Author

Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 377. (Read 1276933 times)

legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.

It is perfectly possible to run Counterparty without storing data in the blockchain directly, yes. But there is no flaw in the possibility of doing so, and all the explanations that have been given for why it is 'abusive' or a 'problem' use circular logic. It's even misleading to call it 'raw data': it's not GIFs or tweets or anything like that---it's transaction data, just transaction data that Bitcoin itself doesn't parse.

We are adding (a great deal of) functionality to Bitcoin, and paying whatever fees miners ask for it. All of the outputs we are generating are spendable and prunable. We are doing our best to help Bitcoin (and users of Bitcoin), which has enormous potential beyond its current abilities.


I would like to see a thorough, direct and well thought answer to this. No circular logic, dodging or half answers. Please check the hyperbole and rhetoric at the door and answer to the core of this issue.
member
Activity: 111
Merit: 10
Digitizing Valuable Hard Assets with Crypto
Isn't Peter Todd working on Mastercoin? Why would he propose that?

Think about it.  Mastercoin is a competitor to Counterparty.  Mastercoin is already aware of, and working on solving this storage-in-multisig problem.

Peter Todd's proposal simultaneously (a) benefits Mastercoin, (b) disadvantages Counterparty, and (c) presents a proposal that portions of the developer and mining community already find agreeable.



Isn't Peter Todd also employed by Counterparty? https://www.counterparty.co/sergio-lerner-peter-todd/

Maybe the devs at Counterparty should learn Peter's proposal and we explore how we might participate to benefit alongside Mastercoin?
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.

It is perfectly possible to run Counterparty without storing data in the blockchain directly, yes. But there is no flaw in the possibility of doing so, and all the explanations that have been given for why it is 'abusive' or a 'problem' use circular logic. It's even misleading to call it 'raw data': it's not GIFs or tweets or anything like that---it's transaction data, just transaction data that Bitcoin itself doesn't parse.

We are adding (a great deal of) functionality to Bitcoin, and paying whatever fees miners ask for it. All of the outputs we are generating are spendable and prunable. We are doing our best to help Bitcoin (and users of Bitcoin), which has enormous potential beyond its current abilities.

+1.00000000
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 300
Counterparty Chief Scientist and Co-Founder
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.

It is perfectly possible to run Counterparty without storing data in the blockchain directly, yes. But there is no flaw in the possibility of doing so, and all the explanations that have been given for why it is 'abusive' or a 'problem' use circular logic. It's even misleading to call it 'raw data': it's not GIFs or tweets or anything like that---it's transaction data, just transaction data that Bitcoin itself doesn't parse.

We are adding (a great deal of) functionality to Bitcoin, and paying whatever fees miners ask for it. All of the outputs we are generating are spendable and prunable. We are doing our best to help Bitcoin (and users of Bitcoin), which has enormous potential beyond its current abilities.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com
So can we hear anything from PP or XN on this ?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.



You are using the protocol as a bargaining tool, because you don't like what a project did. Do you see the problem with that?

All you are doing is making a decision for miners.
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.



Thanks for the explanation.

I'm reading all these posts with a lot of interest but sometimes explaining things with simple terms is really useful for the vulgum pecus.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
Now, I am just a disinterested observer here (with investments in Bitcoin and all major 2.0 cryptos) so I don't speak for anybody but myself here; but it seems to me that Counterparty has Bitcoin over a barrel somewhat, especially with respect to the unspent outputs, which would be quite difficult to selectively block on the Bitcoin end.  It would quickly turn into a cat and mouse game.  Bitcoin could implement code to detect and block XCP transactions, but XCP changes a few parameters and re-launches a week later to get around it, which causes Bitcoin to respond, which causes a new change in XCP, etc. ad nauseum.  I don't think that anybody wants that.

No, it is trivial to block 100% of them.  A proposal to do just that appeared on the bitcoin-development mailing list yesterday from Peter Todd.  This proposed change would relay zero transactions with multisig outputs.

Most of the world is moving to P2SH for multisig, leaving the remaining "bare multisig" users mastercoin, counterparty, etc.



Isn't Peter Todd working on Mastercoin? Why would he propose that?

Think about it.  Mastercoin is a competitor to Counterparty.  Mastercoin is already aware of, and working on solving this storage-in-multisig problem.

Peter Todd's proposal simultaneously (a) benefits Mastercoin, (b) disadvantages Counterparty, and (c) presents a proposal that portions of the developer and mining community already find agreeable.


Edit: retracted, based on Peter's recent posting.

legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,
  • The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
  • There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
  • This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
  • Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.

legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
So this is what a currency free from the banks is supposed to be? A money supply determined by an even smaller autocracy? At least the Bank's do not Threaten their Clients.

Yep, its disgraceful
full member
Activity: 214
Merit: 101
So this is what a currency free from the banks is supposed to be? A money supply determined by an even smaller autocracy? At least the Bank's do not Threaten their Clients.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com
guys calm down, everyone in the bitcoin universe know which role the core developers play and until now they did quite a good job - I think the developers of xcp are already in close contact to the core developers, let us see where this is going

They're talking about getting rid of multi sig.  I need a xanax.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
guys calm down, everyone in the bitcoin universe know which role the core developers play and until now they did quite a good job - I think the developers of xcp are already in close contact to the core developers, let us see where this is going
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com


+1

I cant believe this attitude. I didnt know bitcoin had owners. I though I and about a million others were owners :-)

Phantom and CG- you saw the interactions. Please relate. I'd advise to still try to create a less public line of communications with the BTC team and if not.... continue even stronger.

The Bitcoin devs are throwing around scary terms like "abuse" "victim" and "free ride", when what it comes down to is that they are making a decision at the protocol level that miners can make for themselves.

It gives a serious "co-opting the voting rights of miners" kind of vibe. At least in rhetoric. These are the people working on the democratization of money? Why the hostility and uncooperativeness? What can we expect next? I had higher expectations.

Yep. Disappointed.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CabTrader v2 | crypto-folio.com
So I guess Phantom is not satoshi. Panic?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10


+1

I cant believe this attitude. I didnt know bitcoin had owners. I though I and about a million others were owners :-)

Phantom and CG- you saw the interactions. Please relate. I'd advise to still try to create a less public line of communications with the BTC team and if not.... continue even stronger.

The Bitcoin devs are throwing around scary terms like "abuse" "victim" and "free ride", when what it comes down to is that they are making a decision at the protocol level that miners can make for themselves.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100


+1

I cant believe this attitude. I didnt know bitcoin had owners. I though I and about a million others were owners :-)

Phantom and CG- you saw the interactions. Please relate. I'd advise to still try to create a less public line of communications with the BTC team and if not.... continue even stronger.
sr. member
Activity: 602
Merit: 252
I don't care if I can use OP_RETURN on Bitcoin-QT 0.9.0. I only care if I upgrade my Bitcoin-QT to 0.9.0, can I still use the counterpartyd client?
sr. member
Activity: 421
Merit: 250
What does all this mean from the point of view of the CP team and community and what is the plan in the long run?
Jump to: