Maybe someday, but we are talking about 'someday'. It's always talk and talk about the future because in the here and now, this shit is hardly ready for prime-time.

And since I have no interest in becoming a techie to appreciate and innovate gadget ideas like btc because I don't have to, I have no use for it. I can use a smartphone without knowing how to build one. That's why smartphones are a success and btc is still a steaming pile of shit.

Don't try to sell me a betamax and tell me it's Blu-Ray, and then complain because I don't wanna share an hour discussion about future possibilities or 'appreciate' the technology.

"Ease of use" defines currency. Defines it. Without ease of use, you got a bag of shit and have the fucking nerve to resent people who dont want to pay actual money for the worthless monopoly money you're shilling for.

Seriously guys?


What we know is Apple does not want these apps in their store.

What we do not know is why.


I'm sorry to report that there are indeed legitimate reasons why someone may not wish to distribute a thing to customers, and those reasons may have you feeling like a caveman once known. Maybe their lawyers won't let them, maybe laws have something to do with it, maybe the code is flawed, maybe the owners are about to be Shrem'd, maybe Steve Jobs was Satoshi. Who knows wtf?

Maybe I'm wrong though. Best to keep smashing your phones, just in case.

They have a valid "statement" - Apple decides what gets accepted to the Appstore and what stays in the Appstore and Apple doesn't have to tell why. That's part of the deal blockchain.info made with Apple when they submitted the app.
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

Their "reason" on the other hand is completely bs. I doubt Apple actually has a problem with bitcoin - they just don't want to promote it on their store because of the potential legal issues. They simple don't allow a lot of financial stuff and children potentially "playing" with money.
Terrible PR decision though and it'll probably change soon like it did with real money poker apps(PokerStars for instance).

They made things worse by first accepting it and later withdrawing it though... idiots..

Yeah, I agree with that. I am all for freedom of expression. However, such stunt is not an attempt of freedom of expression. There was a person sponsoring people to destroy Apple products. This is an organized attempt to terrorize Apple to accept something against their will.

If people think they are entitled to do whatever they want, why is not Apple entitled to do whatever they want as well?

There's also a "Think Different About Bitcoin" video re-edit contest I'm holding on Reddit. We've already had several people pledge to donate to the winner, with Nic Cary (CEO of Blockchain.info) pledging .5 BTC himself!

Here's the link: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1x6cpd/think_different_about_bitcoin_contest_to_reedit/

There is insufficient data points at this point of time. The actual matched and paid BTC/XCP order pairs is miniscule at the moment. However, this should change over time when we have more liquidity (I.e GUI/web client is launched, etc).

Cheers

Yea there's people trolling the price right now

 Overview
  Last DEX Matched Price :     50.0000 BTC/XCP @ $39,492.500
  Total XCP Supply:     2648755.9218 ($104,605,993,241.63)
  Total XCP Transactions:     3281 transactions
  Last Block Number:     284379


We need greater exposure and greater liquidity for XCP

I'm very interested in the new Counterparty technology given the successful burn period of XCP.  I've been reading everything I can find on it, and I understand how it's an information layer built on top the BTC protocol, and can be used for betting and issuing "shares", etc.  However I'm still foggy on a lot of details and I can't seem to find a clear, dummies style explanation of the tech.  Could someone help an idiot like me with some basic questions?

One thing I don't understand is how the value of an individual unit of XCP is determined.  I know right now it's trading at a certain amount relative to BTC based on scarcity since the burn period is over.  Down the road will it trade on utility (i.e. I need one intact unit of XCP to issue shares in my company) or will the value be determined by the assets that it backs?

I have not yet contacted them. Unless I am mistaken, since they registered the subreddits, they will always be moderators, and hence the conflict of interest cannot be completely removed.

Going forward, the best thing to do is be very active on the subreddit registered by the Counterparty team, to, at least minimize the ambiguity as to which subreddit is "the Counterparty subreddit".

Subreddits aren't considered "abandoned" if any mod has been active anywhere on reddit in the past 60 days. Keep in mind that "activity" isn't limited to posting and commenting.

I'm quite sure that the benefits of building on Bitcoin, not the least of which are much increased development speed and security, do indeed outweigh the costs.

From another thread:


They [meaning Etherium] address halting by fee paying for interpreter cycles.  When the fee runs out the contract is stopped.

But there are obviously interpreter escape dangers, which are harder to contain for a stateful, looping, low level (byte code like) language.  Look at the history of java sandbox escapes.  People say that was mostly due to call outs to complex native library have to look through the (large!) CVE database on JVM to figure out the stats.  Also the pressure may have been lower.  If you get real money under it all kinds of resources and unrevealed 0-days can leak out of the woodwork and create the new target for grey and black hats some of whom are world class at this stuff.  Or even from national security network intrusion insiders with Snowden-level access or the people developing and selling grey market 0-day to the intelligence community etc.  Those people are fallible humans too - they may succum to the financial motive, or the people who developed and sold them the 0-days may find a new monetization model, or second use for them (they cant "forget" them after sale).

