im going to spin up a regtest node on my desktop and mess around with that, been meaning to try that at some point anyway

it’s been about a year since I’ve ran them but the unit test suite is very slick and easy to use

will actually work out getting taproot envelope setup now so people can issue on-chain pepes after activation

feel like i can do anything after getting atomic swaps implemented lol

Pretty amazing... 18 months later, we now have Taproot support and Fairminting in Counterparty 🎉

That's great 👍

Are you two still in Vegas?

Yep!

Can we all grab some din din?

You guys literally slashed the parsing speed by 90% and your’re not even mentioning it 😂

Duly noted. Just wanted to hear the counter argument and I agree with it... back to utility lol

Why Guyana?

SPCPEPEWOJAK

I was just in Guyana in March.

This is most likely a play on contrast:

"Pepe Gagarin" (Yuri Gagarin as Pepe) — USSR, 1961.

"Feels Glenn" (John Glenn as Feels) — USA, 1962.

And between them, "Guyana" — supposedly a neutral/fictional zone or even some kind of "meme territory" between two space meme powers.

In this context, "Guyana" can mean:

the territory of meme interpretation of events,

"memetic neutral zone",

or just a joke about how history could look in an alternative reality invented by internet culture.

Artistic hypothesis:

The word "Guyana" could be a pun:

"Guy" — a person (Feels Guy),

"ana" — a suffix, like in the words "Americana", "Kekistan", creating a sense of a fictional country.

That is, "Guyana" = the country of meme people, the kingdom of Feels & Pepe, possibly part of the world of Kekistan.

and issued coins so that neither side has an anniversary date

https://x.com/hznmarket/status/1928477976460505519

Update on the CBOR transaction encoding issue: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/issues/3173#issuecomment-2923607500

None

If it’s not broke, don’t fix it

That's a great principle, but in Counterparty land, the adage is "even if it is broke, don't fix it"...

Make a new one

Either way great job lately

Refinement :3

Does anyone have a good idea of what it currently costs to mint ordinals using the major platforms?

If counterparty compares favorably, that would hopefully give ordinals creators an incentive to experiment with the counterparty protocol.

From chatgpt (I haven't verified, so one never knows if it is hallucinating?):

Prompt: How much does it currently cost to mint ordinals on the ORDI protocol? If the cost is variable, please provide a rough range of costs.

Chatgpt:

"The cost to mint Ordinals on the ORDI protocol varies based on factors such as transaction priority, content size, and network congestion. As of the latest data, minting a 23.7 KB image using the "Economy" option on Ordinalsbot costs approximately 53,072 sats ($15.99), while the "Normal" option costs up to 207,462 sats ($62.62) for similar image size and quality.

For higher-quality or larger files, minting costs can increase significantly. For instance, minting a 20 KB image with a 30-minute inscription time at 100 sats/vByte could cost between $150 and $250.

Alternatively, using a personal Bitcoin node with an ord-controlled wallet can reduce costs to just the network transaction fees, which typically range from 5,000 to 15,000 sats (~$1.50–$4.50), depending on network congestion.

Additionally, the introduction of the BRC-69 token standard by Luminex has been reported to reduce minting costs by approximately 90% by requiring only a single line of text to be inscribed, rather than a full image.

In summary, minting costs on the ORDI protocol can range from as low as $1.50 for self-inscribing with a personal Bitcoin node to over $250 for high-priority, high-quality inscriptions through third-party services."

2nd try——

"Q. Your prices seem to not distinguish network fees from protocol fees. Could you provide estimates that separate these two types of fees?

ChatGPT said:
Apologies for any confusion in my previous responses. Let's clarify the costs involved in minting Ordinals on the ORDI protocol by separating the network fees from the platform (service) fees.

🔹 Network Fees
Network fees are dynamic and depend on the current Bitcoin network conditions, particularly the transaction size and the chosen fee rate (measured in sat/vByte). These fees are paid to miners for processing and confirming transactions.

Economy Option: Approximately 53,072 sats (~$15.99) for a 23.7 KB image.

Normal Option: Up to 207,462 sats (~$62.62) for similar image size and quality.

