Quote from: Herp on March 17, 2014, 07:38:00 PM

Quote from: bitexch on March 17, 2014, 07:29:00 PM

Counterparty vs. Mastercoin: I am invested in both, and I think the space is big enough that we don't have to pick sides. But calling Counterparty a "copycat" isn't a good criticism, since Mastercoin is open-source (which is very important!) and it's not really about who came up with the ideas first, but who is implementing them more quickly and effectively.

I agree it's very good that Mastercoin has institutional investors, but it's not only about how much money you have backing the project, it's also how many features you have, and Counterparty objectively has more features right now. Actually, you don't want the money to get too far ahead of the project, or else there will be a more drastic reaction if the project fails to make good on what it promises.

Calling Counterparty a "copycat" is calling it as it is. They've copied Mastercoin down to smallest details and Mastercoin's idea of using BTC blockchain.

I agree that space is big enough to allow for more competitors to emerge and competition is healthy.

Please name these specific features Counterparty has right now.

- DEx (Buy and sell side)
- Contracts for difference (derivatives, currency hedging, etc.)
- Asset creation (create your very own altcoin with the characteristics you specify)
- IPO a company (once IPOed, you can pay shareholder dividends in XCP or bitcoin, automatically)
- Simple Win/Loss bets (sports)

If you research a bit more, you will find Counterparty has not copied Mastercoin. Instead, Counterparty has created a project in the *same space* using a *different* approach. If Counterparty simply copied Mastercoin, why did Counterparty's development surpass that of Mastercoin's with a team of two core developers and no external funding in only half the time?