There have also been VM escapes from full hw abstraction vms (i mean not just API sandbox light linux-in-linux virtuozzo but actual whole OS in the container).

And finally bitcoin scripting is functional, stateless and non-looping (non TC in fact also) for a reason.  Bitcoin doesnt (and I think its intentional) have even extrospection.  There are grey-goo outcomes if you are not careful with even something as constrained as an extrospection op code to existing language.   There will be whole classes of not yet imagined grey goo opportunities lurking in a full TC language.  You cant easily systematically defend against whole classes of such issues without intentional constrained language.

Here's a thread started by Greg to explore grey-goo outcomes from extended scripting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278122.0

Greg Maxwell also noted the elevated risk of forks developing.  If there is any deviation in script outcome and being more complex there is more risk there also.  eg tracking how many cycles through a JIT executed/CSE optimized etc version as super-majority of nodes MUST interpret the script to the same byte code instruction, or one version can return true, another false etc.

I discussed these risks with Vitalik and he is a very smart guy, so obviously they'll try to do what they can to contain them, but you know bitcoin is the highest assurance sw dev and QA risk on the planet by orders of magnitude.  So it maybe a time for risk containment rather than risk LoC and API size expansion, I am already worried on bitcoin about base band-processors hacks, 0-day OS and CPU hacks, and thinking a more zero-trust more air-gap model needs to be the objective.

If hypothetically ethereum grew to large adoption (litecoin level say) and then there was enough motivation and something failed hard, there are potential whole system value loss, hard fork and other failure modes.  It seems to have by design, ongoing higher surface area security & value safety risk

Also btw Dan Kaminsky said he spent 4 months trying to hack bitcoin (network stack, overflow on messages, the usual host-security 0-day discovery process) and he failed.  He's one of the best host security guys and the experience impressed him.  Its not a simple thing to make a network stack that bullet proof, most even hard core programmers cant do it.  You probably have to practice 0-day development to some depth to even understand fully the risks and defense landscape.  Bitcoin got there with a really solid start from Satoshi and a bootstrap period where other bugs were fixed before the pressure built up to $10b.

I am not going to comment for now on the funding model  They are somewhere between the others and I am sure Vitalik has his eye on actual innovation as well, because knowing him he lives for tech challenge.

I think anything that needs to be done, can be done in a bitcoin centric backwards compatible evolutionary way using eg 1-way peg and other related features while maintaining value firewalls between long term holders and people using newer features.

But clearly other than the security containment, zero-defect in flight once live, and grey-goo risks, Ethereum can create some fun self-extensibility with a loose analog of like introspection, late binding, eval and dynamically loadable code languages.  We do have to be clear that the cost is the towards opposite end of the spectrum, though lower than activeX and executing native code delivered over the network.  Fun possibilities but a big security job.

Adam

There is a very elegant solution (theoretically) to this problem. Decentralise the checkpointing. A DAC (Decentralised Autonomous Community/Corporation/Company, for those who aren't familiar with the concept) could ensure that a checkpoint that has been arrived at by consensus is published/broadcast.

For those of you whose eyes glaze over when they see the acronym "DAC", picture this please:

I install my "Counterparty-qt". During installation it asks me "Do you want to run a full node?". I say yes because I personally don't care about "downloading and parsing time". This installs a DAC add-on with my Counterparty-qt.

I run Counterparty-qt. In the background a checkpoint of the system is periodically being updated (presumably by block).

My CP-DAC (CounterParty-DAC) is talking to every other CP-DAC on the network. They reach a consensus of the checkpoint of the system. The DACs then publish both the checkpoint (as a torrent perhaps?) and the checksum for it (for further verification).

Those individuals choosing to run Counterparty-qt without supporting the decentralised check-pointing add-on can just download that checkpoint torrent as their starting point. This would allow them to get up and running almost immediately.

The beautiful thing here is that after the checkpoints for every block so far (and checksums corresponding to them) are published, more people could run the DAC from those points onwards at less expense (bandwidth and processing power) and contribute to the decentralised checkpointing.

Feel free to ask me any questions about this.

So, does the Counterparty Project want to have the first useful DAC as well as the first useful decentralised exchange?

TLDR: A light-weight Counterparty Protocol client is possible by utilising a DAC.

I'm not sure how it could have been advertised more? This thread has 108 pages and 38,400 page views. Short of taking out a paid advertisement somewhere, what can you do?

Everyone, please help spread the word. To be successful as an asset trading and betting platform for financial instruments, we need broad community participation not just few early adopters.

You don't want to do a BTCpay right before the order match is set to expire (especially in the future, when blocks are closer to being full).

your btc don't leave when you place an order, after an order is matched, then you send the btc. I am not sure if orders will stay matched after expiration though.

I think yes, you are at the mercy of the seller..