Luke-Jr what is your opinion regarding the pull request offered by Peter Todd?
He has 5 pull requests open, none of which seem relevant to this discussion.
Miners could still still make their decision on whether they wish to include such transactions in a block and Counterparty would use pruneable blockchain space.
Blockchain space is never prunable. Only UTXO space.
I don't know if it has been created yet. Please see:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5845721#msg5845721Ignoring petertodd's slanderous lie there, I will reiterate why his idea is based on a false assertion:
Reminder: transaction fees do not pay for transactions, merely attempt to deter/rate limit flooding. To cover the cost of transactions, transaction fees would need to be much higher and somehow distributed across all full nodes (not merely miners).
I agree with what you said. Is it correct that we are not at the stage where the fee can be distributed across the network? At the moment those fees we are talking about would be taken by the miners but there is nothing to stop those fees disbursed across the network in the future.
Am I correct to say that we don't disagree that:
1) Counterparty messages are financial transactions
2) There is scope to include Counterparty messages in the blockchain as long as :
a) It doesn't cause undue burden on the network
b) It doesn't open the door for other abuses of data storage in the blockchain
Counterparty requirements
1) 80 bytes of data
2) Counterparty transactions are relayed through the network as normal transactions
Do you think it is possible to reach an agreement from your side on how we can achieve these requirements? If so can you think how this could be possible?