I don't have to clog up the chat with this

you're not clogging anything up. you're a good faith interlocutor trying to understand a position you don't agree with

Yeah, this would be much more elegant if there was a direct link

there is no link because this is just my opinion. I don't even have commit access.

but this is how the token/nodes were designed

I am sorry but I don't know what that means.

The only thing that we have been discussing, is modifying network usage via fees

but there is no linkage between XCP and the operation/upkeep of nodes

that is not what we are discussing. we are discussing a fee for a new transaction type which has an externalized cost

again, I apologize but it's not that simple.

I see, I missed it entirely then

Nodes don't stake XCP

bitcoin nodes don't stake btc

there is no direct penalty for malicious behavior

Agreed

bitcoin nodes don't necessarily participate in consensus, and yet people still run them.

they wouldn't if Bitcoin had no value

Where is the link between operating a node, and the price of XCP?

Respectfully I think I have to stop repeating myself.

XCP already has value, and there is tremendous value in the network/other assets

the value of the network and the value of XCP are untethered from each other, and my position is that counterparty is a shitshow because of that.

Ok

but how would counterparty be improved with a higher token price?

I am trying to avoid being derogatory but it seems like stating the above indirectly isn't communicating what I am triyng to say.

Yean, no offense meant on my part

I just don't see it

not true ser, i am buying from leather without being supported

I agree that XCP is too decoupled from protocol usage and has been an impediment because it lacks the virtuous tokenomics that comes with usage of other protocols. But it was hard in 2014 to know that.

XCP having a barely privileged role did allow for things like PEPECASH to grow.

Separately, I would point out on the topic of "wow this code sucks now." That the state of Counterparty is in part the way is it because the founders leaving to do Symbiont and giving it all to JDog. It was a key decision that impacted outcomes.

I think there's a way forward where the code improves with 10 years of usage data and hindsight from other networks under the guidance of the founders which is really an attractive narrative and future.

And the network is small enough to have a lot of change without a lot of forks, or no forks.

no one 'gave' jdog anything

Be patient lol. You were not here just a couple of months ago. NOBODY cared about the protocol. This discussion happening here is fantastic!

no one would work on bitcoin if btc had no value. relatedly: counterparty since day 1 has tried to make the underlying platform invisible to end-users—especially by trying to obscure even the existence of XCP. my argument is that there's a connection between this and the state of Counterparty's codebase.

Again, but there is no direct correlation between the token price, and maitainers, contributors, or node operators, other than their bags

If XCP were 1k

I am not trying to argue that there is a *direct correlation*

or if the supply started out a 1/10th of what it is

I am trying to argue that there is an *indirect correlation*

would it really have changed the outcome?

That being people's bags, right?

Just making sure we are on the same page

sure, if you like.

Got it

a nicer, less loaded way of describing it is as a virtuous cycle

No offense, I don't think trying to obfuscate this makes it look better

but i understand that it's important to the people who've made fortunes trading jpegs that Counterparty be as puristic as possible.

If the goal is to support the XCP price, then why hide it

via fees for usage

i didn't, you didn't understand me

that's fine

Too harsh here, should have said VERY FEW instead

it's okay. the number was < 10 for sure.

Again

end of the day

pumping XCP helps the bags of people that are more involved in XCP essentially is the argument, as far as I can tell

I wouldn’t say it like that

How else would you describe it?

I think trying to make XCP more of a Schelling point makes sense. You'll get better coordination and cooperation and outcomes.

that is a simplistic and crude description, especially from someone who has a punk profile picture and presumably doesn't think he's merely here for money. but if that helps you understand it, then that's fine.

We are discussing how to solve the flaws of dispensers

I'm not afraid of looking dumb if I don't understand somethign

So just trying to get to the basics

i generally agree w/ the way @droplister is talking about it, and his general perspective afaict coordinates with mine.

That’s good. Engage

if we wanted to we could add a staking thing to counterparty, but it'd be gimmicky and forced. OTOH *no one* would complain about 'scammy tokenomics'

And adding an XCP fee is just one of the options

Well a whole industry is based on minting based on writing a JSON on chain so… 😆

😂 and those same people are trying to take the moral highground about being charged for externalizing computing costs to the network. go figure.

