 for him? Nobody knows.
Logically if this will be used method of buying securities in bitcoin-space(i highly doubt), soon we'll have USD/XCP exchange in place and John completely skip Bitcoins, and just buy XCP on exchange and then buy AM1 with them, fucking over whole Bitcoin, so we have another shitcoin, smartly designed to go to the moon !but with good idea behind!, but achievable in different ways, look at colored coins, no burn needed.
But I understand XCP evangelists, they are "invested", or better to say, they just basically flushed their bitcoins to the toilet, and now they have no way of exchange them back. So they need to promote.
Your understanding of Counterparty as a project is a bit flawed. You do not need to exchange bitcoins to XCP. You can trade directly from bitcoins to any other asset. Every possible functionality that bitcoins have, they have in the Counterparty ecosystem. The only thing* XCP is used for is to escrow funds for decentralized betting because bitcoins, by their nature, cannot be escrowed.
* There is an XCP fee of about $1 to create an asset. The $1 of XCP is burnt and does not go to anyone. An important point is you can create an asset with 1,000,000,000 units and the price of creation is still only $1. So the fee is per *asset*, not per unit.
Couterparty is open source...
Maybe it is open-source, but :
Quote
XCP, the native currency to the Counterparty protocol was the first currency to be initialised by proof-of-burn concept (destroying bitcoins) which ensures a fair and honest launch.
you need to actually DESTROY BITCOINS to get XCP(thanks to that proof-of-burn-concept) I dont like that... also XCP is another ALTcoin(i am polite here, because I have several other names for these ...), very good idea, but wrong way taken
The burning of BTC only happened one time and was a good way to actually create value in the new XCP exchange without just making another coin. You don't burn BTC to gain XCP now, you exchange it. There will not be more coins burned to make XCP since the # of XCP is limited.
I don't even own any XCP but the concept is the best we have so far for a decentralized exchange that actually functions.
Couterparty is open source...
Maybe it is open-source, but :
Quote
XCP, the native currency to the Counterparty protocol was the first currency to be initialised by proof-of-burn concept (destroying bitcoins) which ensures a fair and honest launch.
you need to actually DESTROY BITCOINS to get XCP(thanks to that proof-of-burn-concept) I dont like that... also XCP is another ALTcoin(i am polite here, because I have several other names for these ...), very good idea, but wrong way taken
The burn period was only 30 days long. You can no longer burn bitcoins to get XCP. See this post for a full explanation: https://www.counterparty.co/why-proof-of-burn/
To buy XCP now, you have to use Bter, Poloniex, of Counterparty's decentralized exchange. Here are the links.
Bter: https://bter.com/trade/xcp_btc
Poloniex: https://poloniex.com/exchange/btc_xcp
DEx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZziQ2Ns8314
Counterparty and XCp are not alts as they provide significant additional utility on top of Bitcoin, not in competition with it.
- Create smart property, e.g. a mining stock, and distribute dividends to shareholders automatically, in bitcoin. Functionality is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyzA5Lj1ajM
- Decentralized exchange. Functionality linked to above.
- Decentralized betting. Bet person to person, on anything, at any time, with no risk on non payment as the Counterparty protocol automatically escrows the funds and distributes winnings.
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Because its like classic pump and dump, its just no way this become mainstream method to trade shares, can you really imagine that? Say that John has $ wants to buy AM1 shares, he need to buy Bitcoin, then he need to exchange Bitcoin to XCP(unnecessary step), then he can buy AM1, meanwhile BTC price fluctuates and XCP is going to the moon, final price of AM1 for him? Nobody knows.
Logically if this will be used method of buying securities in bitcoin-space(i highly doubt), soon we'll have USD/XCP exchange in place and John completely skip Bitcoins, and just buy XCP on exchange and then buy AM1 with them, fucking over whole Bitcoin, so we have another shitcoin, smartly designed to go to the moon !but with good idea behind!, but achievable in different ways, look at colored coins, no burn needed.
But I understand XCP evangelists, they are "invested", or better to say, they just basically flushed their bitcoins to the toilet, and now they have no way of exchange them back. So they need to promote.
Couterparty is open source...
