Quote from: MoneypakTrader.com on March 20, 2014, 11:53:50 PM

Back when dev [retroactively] levied a 5 XCP fee against issuing assets (which fortunately had a side-effect of blocking our initial issuance of "AAAMPTSTOCK"), the "re-issuance for non-zero quantity" feature of your software was broken. Please fix this.

If you're an XCP true-believer who gets butthurt over criticism, stop reading NOW!

Quote from: sdersdf2 on March 07, 2014, 08:32:41 AM

Is it just me, or has the launch of this coin - which seems to have so much innovation - been an unmitigated disaster, exchange-market-wise?

You're obviously correct looking at pricing and functionality of the XCP system over stated claims and goals due to a few CRITICAL problems:

1) Anyone who's tried to trade BTC in/out of the DEX natively at competitive rates has come to understand all too well, the BTC integration SUCKS:
The way the dev dropped the ball by implementing a few misguided solutions (First with the 10 block BTCpay time limit and second by making an offer to buy 100BTC worth of asset have a default of 1BTC cost(!?!) in burn fees (*JUST TO LIST THE OFFER!?!*)) which predictably had the foreseen effect to prevent any legitimate long-standing BTC offer from being placed (due to castrating the choice/power from the BTC giver order as predicted: https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,71.msg355.html#msg355 ).

2) Was there any explanation why the dev chose to leave residue of assets to hang around the order books after the relevant orders should have 100% matched and traded? http://www.blockscan.com/order_book.aspx
I want to sell 100 asset, existing order matched, only 99.9999995 asset transferred, and put remainder 0.0000005 back on order book. . . WTF!?!

3) Initial distribution was wider and thus MANY more sellers are available over other altcoins which have more centralized break-in periods / premining. More Sellers = lower price. The competitor coins have relatively few initial adopters/investors and don't suffer so much from this despite having massive holdings in total. i.e. competitor altcoins may have 5-10 x the value but only 10% or less total sellers so the price has little resistance against upward movement compared to XCP.
NOTE: This is a good thing for wider distribution but a bad thing for getting rich quick.

4) XCP is just not that useful and initial investors have taken notice: It's a difficult to use and it lacks much practical use for average users due in part to virtually no explanations for novice bitcoiners about how to use and the DEX just doesn't work very well (due to some of the explained problems here and elsewhere). https://forums.counterparty.co/index.php/topic,71
Hopefully the GUI, webwallet/trading and such will alleviate this to some extent.

5) Radical changes to protocol with little public discussion and a private deliberation process by dev.
When a 5 XCP fee was introduced [retroactively] for issuing assets, that was a good reason for buying XCP since asset creation would reward XCP holders and cause XCP demand inducing people to buy and hold, but since the dev lowered that cost recently (to help BTT and others who favor "asset spam" over stakeholder reward) it removed 90% of that 5xcp "per-asset issuance stakeholder reward" that we were receiving. Current stakeholders and future investors can foresee this and similar actions having a negative long-term pricing effect over the status quo and the market shows how stakeholders are voting with their shares on this type decision making process.
There was a rumor of the XCP-dev considering stakeholder feedback in the future, however we are obligated to trust past experiences rather than such vague rumors of a radical shift in their decision-making process.

6) When people see the changelog they're like "WTF? you call this a changelog?". Then they see the amount of "rapid development" taking place and then pushed to their computers with little to no discussion of how it will positively or negatively affect them/stakeholders and they realize this is not something "safe" to invest in. Of course they can refuse the updates and let the software stop working or force-run it using obsolete settings and risk losing coins.

7) Asset reissuances were broken and then never fixed when the 5xcp asset fee was retroactively put into place. Better know EXACTLY how many shares you want issued the first time, all future re-issuance attempts might appear to succeed, but the program won't register them. Fixing this is going to

This is all just FUD. All of your "criticisms" are nothing but evidence of your misunderstanding. For those inclined to believe anything this guy writes:

The 5 XCP fee was not retroactive. Look at the code. Lines 80-87 of issuances.py. You were running an old version of Counterpartyd for too long and got confused.

1) The 1% is just the default. Of course, it doesn't scale to very large/small amounts.

2) The trade residue is an unavoidable consequence of the finite divisibility of Bitcoin. Yes, it's ugly, but that's what slick GUI's, like Counterwallet, are for.

3) This isn't a pump and dump. That's better because then there will be no crash later!

4) The distributed exchange works great. Yes, trading with BTC with awkward with Counterpartyd, but it's really slick with Counterwallet... by design.

5) This is just nonsense.

6) You don't get to complain about missing features and the rapid development of the code. The devs are moving fast!

7) See above.