XCP for named assets is pure and I like that. BUT limiting the token requirements for everything else I also like

So what is the externalized computing costs then?

I hear you, and it's a big, complicated topic. I do think that attaching assets to UTXOs is a place where there is good reason for adding fees. I understand people disagree, but the arguments about friction rub me the wrong way (no pun intended)

I missed that obviously

It’s very inefficient to track dispenses in comparison to everything else in the protocol. Every CP transaction has a CNTRPRTY message attached to it, so it is easy to track. Dispenses break this, as they are normal non-CNTRPRTY transactions

same goes for atomic swaps per Derp's CIP

So makes it much less efficient for operation of nodes?

yes.

I know you're not a developer, but you don't have to be one to understand this graph.

Then we should require them to also have a CNTRPRTY message? I’m really liking the idea of tracking this in clear text in op return

tbh i've given that implementation very little thought as we're still underwater. but @teysol I think did say he was in support of this.

by a naive calculation dispensers more than double block parsing time. *And that's after optimization*. Yesterday it was more like 5x...

This seems very obvious (at least to me a non-dev) why do you think the header wasn’t added at the time? I can’t think of a justification not to

with dispensers every bitcoin transaction is a counterparty transaction :/

I’m not sure why it was not considered at the time. Maybe performance wasn’t a priority. It was centralized, so not a big deal

if in december 2023 there were more than 5 people running nodes i'd be extremely surprised.

That sounds accurate. Running services it was just @ChiefSamyaza, @reinamora_137, @XJA77 and me

As far as I knew

That should make upgrading easier :)

Well… you know how it went last release 😆. But hopefully that is in the past 🙏

We could even keep dispenses in multiple outputs by adding the op return approach.

And maybe is better to name it XCP (or CP? something short), uppercase by itself.

Make writing this in the op return be the only requirement for *any* transaction to become a counterparty transaction!

Sorry to hijack it earlier, I understand what you guys are talking about now

I'm assuming the big obstacle to changing the dispensers now, is that its a change that would break previous clients/behavior?

at the *absolute very least*, we should require dispenses to have the CNTRPRTY prefix and a message ID

that's a bug masquerading as a feature

it will be a backwards incompatible change, however

Yeah, that's what I mean

Would break previous clients, so communicating it would be important

I agree. But what do you think of the possibility of having no-explicit-id transactions?

Is just about the minimizing the complexities of building the transaction

what do you mean? what's so complex?

Mainly because of the arc encoding

is that so complicated?

More than cleartext in op return 🤓

it's like the simplest possible obfuscation... that's why I picked it 😂

I think there's a discussion to be had about the value of obfuscation, but it's not like, *complex*

(also the current implementation could be optimized)

And maybe a transaction could trigger multiple other types of cp transactions.

Maybe the no id approach is by itself the type. A trigger type

hm?

requiring a message seems like the best compromise for now

(this xcp fee discussion is really weird to me... the arguments against adding fees for new features pretty much boil down to "this is how it's always been" and simultaneously "expectations have changed since 2014". if you're not in support of fees for new, fancy features like atomic swaps, then you should be in support of dropping fees for named assets, which are also strictly not necessary)

people love tradition

For me

as a relative outsider compared to you guys

Fees intiutively make sense for names

Otherwise, people would just mass register everything, like they did in namecoin

yeah I don't mean to be rude but the reasoning is backwards

the reason they make sense is because they're there now :)

The fee doesn't have to be in XCP

named asset reg already has a BTC fee...

Yeah, your right

aside, id be for having the discussion of dropping all XCP fees and substituting some sort of extra btc fee, but i think thats probly too radical for most, the easiest thing is to keep what we have, for special features like sweeps and dividends they feel appropriate

for day to day use they dont

the protocol as it is right now is *not perfect*. I should know, I designed most of it 😂

I would encourage everyone to consider the emotional baggage they have because of bad/absent management over the past few years. there are lots of ways to make counterparty better than it is today! and we should be excited about the future, not so terrified of any possible change

i dont feel anyone is being overly emotional but i agree there are def lots of ways to make counterparty better

we shouldn't be focused on doing "what's easiest"...

sure, but i mean that in terms of fork risk

I'm bringing a lot of resources to bear on this project... *far* more than have ever been involved previously

exactly, which gives you a lot of reason to see Counterparty succeed, but for many that doesnt mean XCP bags pump

it just means a stable platform

even if thats not the intention persay

the entire conversation started wrt adding xcp fees to utxo binding

upgrades do not mean instability

(just because recent development has been so destabilizing)

we’ve def strayed alot from that but that was the start and adding a fee where other indexers dont have one (selling for btc) doesnt make any sense

what do you want? nothing ever to change or to be exactly like other dissimilar projects?

i want to not add friction in this particular case where its not warranted

that's a third thing

for me, users come first

and that means no unnecessary friction

if the question is about friction, let's have that discussion

Agreed

but fees != friction

Clear text no id messages then are the ones with least friction

and fees for *new* features definitely !=> additional friction

please tell me how arc4 increases user friction 🙄

(I'm not against dropping it, but the argument has to be coherent)

I look forward to seeing that solution

Wrt utxo binding specifically

I mean the whole thing of including the first input. Much more complex than asking previously 0 friction users to add to their dispense transactions

Also would like to know the actual computational load we’re talking about, is sending to a utxo 5% more expensive or 50% more than sending to an address? At what point do you need a fee? Does that fee need to be xcp or could it be btc?

They pretty much did this already years ago. 😁

What is the purpose of the fee? Is it to deter use?

Always has been, right?

Yea so how is it not a friction device?

Thus be minimized as much as possible. For protecting the name space it makes perfect sense

I don't mean any disrespect but the frictionlessness that people appear to want seems terrible to me.

It's _awful_ that src20 was able to move off the network without telling their users

that's a direct result of frictionlessness

A fee in and of itself might not be friction it’s the act of acquiring the token which adds friction

Well we are looking at it like levels of separation between Bitcoin itself. At least that is how I see it and stamps also for sure

The additional cost makes you want to do the Tx more less or indifferent

Depends on what level of degen we talking about

Oh yeah that was crazy… they should rename

they didn't have to

that's the point

in any normal discussion of business viability the cost to users of moving off the platform is one of the first things that comes up. Now, Counterparty isn't a business but the idea that we want people to be able to use the platform without even knowing it is crazy to me.

src20 team did what was best for them, and more power to them. but that they could make as major of a change as _switching networks_ without causing any confusion to their users is, like, not good for Counterparty...

people want to use bitcoin

they want tokens on bitcoin

thats the narrative

that's a non sequitur

you dont have to own XCP to have stake in the platform

most stakeholders dont

you're of course assuming your conclusion

That was a bit unique to src20 the “fungible token protocol built on top of a fungible token protocol” moving the traditional art stamps off of CP would have been much more difficult. Moving src20 today would also be much more difficult as there are now independent indexers such as OKX. We were nimble because it was very early

What’s my conclusion?

this

i don't even disagree, but you are assuming it.

my general perspective is that the frictionlessness you seek is terrible for counterparty and i think history's on my side.

I don’t own xcp beyond a few hundred dollars work most pepe traders i know dont

Sure I haven’t taken a poll and it’s anecdotal but there just isn’t much use for xcp and it has terrible market history

I agree. They should rename and keep stamps under counterparty. Is not a good look… but is complicated. Stamps themselves have been the reason most of newcomers discover counterparty

And it’s also a majority of activity currently

I thought glyphs was the new name but I’m not sure what happened there…

Yeah!

it's their project, they can call themselves whatever they want. I am happy for their success. the problem, which @mikeinspace clearly gets is: what is keeping users on the network?

a valuable native token is a _major_ help.

The assets

The assets themselves

Sounds like everyone wants to use the protocol for their projects but don't want fees that will allow it to become sustainable because it's friction. Making xcp more relevant as a by product of fees isn't such a bad thing imo any price increase will also bring in more attention, more projects and more developers.

correct, this is the source of the disagreement

more concretely some people look at the state of the network today and say, 'this is fine'; others look at it and say, 'this is an absolute mess'

thats not true at all, xcp fee as it is now doesnt do anything to node operators if they dont have XCP bag

Well to be fair at this point we are discussing like 3 different things lol

Yea it’s totally devolved, the “what’s the point of xcp” discussion is endless

There are pros and cons and we have 10 years of history to draw on what worked and what didn’t

the problem is that VC coins have become the norm and the diffusion of responsibility that those coins allow for makes this a non-discussion for their networks.