These estimates include both network and platform fees, but the exact breakdown isn't specified. The network fee portion is influenced by factors like the chosen fee rate and transaction size.

🔹 Platform (Service) Fees
Platform fees are charges imposed by the minting service provider for facilitating the minting process.

OrdinalsBot: Charges a service fee of 9,000 sats per mint.

Gamma: Imposes a fixed service fee of 7,500 sats per mint.

These fees are separate from the network fees and are paid to the minting platform.

💡 Cost Breakdown Example
For a typical minting scenario:

Network Fee: Varies based on transaction size and fee rate.

Platform Fee: 9,000 sats (OrdinalsBot) or 7,500 sats (Gamma).

The total cost will be the sum of the network fee and the platform fee. For instance, if the network fee is 50,000 sats, the total cost on OrdinalsBot would be 59,000 sats.

🧾 Summary
Network Fees: Dynamic, based on transaction size and Bitcoin network conditions.

Platform Fees: Fixed per mint (e.g., 9,000 sats for OrdinalsBot).

Total Cost: Sum of network and platform fees.

For the most accurate and up-to-date fee estimates, it's recommended to check the current network conditions and consult the minting platform's fee schedule."

There needs to be a respectful way to resolve things and be as decentralised as possible. Everyone's take should be respected specially OGs like Jdog JPJAs or Zerog's and not shut down because they differ to the core Devs.

that requires respect from all parties

J’s running a fork of CP

While building a competing platform for both

And

Wants his opinion to hold serious weight on CP cores decisions

That’s crazy imo

Imagine if Elon told Ford what to do while building Tesla and supporting Chevy

And for that reason he should be banned from filing any bug reports?

That would be great, but it seems like a public attack every time. Back to mysterious’s point.

It Is not just Jdog, there are big red flags when guys like JPJA and zeroG get censured too. And these are very reputable guys with bags of common sense.

I feel like the biggest issue of all this is they would be required to update their software

JPJA thought he found a bug and attempted to exploit it instead of just reporting it (as adam said, there was just a misconfiguration that would have been easily fixed had he just said it). Then immediately started telling people they should fork.

If no one ever wants to update their software, how do we make CP better

now there’s a tiny complaint on a technical detail of a single header field in an otherwise incredible update that represents probably 6 months of work, and Jdog is using this to FUD (again) and promote his platforms (again). There is basically nothing of substance here

It’s just not how someone who is trying to help acts

No one is censuring JPJA or zeroG (I'm doing an interview with zeroG on Sunday lol) I simply locked a GitHub issue, and then moved the discussion. Even J-Dog is unblocked from GitHub now. 🙈

Well

what are the changes that people are concerned about at this time?

Exactly, messaging like this has no substance and is impossible to respond to

Address the actual technical concerns, not make blanket statements

check the pinned message for the discussion on it

What is True and what is false from here?

well, just to be clear, they are currently investigating the scope of work to support both formats…

The hott fixes, which was a huge update and reduced parsing speed from basically a week to half of a day

People need to stop viewing the situation through feelings and view it technically through innovation and performance

1. - releasing buggy versions that requires
hotfixes 10+ times is not ok

I've absolutely released buggy versions, and hotfixes have been required. (Not 10+ lol.)

2. changing the XCP supply is not ok

I didn't?

3. pretending it's just a decimal change is not

I mean, it is. Satoshi said the same thing about BTC. 🙄

4. rejecting alternative implementations with a
one-liner and no explanation (beyond "it
won't work" although it probably would work
much better) is not ok

It goes both ways. Saying "this [tiny change] is the end of the world" when it's clearly not, doesn't warrant a detailed response.

5. running Horizon with an out-of-sync version
without informing users is not ok

This was a mistake... JP found the error, and exploited it instead of just reporting it. As soon as I discovered the error I fixed it.

