FWIW, if there are any developers interested in keeping Counterparty going once multisig abuse filters are in place, there is no reason the recommended plan cannot work with a fork of Counterparty instead of the original developers.

+1

In what way is the array of benefits Counterparty provides to Bitcoin an abuse? Spam is an abuse. Inserting religious messages is an abuse.  Counterparty is a *use*.

Because you and Luke do not accept what Counterparty is doing does not make it 'unaceptable'.  The two of you may be big wheels around here, but that can change fast if you act in ways that a majority see as counterproductive to Bitcoin, and in this case I think it is clear that you are.

Please spell out here, in detail, with numbers, how you *hypothesize* that Counterparty is impacting the network to its detriment.  

If you can put a clearly defined cost on its use then perhaps that can be weighed against its obvious benefits.

If that is what your argument boils down to, it seems to be completely inadequate to explain your insistence on this issue.

Well, investment wise, the price should be alot lower,
due to recent news
i'm a believer which is why i am willing to pay for a large amount,
however i wouldn;t go so far as to say that its not a rocky boat,
however its just speculation

and thats my buy offer,

I am not in a position to say what is possible or not possible regarding identifying counterparty transactions, but I would caution against even using the word "impossible".
The foot is never more easily inserted into the mouth then when we claim absolutes.

The only absolute we can claim is that nothing is absolute.

Obviously having one 80 byte transaction is more ideal than having two linked 40 byte transactions due to costs but also it is more efficient for both bitcoin and counterparty. I would also think it makes backwards compatibility simpler in case drastic measures must be taken in the future, no? Regardless, cheaper transactions mean wider adoption.

From Luke-Jrs recent post I gathered that the patch idea was a quick workaround for now until a BIPS could be implemented (we all know how long that could take), not a permanent solution.

Now what you are saying is the patch itself would be worthless because other than a pre-emptive statement attached to the transaction ("Hey I'm a counterparty transaction!"), there is no way to differentiate counterparty transactions from spam?

Basically any spam could just copy the header information or whatever identifies counterparty transactions and if included could piggyback on our whitelist.
That kind of defeats the whole purpose doesn't it.

i am willing to pay 2.75 x over burn

10,000 XCP at 0.00275

so 0.00275 is the price i am looking for and i will purchase up to 10 000XCP

 exchange misrepresents the situation, and you won;t be able to dump 10k without crashing the price anyways

Big risk holding XCP atm
 
Get out while your ahead

PM me

P2SH multisig can replace bare multisig, by moving the data stored in outputs to the inputs.

This also avoids bloating the UTXO database, the key database that is queried multiple times per second by all full nodes on the network.

Solutions have existed for years.  UTXO database is not the place for data storage.  It impacts everyone, network-wide.  It impacts the real-time performance of the network.

From the perspective of counterparty and the overall bitcoin community,

• The criticism is not against counterparty, but just One Flaw in the system
• There was zero consultation on the design with the wider community before the "on" switch was flipped
• This flaw --network-critical database used for raw data storage-- was well known before Counterparty began life. You could have avoided this problem with communication.
• Existing designs are known to be less abusive to the network, and do not store data in that key database

It is perfectly possible to run counterparty without this flaw.

+1

I cant believe this attitude. I didnt know bitcoin had owners. I though I and about a million others were owners :-)

Phantom and CG- you saw the interactions. Please relate. I'd advise to still try to create a less public line of communications with the BTC team and if not.... continue even stronger.

https://www.counterparty.co/faqs/how-do-i-issue-an-asset/ This is how you create an asset. Command prompt style. Not many will bother to use this for quite some time, trust me.

Also check their bounty list https://www.counterparty.co/wiki/bounties-2/ It's empty. They don't have any resources. No cash at hand, just a very small team of guys who bit more than they could chew.

 Now go check Mastercoin's bounty list. It's overloaded with bounties many devs working at many different things at once not to mention the recently held hackathlon that will bring some very interesting apps to Mastercoin.