Yeah. Personally, I don’t think anyone agrees 100%. Is actually impossible if considering the amount of xcp itself to be used

so if the meaning of include xcp fee in everything is to help node operators to cost their infraestructure this is not the way, adding friction is taking in account that now there is friction aquiring tokens, and what is the plan with utxo binding? i need to have xcp to buy an asset? how can i buy an asset like XCP if thats the case without having XCP

@XJA77 respectfully I do't think anyone is having this discussion.

no one is trying to 'help node operators'

Ordinals has vast market share in part because they used the “low number inscriptions worth more” narrative to bootstrap the network and now they don’t have to deal with a native token, they had a lot of advantage because counterparty never fully “took off” which is just a symptom of timing IMO

if i wanted to do that i'd say, "we're implementing proof-of-stake" and do some sort of BS but because it looks familiar and let's the token be a more pure speculative shitcoin everyone would say, yes thank you very much that's very intelligent.

well i think that the point was that this has an extra computational cost right? so the people who suffer this extra computational cost are the node operators

or maybe i missunderstand all this discussion

Is not 1 any more

We know that native token fees are not necessary for indexers because every other one doesn’t use one, so its an extremely difficult sell

the discussion is the much more subtle one about how do you keep these platforms from atrophying to death.

You get people invested in them

that. hasn't. worked.

for a decade.

It has!

We invented crypto art

Sog was a revelation

It still exists

Well aren’t we actually proving that it worked EVEN with its flaws?

no.

Xchain is still putting along

we are proving that people don't give a shit about blockchains if they can make a lot of money slinging jpegs

That is a fair point. But we are the Bitcoin ones 😎

Sounds like we found a liquidity source to use to fund the network

it's been 10 years. it hasn't.

that counterparty survived as basically a client-server app for years and years in turn allowing people to get rich by making token art isn't the win some people seem to think it is.

What is a win to you?

High xcp price?

a win is a platform that isn't shitty.

tokenomics are a way to achieve _that_

There’s no link between nodes and xcp

Only bag holders

and look I have thick skin but getting accused of greed by people who *got rich putting hideous jpegs on the thing I helped build* is not something that I can just quietly accept.

Xcp spent on txs also doesn’t fund developers unless the plan is to convince devs to hold an Xcp bag and pray that added fees boost the price

We have deviated too much lol

The ledger is the value in CP. Literally. And the dev work being done is to confirm is it fine, correct?

It’s not about greed

It’s just what it is right?

Stacks guys talk about stacks price all day

you have demonstrated over the course of hours that you cannot have a technical discussion, so I will not be engaging with you further.

the dev work isn't one-and-done. it's an ongoing effort. Counterparty has had a decade for all of its 'ledger users' to make it good. they have not.

the root of argument is believing a network can survive without a native token vs with one

correct

So ordinals is doomed to fail?

and you guys look at ordinals, which is subsidized by VCs and say, "See!?"

Sure but VCs come and go

...

Just from a pure economic perspective do you believe ordinals is doomed to fail

Over the long term

I believe that the marginal cost of keeping ordinals going is low enough for VCs to continue subsidizing it indefinitely

So I guess that’s the goal?

for me?

Sorry let me rephrase

That’s the only way to succeed without a native token?

Nobody has demonstrated a benefit for XCP users, if the token price goes up

I plan to run my own node when I get a new lab setup

What if counterparty is succeeding in spite of xcp

I don't benefit as a node runner if xcp pumps

The only people who benefit, are bag holders

Pin (so people are aware this is the discussion now)

Lets just be honest about it

None

i don't know what to say to this. you know i think it's not.

lol I wanted to not actually pin it but whatever 😂

Does success look like a lot of people running nodes?

Have people donated their expertise to improve this network in the last decade? it seems like the work that was done demonstrably broke the protocol, therefore the work that was donated did not have sufficient care or expertise to accomplish the goal of a functional platform from which users benefit. VC money buys expertise and time so that a functional network can be built.

can the platform thrive on donated labor?

