CIP13 (CIP3 alternative): Divisibility set by defining the asset, not by reserving the name

Counterparty is about to make a change that I believe goes against the principles of Bitcoin, CIP3.

For Counterparty to reach its maximum potential, it needs to win over the approval of most Bitcoiners. Many of these Bitcoiners believe that the blockspace should only be used for financial transactions. So, in order to gain their support, every detail matters.

CIP3 has always been framed as a “benign” change that won’t affect anyone. But this is only because it was rationalized from the perspective of an asset holder user. But CIP3 does AFFECT EVERYONE, as it breaks fundamental assumptions of the core protocol and complicates it for all its future development.

The root cause for the need of something like CIP3 was that assets were issued just to reserve the name. But CIP3 pretends to ignore an asset’s history, which is contradictory to what a blockchain asset stands for.

CIP13 proposes an alternative implementation that directly solves the root cause, being able to issue assets just to reserve the name, while keeping the Counterparty core simple, efficient, and aligned with Bitcoin.

First, would like to say I’m happy you share our enthusiasm for Counterparty! Welcome to the community :grinning:

Specifically for CIP3 I disagree with you on the fundamentals, but in general I do agree that we should leave more time for discussions and code review.

After all, any code change to the core protocol comes with risk. A bug can bring the entire token ecosystem to a halt.

Thankfully, we are now in good position with J-Dog and Javier doing an excellent job, and a growing community of volunteers. What I feel missing is more of a standardized process for updates where the public is given a clear timeframe for leaving feedback on CIPs and reviewing code.

1 Like