Quote from: jamaer on June 03, 2014, 06:11:54 PM

Ok, let me try to recap tens of pages of discussion about IXCoin & Counterparty etc for the benefit of all the casual readers. And this is only my understanding of the situation, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I understand, there are only two basic options for the "counterparty features" to be added to IXCoin:

1) Native implementation
2) OP_RETURN based (or similar) implementation (using IXCoin as a transport layer), i.e., Counterparty/Metacoin/ColoredCoins type implementation

I think 1) is out of question simply due to resources available (it would be a huge project with a lot of coding and testing). So we are left with 2), which only needs a small change to the current IXCoin client, and we can utilize existing code for the "features" (feature clients/apps etc). AFAIK there has been four porposed working variations of 2):

2a) Counterparty with a metacoin ("native" coin in the bitcoin Counterparty (XCP)/Mastercoin (MSC)) created by burning (i.e. destroying) IXCs
2b) Counterparty with a metecoin "distributed" to all IXCoin owners according to their IXCoin ownership at a certain block heigth (launch)
2c) Counterparty with no metacoin. Betting etc. implemented by allowing bets to be offered in any user definied asset/currency (instead of using a metacoin).
2d) Counterparty with no metacoin. All features requiring escrow (betting etc.) stripped off. This is pretty much equivalent to ColoredCoins.

Did I miss something?

yes.

2c is the current option. 2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.

any native work requires a hard fork. however something we can aspire to do in the future after we've validated the non-native implementation.