It can survive

Right, it depends on whether or not you value the technology that underpins the pepes. It would be easy to irrevocably break this platform through a series of changes that only later become apparent some unknown amount of time later. Unclear how far to roll back the code, unclear what broke, no expertise or time available to fix it.

Even if it needs funding

Why are people so against bagholders. Should I be punished for burning Bitcoins 10 years ago because we didn't fully comprehend the impact of a token decoupled from its protocol. Should the benefit be reserved only for the projects. I am probably digressing but i find it resentful that any benefit to xcp holders should be so disdained.

definitely part of it! that way we don't have consensus bugs in the wild for 2.5 years 😉

I'm not against people making money or whatnot

clearly, you have a punk pfp

but I think we should be honest

tell me about how you're

It is true the code is bad. And some of us have been screaming about it for a while. It was such a different environment just a couple of months ago… you must understand quality development was not a priority of the project and that is a fact.

"in it for the art"

Sure man, I'm a terrible human being for owning a punk

got it

If there are incentives, they should be transparent

you are trying to opine on something that you don't have the patience to learn about.

Well, so far

you are making a number of bald assertions about other people's motivations, and when they tell you, "no, it's not that simple" your response is, "well let's just be honest"

Nobody has shown a link between running a node, contributing to xcp, and the price of XCP

you have had the same thing repeated to you over and over again for hours and your response is invariably to ignore what they're saying and to try to divine their true intentions

I'm not making any judgement on intentions

I'm just asking for transparency

you are _not_ just asking for transparency

Burning tokens when the network is used incentivizes participation and investment from community members who are using the network. This is very simple.

you are asking people to agree with your characterization of their motivations

Ok, that's fair

Then its about holders of XCP

it's not about any one thing

you are looking for a simple answer to a complicated question

and when you don't get it you think someone's trying to gaslight you.

It's unproductive and insulting.

I'm not trying to insult anyone

and I know its brash

Unlike you, I am not ascribing intention

I am saying it _is_ insulting.

but just asking what these incentives are

that is _not_ what you are doing.

this isn't asking anything

we all care if our pepes that we spent lots of money on get owned by two people because consensus broke!

Consensus already broke! what was happening was NOT working

to which people will say "consensus shonshemshus"

I guess except the guy that got paid twice, he’s happy when consensus breaks

what people want is for a VC to come in and say, "I'll pay for everything"

XCP price going up, doesn't seem like it has a clear benefit to users

Yes, so once they’re ready for their money back they can enshittify it all

Buy XCP then! You like the network? You use the network? Invest in the network.

this is a non-sequitur. *You* are the one who keeps talking about the price going up.

Yeah, that is fair

there is no reason for your incentives not to align with improving adoption and quality of the network. This isn’t a privately owned company.

people have gotten used to coins being purely speculative (like $ORDI) and so when you suggest tying the value to its use they lose their minds.

Is there a central list of findings somewhere? I though earlier messages suggested everyone was on consensus up to a ~800k block

the release notes for v10.0.0 will include, among other things, a list of terrible bugs that were fixed

but Adam i keep being told that everythnng's awesome

Yeah, pumping XCP will totally fix it

who has said that other than you

you by your own admission are incapable of having a technical argument, so why do you keep making the same baseless innuendos over and over?

What is the timeline more or less? And does it contain protocol changes? I assume it does based on the major version bump.

2 weeks is not enough notice for protocol changes in a truly decentralized network. So that is why I would like to know the approximate date…

uh

it's not a truly decentralized network

but i'm told that that's fine so whatevs.

listen, I understand that the people that have been involved in the project over the past few years—while Evan and I were decidedly off doing other things—don't like being told that things could be a lot better if some things changed around here. but the arguments against making concrete improvements are conspicuously absent. it all amounts to FUD. big changes are coming. to performance, deployment, to usability, to capability, and to economics. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm thrilled that Counterparty has such an active, vibrant community, and that so many projects have been built on top of it, but that's despite the fact that the codebase and the protocol have been languishing, which is simply undeniable.

This chat was born out of Decentralizing CNTRPRTY.

I don’t want to have to make a summary of the past 2 years. But is wrong to accuse us here about the quality of the code.

