Let's not try to muddle the goals here. The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC.
Exactly.
We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation. We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC.
Yes, that is why the metacoin is valuated through the exchange with IXC. That's done
through the trade within the Counterparty protocol. What is the relative exchange rate between IXC and the metacoin makes no difference to the value of IXC which is valuated
externaly.
Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons. Email for example has next to no cost to send out, that's why there is a spamming problem. With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction. Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem. Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll.
Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network, then they should also pay a similar 'toll'. What I am proposing is that they pay a toll.
Not true on many counts. First, they are paying exactly the same 'toll' as everyone else, the miners fee. Second, I don't think you can speak for "bitcoin". Third, you have not proposed anything about a 'toll' (i.e. a cost for Counterparty transactions themselves). What you are proposing now, after it turned out that you original plan (IXC as native coin) was impossible and your second plan (burning) was disliked by many, a (non-workable =1:1 exchange) centralized metacoin.
It begins to look to me that you are not really interested in making the best possible solution for IXCoin but instead you seem to want to simply minimize your work in order to just collect your bounty. For those with less technical/coding understanding: implementing Counterparty with "burn" (or "donate") functionality requires only very minor changes to existing Counterparty code.
I've looked at your proposal and to be honest, it is complexity that is unecessary. How is creating a meta-coin that is not pegged to the price of IXC supposed to help IXC? Maintaining a snapshot of all the coins in the past for every client is a prohibitively expensive solution.
The IXC native coin is a complete different implementation that will require a hard fork.
The Counterparty implementation is an easy implementation that only requires the latest client. This was the original proposal and I think people do seem to like the 'donate' functionality over the 'burn' functionality. It is almost identical in implementation, the only major difference is figuring out how best to re-distribute donations. This I proposed as having a perpetual sell order where meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC.
