- 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.