This is the place that started building towards improving the critical condition everything was in. And it started from scratch, 1 person at a time joining.

And I just want to say that I’m not on board on the “established” 2 weeks notice if the protocol is changing. If the next release does not change protocol (thus not forcing other nodes to upgrade), then 2 weeks is fine.

we've merged ~50 PRs (!) in the past couple of months. _not for pie in the sky_, but for real, concrete, meaningful improvements to the codebase. that's what we're talking about.

That’s great!

Still, let me know if I need to update my infra with more than 2 weeks 🤓

Also relevant for stamps

please review the list of issues slated for v10.0.0: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/milestone/12

right now, none of those 78 issues constitutes a protocol change. the major version bump is to trigger a reparse of the database (as it has always been. see the README https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib?tab=readme-ov-file#versioning)

(and I have no idea where the "omg there's a protocol change for an unreleased version happening in the next two weeks?!" strawman came from)

normally required more than 2 weeks to perform a full parse without bootstrap

and since the bitcoin maxime is dont trust verify is what it is

yeah I'm obviously not going to make a protocol change without giving people time to upgrade in peace... (unless it's a super critical hotfix ofc)

this is no longer the case. looking more like a day.

yeah, even still, there will be a comfortable buffer wherever possible

but when it took two weeks you felt like you really earned it

it doesn't matter if anyone can verify ownership of the jpeg frogs, the important thing is to believe they're there.

@ChiefSamyaza thanks for bringing that up. that's totally fair. the problem is that there are multiple such critical issues, and I didn't want to release without the tests passing, but let me look at it again. might deserve a hotfix before v10.0.0 (which will take another few weeks)

Everyone agrees things could be better, most disagree that adding xcp fees to send functions constitute better and no one has answered why fees in xcp help the network or anyone working on the network

you've heard arguments you disagree with

that is fine

however you should not pretend that the arguments weren't given.

I’m summarizing the discussion

>no one has answered why fees in xcp help the network or anyone working on the network

this is not a 'summary'... it's an opinion.

Ok did I miss the answer to that besides simply having the belief that the network can’t survive without a network token for fees?

What you're characterizing as belief is in fact a conclusion

It’s an opinion no?

it's a conclusion based on evidence. a posteriori; not a priori

What evidence?

oh i don't know... the fact that v10.0 will have a fix for 3 consensus bugs, two of which are showstopping.

Xcp did that?

xcp doesn't do anything

it's not an agent

So why mention it, were discussing xcp fees

what's "it"?

This was your response to me asking what evidence you had that a network token (xcp) is necessary

oh sure, here is the argument

we've had a decade to prove that people will support the platform on which their applications are built if all 'friction' is removed. that was my assumption too! however, the fact that 3 showstopping bugs are being patched in the next release (and things will still be an _absolute_ mess) suggests that there is a misalignment of incentives.

Xcp has been here this whole time

we're talking in circles

I don’t understand your conclusion

You haven't presented an direct link between XCP, and the state of the code, or the operation of nodes

For 10 yrs we had xcp and the platform barely puttered on and so you’re saying that’s proof the network needs xcp

my conclusion is that something is missing. i look at successful projects (that haven't been subsidized by VCs) and conclude that Counterparty's tokenomics are wrong

So what’s the piece I’m missing?

The. Tokenomics.

Making XCP's utility increase with network usage.

Why?

Devs aren’t paid in xcp

I'm done, Joe. You're being intentionally obtuse.

How does that attract users

Xcp is. Burned

Im not

I genuinely do not understand your logic

If I run a node, on my own

The amount of fees makes no difference to me

It makes it more expensive for users

So do you imagine a world where counterparty has some mechanism to compensate devs with xcp?

The logic is that there is a virtuous cycle between utility, value, and incentives to maintain the software. I originally thought those incentives would exist without tethering XCP's value to network usage. I was wrong.

No, I don't.

It doesn't improve the user experience, and it doesn't fund developers or node operators

So help me understand the point to adding more xcp fees if it’s not funding anything

it just pumps xcp through burning

I know everyone's mental model for how cryptocurrencies are supposed to work has been broken by VCs subsidizing development of other coins, but the model instead should be Bitcoin in its early days or Monero.

