A recent comment on the LTB article (good one by the way except that it is abit too emotional in its 2nd part in my view):
"Firstly... Just ignore Luke-JR, everyone should do this and we will all be better for it.
Secondly... Mike Hearn seemed to have a good compromise solution where OP_Return was used to store a pointer to the data that is stored elsewhere...
So you get the benefits of being on the blockchain, and lessen the load on the network. Win win?Dear DEVS: is this being discussed? is there an internal dialogue/discussion beyond the REDDIT and the articles?
Peter Todd has already explained why this is not a good idea:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5824434#msg5824434Fine. I have to admit that the technical details are above my head. I trust that the you guys with the other devs will determine what is possible even if not ideal to all. What i keep trying to find out is whether there is a dialouge going on or is this a stalemate or will it develop to a cat and mouse game.
As I expressed in several places throughout the past 25 pages: the best solution is to find the common path and create a win win. CP has a great interest to stay on top of BTC and not have to look elsewhere. While we all know that CP is great for bitcoin.
This is why we need to reach consensus with the BTC team
Counterparty is in no danger of being kicked off the Bitcoin blockchain.
We have contacted some of the Bitcoin core developers, though there is nothing in particular to report. We will let the community know if something comes up.