Quote from: baddw on April 02, 2014, 04:10:03 AM

Quote from: TheMightyX on April 01, 2014, 09:21:38 PM

Quote from: Matt Y on April 01, 2014, 09:01:18 PM

Quote from: TheMightyX on April 01, 2014, 08:42:43 PM

So it's better for counterparty to just react, instead of act? Are we really doomed to just follow the current trends? Piggybacking from one solution to the next?

What about actually taking a fucking stance? What about making a decision instead of letter other people make decisions for us.
This is the worst business advice ever. Is it a risk? Sure! But those that never take risks have nothing to gain.

Winning the race of utility but not usage?
I would posit that counterparty has less adopters now than when it started as some early adopters have sold out and moved on.

Even Satoshi himself thought PoW was an inherent weakness of the bitcoin protocol.

Counterparty is very active and is currently leading the second generation space with regards to functionality.

Counterparty is not piggybacking from one solution to the next, it is staying on Bitcoin. You are the one suggesting the project moves to another blockchain, then denouncing that very thing in a later post as you say "are we doomed to have to follow trends" while you pitch a PoS solution that is itself a new and upcoming trend in the digital currency space, while Bitcoin has been around forever and is much harder to consider a "trend".

Do you feel Counterparty has taken no risks? The project has been rife with risks from day one, and those risks are gradually being mitigated and eliminated.

What decentralized exchange is winning the race of "usage"? What decentralized financial market is winning the race of usage? Nobody. Let's check back on that in a few months or so.

So, according to you, early adopters sold some or all of their positions in XCP, and that somehow decreased the number of total XCP holders. How are you able to infer that everyone who has bought XCP over the past few months already held XCP?

I never said Counterparty wasn't leading in terms of functionality.
Nor did I say that Counterparty has taken no risks. But huddling behind bitcoin for protection is obviously an aversion to risk when we know that we have more to gain by leaving then by staying.

What you suggested in your previous post was that at a later time if it becomes necessary CP will move to another or its own blockchain (this would be reacting and piggybacking from one solution to the next).
What I suggested was a proactive decision to move not from one solution to the next, and the next, and the next (which is what will invariably happen should we continue down this road), but to move to a final solution.
Our own blockchain would be the final solution. You admitted it yourself. Why don't we just jump ahead a few years then and save ourselves some wasted time? We are wasting time trying to play nice with bitcoin when we could be growing.

According to you "PoS" is a trend and bitcoin has been around "forever". You know they thought email was just a trend? They said it was pointless and stupid and we would never have a need for it. But some people, they saw it for what it was. It wasn't a trend, it was a solution.

You calling PoS a trend shows where your mindset is.
To anyone outside our community bitcoin itself is a trend, or a scheme, or a fraud. You are equating what you and I know to what the world thinks it knows.

My comment regarding counterparty having less adopters was and is evident by the list of trading over the past two months on the exchanges. Any new adopters would have had to buy XCP from poloniex. We can see there has been very little trading on poloniex. So very little XCP was bought. I would also assume the majority of XCP bought on poloniex was from XCP holders. Obviously that is just a theory and is inconsequential anyway.

Look, you have no control over Counterparty. Some pretty smart dudes have control over Counterparty. If you want control over something, fork Counterparty yourself, or pay someone to do it for you. Everyone's a critic, but few are artists.

There's a concept called over-engineering. It is especially problematic in fast-moving industries such as cryptocurrencies. Everything is moving so fast, you're saying "let's look 5 years on the horizon!" when nobody really knows what lies 5 years on the horizon. Any plan that we made to hit a target 5 years from now, would need to be changed several times before we got there. It's a moving target.

Proof-of-Stake is currently flawed. There is no good implementation of pure Proof-of-Stake. Maybe the entire idea will be discredited in 6 months, and the new concept will be called Proof-of-Something-Else. Creating a Proof-of-Stake coin out of thin air and moving Counterparty to it would be a bad move.

The opposite of over-engineering is under-engineering. Creating the least viable product. The most minimal, simple implementation that can do what you want it to do. Counterparty is this solution for the distributed exchange/Bitcoin 2.0 idea. It works, today. It does so by leveraging the existing Bitcoin network and protocol, which allows the developers to devote their time to getting the important parts right. How much would the Counterparty codebase increase in size if it required its own blockchain? I'm betting it would be somewhere in the triple to quadruple range. Counterparty will continue to work for at least the near future. If a day comes when it is made not to work by outside forces, Counterparty will change in order to work.

There are plenty of other people working on building distributed-exchange coins from scratch. Counterparty made the explicit decision not to be one of those guys. To put it simply, "built on Bitcoin" is THE central idea behind Counterparty. If you don't agree with that decision, you should be backing the other guys.

I don't think "built on Bitcoin" is the central idea. "Counterparty protocol" is the central idea.
We can have many choices besides bitcoin.