This is a straw man, no one is clamoring for VCs

implicitly yes

I disagree

You can’t imply that

no one clamors for VCs because it's embarrassing, but creating a dev culture is hard and it's easier just to accept an implicit tax on everyone by having VCs subsidize all the core dev work.

This is projection, literally no one is secretly clamoring for VCs to magically appear and fund development

You are acting like the VC, clamoring for pumping the token

not us

We could have gone that route years ago

you are completely out of your depth.

you dont understand _anything_ about this conversation.

no one has mentioned pumping anything.

It’s implied as you say

How do you imagine burning more XCP improves anything then?

Please let us know

the argument has been made again and again

No, it hasn't

It’s just vibes at this point

Pretty much

this is the argument

It’s logically inconsistent

you can disagree with it but at this point I at least have to assume @hodlencoinfield is being disingenuous if he says no argument has been given.

Its nonsensical, because there is no direct link between burning XCP, and paying devs, node operators, or improving the user experience

The only thing it will do, is pump the token

If you feel you are so much smarter than me

Why don't you write it up in detail

Amaze me

because I didn't start this conversation. I said something incredibly vague and Joe picked it up.

The argument you gave is vibes and when I asked for evidence you mentioned all the recent dev work and I don’t know what that connection even is

We are trying to finish the conversation

Put up or shut up

oh no, I've been bested.

Muh bags isn't enough

I do not understand how someone with a punk profile picture can accuse anyone else of trying to pump bags.

What I own has no bearing on the discussion

lol

Yeah

If you think these are frustrating arguments to have wait til you bring it to the greater community, we’re just asking basic questions about how xcp fees helps keep the virtuous cycle of maintaining the network going

Put up

The argument is not _vibes_. It's not deductive, but it's not vibes. I will lay out the thought process point-by-point and we'll see if that helps.

That would be awesome

I take it for granted that you will continue asking me to 'Put up or shut up' irrespective of what I say. I am talking to @hodlencoinfield

You have been extremely evasive

Sure, I wasn't nice about it

No hard feelings, but I don't like getting the run around

I couldn't care less whether you're nice, but it's astonishing to me that someone who acknowledges he's out of his depth talks so very much.

To talk honestly of course I want my own bags to pump, we all do, I want pepes to go up in price just like I want bitcoin to go up in price, I don’t hold much xcp so I could care less if it goes up in price

If I'm so out of my depth, it should have been trivial to explain your reasoning

If its about pumping the price

whether it's trivial for me to explain my reasoning is independent of how easily you can understand it.

at least be honest about it

1 is the truncated address. What are the other 2?

The goal of Counterparty when it was created was to build a platform that extended Bitcoin in a backwards-compatible way. With the creation of XCP through proof-of-burn we knew we faced two immediate obstacles: getting the cryptocurrency community on-board with a platform that had its own token, and creating a self-sustaining development culture. We assumed that if we could get users on-boarded, development would take care of itself. To that end, we tried as hard as possible to make XCP as decoupled from the platform as possible, which found its apotheosis in free numeric issuances. By the time we left Counterparty, development had decentralized a _bit_ but was still quiet reliant on us, but I chalked that up mostly to being in the midst of crypto's worst bear market to-date.

Adam and I started to poke around at the end of 2023 and were amazed to see how vibrant the community is, how many users it has, and how much economic activity is happening on the platform. However, I was genuinely surprised to see the state of the software (which is absolutely not captured by: "things could be better"); it broke my assumption that bringing users and economic value to the platform would create a shared incentive to make sure that the latter was kept in a good state. On the contrary, the platform was moldering, it seemed more than a few people were aware of that, and yet overall people were basically okay with it, because it was serviceable for their given use-case. This demonstrated a misalignment between users of the platform and the platform itself that we had not anticipated when trying to 'remove friction' in the way @hodlencoinfield has described.

The question, then, is whether there is a way to align incentives between users and the platform in such a way that the former take a real responsibility for the latter's well-being. The assumption here is that yes, the industry has changed, and capital raises have become socially acceptable in a way we really did not anticipate, but that didn't account for Bitcoin's success and phenomenal developer community. The _non-deductive_ (@hodlencoinfield) inference is that Counterparty was missing something: a coherent tokenomics, whereby the utility of its native currency, XCP bears a relation to the economic activity on the network.