Maybe it is open-source, but :
Quote
XCP, the native currency to the Counterparty protocol was the first currency to be initialised by proof-of-burn concept (destroying bitcoins) which ensures a fair and honest launch.
you need to actually DESTROY BITCOINS to get XCP(thanks to that proof-of-burn-concept) I dont like that... also XCP is another ALTcoin(i am polite here, because I have several other names for these ...), very good idea, but wrong way taken
Why is Destroying Bitcoins inherently bad? From both an economic standpoint I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing, unless you are saying that whoever makes the PT on Counterparty has to use their own money.
Couterparty is open source...
Maybe it is open-source, but :
Quote
XCP, the native currency to the Counterparty protocol was the first currency to be initialised by proof-of-burn concept (destroying bitcoins) which ensures a fair and honest launch.
you need to actually DESTROY BITCOINS to get XCP(thanks to that proof-of-burn-concept) I dont like that... also XCP is another ALTcoin(i am polite here, because I have several other names for these ...), very good idea, but wrong way taken
yeah but honestly at this point I don't care if it crashes, I have the answers I needed so I am in no way worried about the future of AM - back to being bullish!
Do you think we'll see 1 BTC per AM1 share this year?
Take it over to the speculation thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=235763.new#new
Sorry, with all the speculating going on here, I thought it WAS the speculation thread.
I can't blame you for that given all the FUD over the last week. However we need to at least attempt to separate the threads.
The platform almost matters less then the person who runs it to be honest.... again. SOMEONE should do it, someone with reputation and trust (and possibly a good number of shares to start things off with). I have an OTC rating that is positive, a neutral rating on BCT, but really that is nothing. Several people that post often in this thread have a more "lofty" reputation in the community then myself which is really needed for this sort of thing.
What we need a system without someone needing to be trusted.
How is that even possible though? There will always be a team developing this so called "system" so even if no one needs to manage it, there will always be a need to trust the developers
open-source
Couterparty is open source...
https://www.counterparty.co/about/
"Open
As a community-driven, open-source project, we’re building a grassroots movement to free up the world’s markets from centralized control.
With Counterparty, you can take part in a global financial marketplace, where bonds and commodities are traded with no exchange fees, risk is hedged without paying a broker, and crowdfunding is done without kickbacks to third-parties."
Not sure what you are exactly talking about. But I believe the discussion was about the exchange of shares. 
Even then, you need... something to hold the shares. What is going to hold the private key? If FC himself moved all shares over to a system, that would work... but in that system you still need to trust FC. I do not see how any system of share management that involves Asicminer can be trustless... since it deals in the physical world.
What we need a system without someone needing to be trusted.
I don't think its possible with how AM works. AM sells a physical product, and needs to get paid for it. They then take those funds and use them to pay out dividends. An all digital business could be made into a DAC, but one where you need to manage inventory, three different currencies, and all that sort of thing? You need a person to manage it, and then you need to trust that person.
And even if you did work out all those problems, in an industry like mining, if you did have everything managed by a DAC somehow, and shareholders voted... the business would expose itself to having any and all competitors knowing exactly what it is doing and planing to do, you need to keep some plans under wraps in the industry.
Not sure what you are exactly talking about. But I believe the discussion was about the exchange of shares.
What we need a system without someone needing to be trusted.
I don't think its possible with how AM works. AM sells a physical product, and needs to get paid for it. They then take those funds and use them to pay out dividends. An all digital business could be made into a DAC, but one where you need to manage inventory, three different currencies, and all that sort of thing? You need a person to manage it, and then you need to trust that person.
And even if you did work out all those problems, in an industry like mining, if you did have everything managed by a DAC somehow, and shareholders voted... the business would expose itself to having any and all competitors knowing exactly what it is doing and planing to do, you need to keep some plans under wraps in the industry.
Probably they make the chips open source when gen4 is ready to ship?
Maybe even earlier. But it would be silly to believe that they just now give away their assets for free.
As soon as the profits have been made this would only foster the impact of AM. It's a bold move!
Probably they make the chips open source when gen4 is ready to ship?
FC thinking about making the chips open source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7194103
(don't panic, not in the near future
)
(don't panic, not in the near future
) The platform almost matters less then the person who runs it to be honest.... again. SOMEONE should do it, someone with reputation and trust (and possibly a good number of shares to start things off with). I have an OTC rating that is positive, a neutral rating on BCT, but really that is nothing. Several people that post often in this thread have a more "lofty" reputation in the community then myself which is really needed for this sort of thing.
What we need a system without someone needing to be trusted.
How is that even possible though? There will always be a team developing this so called "system" so even if no one needs to manage it, there will always be a need to trust the developers
open-source
Jump to: