Re: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty Protocol, Client and Coin (built on Bitcoin) - Official
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.
It's possible. Whether it's practical, is another more complicated issue 
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
This seems fair.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?
I don't think those requirements are reasonable.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?
Why does it matter how much data XCP can use, or how the transactions are relayed?
What should matter is that people can use it for A, B, and C goals.
The technical side is just a matter of implementation, not requirement.
Unfortunately, if Counterparty transactions were relayed only as nonstandard transactions, it creates a large nonfunctional issue where the time between Counterparty transactions would become unnecessarily large. Perhaps this would be negated if other miners were to agree to then but then we end up with a suboptimal solution been widely accepted.
I'd like to see a solution which meets the requirements we are asking and also gives the miners the choice if they were to include the transaction in the block.