Im in the process of designing a new cryto-coin for a project. Would like to add Counterparty as an implementation option.
Questions:
How would an counterparty asset differ from a stand-alone alt-coin?
Is the issuance of additional tokens completely centralized?
Are the assets on counterparty transferable like any crypo currency? Would it be possible to create a wallet for my asset only?
let start with these.
Thank You
[quote author=jaybny link=topic=429.msg2777#msg2777 date=1404234698]
How would an counterparty asset differ from a stand-alone alt-coin?
Is the issuance of additional tokens completely centralized?
Are the assets on counterparty transferable like any crypo currency? Would it be possible to create a wallet for my asset only?
[/quote]
Hi Jaybny,
I’ve answered your questions respectively.
1) A counterparty asset is embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain. Therefore, it shares the same hash-rate security as Bitcoin. There may be criticisms regarding the PoW for Bitcoin. However, at the moment there is no other blockchain which is as secure.
2) Yes, in the sense that the asset issuer has complete control over the asset issuance. Is that what you mean?
3) Yes, assets in Counterparty are transferrable to any Bitcoin address, irrespective of the target is running Counterwallet. Yes it is possible to create a wallet for just your asset. If you wanted a web wallet, you could fork Counterwallet or BoottleXCP.
The benefit of having an asset on Counterparty is that it is instantly tradeable against all other Counterparty assets. With a stand-alone alt-coin, it is siloed and you have to wait for a centralized like Cryptsy to list it. On Counterparty, you can forget about pursuading people to throw hashrate at your coin to keep it secure. You can concentrate on adding and providing value to your asset.
Ok. got it.
question:
all messages / transactions, require BCT transaction fees. correct?
If so, does everyone who receives my asset also need to acquire some BTCs in order to use the asset?
[font=Verdana][/font]
[font=Verdana][/size][size=78%]Thanks [/size][/font]
[quote author=jaybny link=topic=429.msg2816#msg2816 date=1404846910]
Ok. got it.
question:
all messages / transactions, require BCT transaction fees. correct?
If so, does everyone who receives my asset also need to acquire some BTCs in order to use the asset?
[font=verdana]
[font=Verdana][size=78%]Thanks [/size][/font][/font]
[/quote]
Yes. About .0005 BTC per tx.
Reading around to learn more about Counterparty and wanted to hijack this thread very quickly.
[quote]
3) Yes, assets in Counterparty are transferrable to any Bitcoin address, irrespective of the target is running Counterwallet. Yes it is possible to create a wallet for just your asset. If you wanted a web wallet, you could fork Counterwallet or BoottleXCP.
[/quote]
How does this work? If I send some shares to a regular Bitcoin address how does it show up in that person wallet, assuming they're not running Counterwallet?
[quote author=ArielD link=topic=429.msg3058#msg3058 date=1408163412]
Reading around to learn more about Counterparty and wanted to hijack this thread very quickly.
[quote]
3) Yes, assets in Counterparty are transferrable to any Bitcoin address, irrespective of the target is running Counterwallet. Yes it is possible to create a wallet for just your asset. If you wanted a web wallet, you could fork Counterwallet or BoottleXCP.
[/quote]
How does this work? If I send some shares to a regular Bitcoin address how does it show up in that person wallet, assuming they're not running Counterwallet?
[/quote]
The address will be "registered" to own the shares in the Counterparty ledger. However, if the person is running a wallet which isn't aware of Counterparty assets, then those shares are just invisible to them. The owner can continue to send and receive bitcoins without disturbing the registration of the shares. To be able to take actions such as transferring the shares to another address or making an order, then they will need to export the private key for that address and import it into a Counterparty aware wallet.
Let me know if there's anything which isn't clear 
[quote author=Global_trade_repo link=topic=429.msg3059#msg3059 date=1408188068]
[quote author=ArielD link=topic=429.msg3058#msg3058 date=1408163412]
Reading around to learn more about Counterparty and wanted to hijack this thread very quickly.
[quote]
3) Yes, assets in Counterparty are transferrable to any Bitcoin address, irrespective of the target is running Counterwallet. Yes it is possible to create a wallet for just your asset. If you wanted a web wallet, you could fork Counterwallet or BoottleXCP.
[/quote]
How does this work? If I send some shares to a regular Bitcoin address how does it show up in that person wallet, assuming they're not running Counterwallet?
[/quote]
The address will be "registered" to own the shares in the Counterparty ledger. However, if the person is running a wallet which isn't aware of Counterparty assets, then those shares are just invisible to them. The owner can continue to send and receive bitcoins without disturbing the registration of the shares. To be able to take actions such as transferring the shares to another address or making an order, then they will need to export the private key for that address and import it into a Counterparty aware wallet.
Let me know if there's anything which isn't clear
[/quote]
Awesome, that cleared it up thanks.
It seems the risk of losing your private key here is even worse than with just Bitcoin. You lose Bitcoin it's like loosing cash in your wallet (depending on how much you had in it), you lose shares though that's a stake in a company/project that can no longer be accounted for which in the future can screw up dividends, governance, etc.
I'm sure Coinbase and Blockchain type companies will appear in the future just to hold peoples crypto-assets (if they don't already exist?).
Totally valid point ArielD. I think we need the concept of signing authority in Counterwallet. To quote my self on reddit recently.
[quote]As we can see Dogeparty is poised to accomplish some amazing things. Through the measured addition of data to the blockchain, we may have decentralized crowdfunding, rewards programs, betting markets, you name it.
There is just one thing that bothers me about this. The security of a token, broadcast, issuance, order, or whatever is controlled by a private key that if compromised could mean much more than the loss of money. So… what if we could introduce delegated and revocable signature authority into the system?
Just as SSL certificate authorities do, I would keep my super-secret private key offline, only using it from an airgapped computer, in electrically shielded room, behind a mantrap, 13 stories underground… or from my Mom's basement. From there, it could generate a transaction signing a server key, that could more safely reside on live Internet-facing servers.
Then if an attacker breaks into my server and steals the server key, I could return to my underground lair to generate transactions revoking that key and delegating the appropriate signing ability to a new key. This wouldn't stop the hacker from using whatever capabilities that server key has but it would help limit the damage.
This idea seems somewhat obvious so I figure it's probably been discussed in relation to smart contracts and what not somewhere. Rather than search and read a bunch of forums for 3 hours, I figured I'd type this up and post it here for your reading pleasure. Thanks for reading!
[/quote]
[quote author=ArielD link=topic=429.msg3069#msg3069 date=1408342710]
It seems the risk of losing your private key here is even worse than with just Bitcoin. You lose Bitcoin it's like loosing cash in your wallet (depending on how much you had in it), you lose shares though that's a stake in a company/project that can no longer be accounted for which in the future can screw up dividends, governance, etc.
I'm sure Coinbase and Blockchain type companies will appear in the future just to hold peoples crypto-assets (if they don't already exist?).
[/quote]
If your asset is held in Counterwallet, there are no private keys to be lost.
It's not worse than bitcoin unless there's no open market where one can re-acquire the same assets.
If I lose a wallet with 1 BTC, I lost 1 BTC. If I lose a wallet with a bunch of Counterparty assets worth 1 BTC, I can buy them in the open market for 1 BTC.
I think the protocol could be changed so that based on 2 out of 3 (notary/custodian + issuer) lost assets be cancelled and replaced with new assets. There are free bitcoin-based notary services already. If you prove you own an asset at certain address and there's no record that it was ever sold to another address of course you should be able to ask the issuer to replace it.