This thread is about a potential CIP that would allow for asset names to be bought and sold on a “decentralized marketplace”, much like how orders are matched on the “decentralized exchange”.
I think this CIP could dovetail nicely with CIP 3 (discussion), but neither are dependent on each other.
CIP 3 specifies that…
If the asset owner holds the entire supply and the asset is not locked, then allow the owner to reset the supply (e.g. set the supply at zero) and change the divisibility status.
This potential CIP would specify something like…
If the asset owner holds the entire supply and the asset is not locked, then allow the owner to create offers to sell their asset name.
The Counterparty protocol allows for the ownership of Counterparty assets to be transferred to any Bitcoin address. This CIP proposals aims to replicate that same functionality, but gear it towards selling Counterparty asset ownership.
Currently, to transfer an asset’s ownership, users broadcast txs that define the new owner’s Bitcoin address. (See: create_issuance.)
Read more about how it works here: Transfer ownership
Right now, the decentralized exchange matches orders and, as a result, credits and debits address balances. The idea is that a decentralized marketplace could match offers and, as a result, transfer ownership of asset names.
For example, rather than creating an order to GIVE 10 XCP in order to GET 1000 BXX… On this decentralized marketplace, you would create an offer to GIVE BXX OWNERSHIP to get 10 XCP.
When offers are matched:
- The address balances would be debited/credited, like how create_order works.
- And the asset’s ownership would be updated, like how create_issuance works.
We have the experience of doing the two things separately. If people like the idea, I think we can create a new message type, like “offer”, and we can do it well.
I also think this potential CIP would pair nicely with my Three Letter Asset Names proposal. Please read that too. And don’t forget CIP 3! I think together they represent a very robust improvement, but even individually they each add a lot to Counterparty’s value proposition and potential for network effects.