6. returning after 10 years, breaking all the
good stuff from countless contributors and
acting like a dictator is not ok

This is the really bonkers part. The stuff I'm allegedly breaking is stuff that _I_ wrote in *2013*. Ouziel and I are without a doubt responsible for > 95% of the codebase and design. If I'm not mistaken, JP has made zero commits to the Counterparty repo ever? https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/graphs/contributors

7. ..and banning @jdogresorg, who runs the
infrastructure that's actually used, from
reporting bugs is not ok

I mean, he was being a complete ass. He's unblocked now 🤷‍♀️

find the OGs on the chart 🔍 that's me and Ouziel back in 2014

Yeah I'm starting to realize the new Dev is visionary while the old devs want to keep their art projects functioning the way they've always functioned without making any new changes. It's ART versus reward

That’s called classic

Wait, who's the old dev and who's the new dev? 🤔

The new old one

And Jdog wasn't a big contributor to the repo. He only made it nearly impossible to run. The last main change made to Counterparty before Adam's return was done by John Villars with Dispensers.

Users can have exactly what they want with Classic

Nothing will change

But classic isn’t a great solution because the assets have less value

So the best solution is to turn the latest version of CP into the new classic

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

My personal want for CP is to grow and prosper. I don’t see how that happens based on history without ground breaking updates

Not everyone has to have the same want. That’s personally what I want.

Its Stampparty now, but thats ok.

Feelings

Literally the founders

It's also ensuring protocol security

Having a protocol running on obsolete addresses and wallets is a death sentence

this release is IMO table stakes for exchange listings

I wish I could have secured my assets with a Ledger earlier but at least now it's possible

Yeah and the delisting made total sense for exchanges. The software was too bloated

Running evm chains instead was way way easier

Yeah sadly

but that’s all been fixed happily

And the new meta on Bitcoin protocols helps a lot

I hope we will see super indexers for Bitcoin

That let you run everything with ease

Update on CBOR encoding issue. We can't safely revert the change without weeks of additional testing. We'll just add backwards-compatibility with the original transaction encoding format in the next protocol change.

Thanks for giving your take on this.

None

Its vitally important imo to preserve history. What really differentiates counterparty from anything else is all the OG projects we have like SoGs, Rare Pepes, Bitgirls, bitcorn and others. No other metaprotocol, side chain, L2 or L1 can replicate that. But maybe you are referring to other historic stuff I guess.

We all agree on this and it's why the current work on the Counterparty protocol is so important.

To preserve Counterparty history it needs to be widespread and used by many.

Something like "Classic" can be run by Jdog only and it will disappear if Jdog stops running it. The hyper centralization of CP end of 2023 nearly killed all these OGs projects

Today people are still relying on eth wrapped markets to buy and sell xcp assets, which is also an unnecessary centralization

On Bitcoin people are now used to buy and sell runes and ordinals using their taproot addresses. Next version of Counterparty will finally allow that

100% agreed. And of course I would never do anything in my capacity as lead dev to threaten any of that. I don't even know how I would? The *only* thing that could do it is a fork (!)

Thankfully "Classic" is not a real fork. It's only running only on a single website and has had 6 transactions in 3 months. (Yes, yes, this from the guy screaming "centralization!!")

I just want to keep on improving Counterparty—no drama. Sometimes that means making backwards-incompatible protocol changes (we've had 95 of them now in our history). But if people can't distinguish between making meaningful improvements to the software (that they certainly didn't develop) and literally rewriting history, then of course I can't do that very effectively.

Most people see it, don't worry ^^

(Even Jdog. But it's not fitting his narrative)

@teysol could I build a block explorer using the API? Is that something that would be advised against?

Not that I will, but am curious

Why would it be advised against? ^^

Because with the xchain api, it was too many requests

Use your own indexer you shouldn't have any problem

Isn't there a public API to use?

yeah there is some kind of rate limit on the public one but it’s pretty high

Yeah running your own indexer is useful when you build your own service (like a block explorer)

The Counterparty Node v2 API is very powerful and pretty performant

We do all of the Horizon stuff hitting just two nodes directly

do i need to do something special to run testnet v11 with the cbor encoding via API?

i just ran a test with send and its still encoding the old way on testnet

gonna be impossible to test client libraries against the expected output

You can always do --enable-all-protocol-changes or whatever it is

got it, just tried that and working

i just assumed testnet had it activated by default, my bad

--enable-all-protocol-changes is the correct flag