Mastercoin ecosystem is a luxurious exotic garden with many varieties while Counterparty pretty much resembles a desert wasteland. Some of the things in the works at the moment:

    Storj – distributed dropbox

    Toroken – incentivizing Tor relays

    SharedMiles (smiles) ride-sharing
    (This is also the team that won the Tel Aviv Hackathon)

    Coinvance – bounty management for Bitcoin 2.0 workforces

    BlockAuth – on-blockchain identify verification

    GoxCoin -  purpose of which will be to help out MtGox users recover some of what they've lost.
    More here about GoxCoin http://www.humint.is/goxcoin/

Calling Counterparty a "copycat" is calling it as it is. They've copied Mastercoin down to smallest details and Mastercoin's idea of using BTC blockchain.

I agree that space is big enough to allow for more competitors to emerge and competition is healthy.

Please name these specific features Counterparty has right now.

I strongly disagree. Ad hominems actually target the person/entity not specific facts relevant to the discussion, to which dacoinminster pointed out.

I strongly disagree about your assessment and the way you see the PR.

As an investor, don't like to see a bunch of softy weasel like pussies in charge of a project. I like to see strong determination and self confidence. I also like to see devs taking charge and calling out cheap copy-cats like Counterparty. This is what investors like to see: leadership, confidence and a clear vision.

Mastercoin, has at the moment, huge advantage over most of the other coins. I actually think it was somewhat a mistake to keep such low profile for these past few months, because many investors got scammed into investing in these 2.0 so called alternatives that won't be going anywhere. This money could have gone into Mastercoin to generate more growth.

The other projects, like Ethereum and others, have taken turns at discrediting Mastercoin in various way a number of times. This has to be addressed heads on, without beating it around the bush. If you don't, they'll walk all over you, taking money that could find a place in Mastercoin. Thank god that institutional investors, like the ones dacoinminster  mentioned are not as easily fooled as casual retail investors, that would fork money for any BS that has a bit of glam and no substance.

Regarding UI:

Yes, you need to read the instructions (tutorial) to use Masterchain web wallet. Sorry, it simply works differently than what you may be used to. This is mostly because Masterchain chose an unusual security model. However, within a few minutes, you'll have an "a ha!" moment and be off to the races. I have personally found it to be quite usable once I understood what was going on.

Please DO open issues on each of the github repos. We're devoting the remainder of March to making these wallets easier to use. Like Ron, I hope that omniwallet will be easier for casual users to use (won't require you to skim a tutorial before you can get started).

Regarding dEX:

Bitcoin/MSC trading is one-sided because posting a MSC buy order means nothing (it is unenforceable at best, spam at worst). Sure, you can signal your intention to buy MSC with BTC, but nobody can actually make you do it.

Once you are in the MSC ecosystem, order books are two-sided, and are automatically matched as you would hope.

Regarding speed of progress:

We've chosen to be more decentralized, with more implementations, and that means more time. Consequently we have a lot of beneficial cross-checking and redundancy (both technical and legal redundancy). However, we are narrowing down our number of officially supported implementations as we go forward to one PC wallet and one web wallet, as we have realized that the time sink of maintaining all these implementations is just too high.

I'm personally very happy with our progress. I realize it looks slow from the outside, but we are simply doing more, and our final product will be better for it.

You all know (or should know) that venture capital groups have lined up millions of dollars to pour into MSC-based initiatives. The Houstan hack-a-thon was completely dominated by Mastercoin projects. Probably 90% of the projects being worked on were targeted at MSC. Our competitors consist of several systems which have a long way to go to catch up with us, and one knock-off which literally forked our spec and rushed some half-baked stuff out the door.

I'm not saying that our project can rest on our laurels, but rather that we have the momentum right now, and we don't intend to lose it.

Proposal to temporarily lower hard-coded asset issuance fee to 0.5 XCP: cross-post from Counterparty forums

No bounty raised yet, idea has only been introduced today

Tirapon and myself will put in 100 xcp each

Amen. Mastercoin seems like a very closed off dev community. I have been lurking in the MSC and XCP threads ever since they launched, not saying much but honestly, MSC seems like everyone is going in different directions.

You would think that for the launch of the DEx, there would be screenshots, guides, and links of everything you would need to use the DEx, posted on this thread, but I have not seen that. Extremely poor delivery of the DEx after more than 7 months of development, and no official wallet or no working wallet either. Whats the point of launching the DEx if the wallet isn't even in beta yet?

Whats up with 4 different implementations trying to get consensus? Alot of the times, consensus is not 100%. Why not use 1 implementation that gets 100% consensus? I am not familiar how it works, but wouldn't something like mastercoind do the trick?