This isn't a _vibe_, it is a _theory_. and although I know it's not nice to hear, I think that our initial premise (that applications building on top of the platform would keep the latter in a usable state) has been proven false pretty much conclusively.

divide by zero in dispensers logic (uncovered when we removed the non-deterministic generic exception handling) and the malformed broadcasts bug.

How do you think it could be improved by increasing the amount of XCP burned?

For users

For devs

For node operators

again, it is not about increasing the amount of XCP burned, it is about tying XCP's utility to network usage, from which it has been nearly decoupled to-date.

How would you couple the token with usage, what do you imagine?

longer-term creating a smart contracts system using XCP as gas, but in the shorter term I think that adding a fee to attaching assets to UTXOs is a very sensible place to start. It would be a fee for using a feature which will tangibly degrade the network; that feature does not yet exist and therefore the fee isn't prejudiced against any specific use-case; that fee will be charged to existing users of the platform and therefore will not prevent new users from joining the network. the fee will be denominated in XCP, Counterparty's native currency, which was created in a provably fair and decentralized way. And furthermore, liquidity for the XCP will be provided by the feature itself, with the XCP/BTC trading pair.

So instead of burning XCP, having it captured for usage?

as a fee?

I think you still have to burn it, but the amount burn would be dynamic depending on things like the specifics of how the feature impacts performance and possibly demand.

OK

So by burning XCP

how does that improve the situation for users

for devs

for node operators?

Ok thank you I’m clear now. Thankfully none of these have affect on the ledger, right?

the two show-stoppers have not been exploited afaik

the truncation ofc has

I'm still not seeing a link

Periwig Reascends, [Feb 26, 2024 at 7:55:26 PM]:
...The _non-deductive inference is that Counterparty was missing something: a coherent tokenomics, whereby the utility of its native currency, XCP bears a relation to the economic activity on the network.

This isn't a _vibe_, it is a _theory_. and although I know it's not nice to hear, I think that our initial premise (that applications building on top of the platform would keep the latter in a usable state) has been proven false pretty much conclusively.

@g0barry the question is how to align incentives between the platform and its users. I thought they would align just by people using it. I was wrong.

Go back to basics: how did Bitcoin not become a steaming pile of shit?

How does burning XCP, align those incentives for users, devs, and node operators?

This isn't btc, its not an inflationary asset

Well yes in that those transactions lost access to the asset. But there is no double spend, or was it possible?

no double spend! still a consensus bug though :/

moderate severity.

The _theory_ (using non VC-funded coins as an example) is: if XCP is tightly coupled to the network people will have an incentive to maintain the latter that they do not have currently.

Put another way: the status quo is unsustainable.

If you don't accept that as a premise then there's certainly no point in discussing further.

How does more fees improve the siutaion for users?

for Devs

for node operators?

I have answered your question to the best of my ability at the moment. You are looking for a direct incentive mechanism and I'll say what I said before: it's just not that simple. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying is _vibes_ or _logically inconsistent_ (@hodlencoinfield) , what it means is that it's a theory.

Yeah, you should be able to layout how these supposed incentives work

if they exist

you're asking the wrong question

Ok, what's the right question then?

the first question is: does what we have today work?

the answer is: 'no'.

The next question, does burning xcp improve it

no

I am at a loss for how to talk to you.

If you spend any amount of time trying to add value to Counterparty, it becomes painfully obvious that the XCP token isn’t aligned well with the protocol’s growth.

Aligning it better is smart.

AIigning it with holders of XCPs interest

So what

So far, I haven't seen anything that would improve it for users

or devs

for node operators

IF that is what it is

It improves the likely hood is exists into the future

then why hide it

That benefits people

That's what I've been saying

what is being hidden?

If the whole thing is about pumping the token

then just say so

You’re framing it disingenuously

Ok, sounds like you are unwilling to accept Periwigs explanation, but hopefully it helps others understand the thinking.

but seems not fruitful to engage any further

I know there is overlap, as you guys probably own XCP

And being reductionist to an absurd level and repetitious to a maddening degree

I own XCP, yes. Guilty.