Quote from: devphp on November 15, 2014, 10:55:32 AM

Quote from: jwinterm on November 15, 2014, 05:03:10 AM

Quote from: Majormax on November 14, 2014, 11:56:01 PM

Quote from: Come-In-Behind on November 12, 2014, 06:41:26 PM

Quote from: nakaone on November 12, 2014, 05:30:45 PM

http://counterparty.io/news/counterparty-recreates-ethereums-smart-contract-platform-on-bitcoin/

basically counterparty and bitcoin can do most of ethereums stuff on the btc blockchain

counterparty is getting serious

Counterparty is too slow. It's not smart to use btc's blockchain either way....BTC will eventually fall (to other cryptocurrencies), and so will the coins tied with it.

Alternatives will take time to build up. The problem with Clearinghouse is , although VIA is custom built and fast, it does not have the distribution of BTC.

So what you're saying is dogeparty?

Dogeparty is a nice compromise between Counterparty and Clearinghouse, it just has the right combination of speed/community support/distribution. I see Dogeparty being more successful in the future than both of those. Just wait for someone to actually start trading serious with Counterparty, they'll be cursing the slowness of Bitcoin blockchain with every trade, not exactly a good user experience. What we're seeing now is a usual marketing hype, Auroracoin type, with no fundamental reasons, pure guesstimates and hyped beliefs.

all these projects are done for niches. when you think what counterparty can provide - you see that it is on the most secure blockchain, it can use spin-off effects, as well as reliable technology. in case regulation works well it is a no-brainer.

the argument with the slowness of the btc blockchain is true. byrne even argues that it is a feature that it is not that fast. counterparty wants the niche of high secure, low volume, high amounts trade. if you look closer in the finance market, these niche is existent and it is not the worst idea to fill it.

high frequency trading will probably never be done on a blockchain, see vitaliks posts from the beginning of the year in the xcp thread. the difference between a one, five or ten minute confirmation is in certain fields not that important.

all that said xcp is a highly risky investment. compared to all other 2.0 projects it is nevertheless at this point by far the best. further I doubt that it is possible to overtake it within the next six months regarding development, embeddedness as well as industry connections. look in the msc thread where they discuss the problem of not-being-first-mover anymore this is true for all competing projects.