It is all about trust and security. Some people are uncomfortable having to rely on an always-on internet connected devices to interact with the Counterparty Protocol.
Many people in the Bitcoin ecosystem have offline computers running their wallets. And when they need to make transactions they sign them on the offline computer and broadcast those transactions to the network via an online computer.
This would be amazing to have this same level of confidence with Counterparty.
BTW, I would imagine that many online Bitcoin service (e.g. exchange, payment processor) use an offline (air-gapped) computer as a part of their security procedures. If they wanted to add Counterparty to their services, having a quality useable desktop wallet may be the last thing they require to integrate Counterparty.
@Equality 7-2521 (whoa, that’s a captcha nick if I’ve ever seen one! I don’t know if you can get notified like this (or should I surround your nick with quotes?))
@something, yeah I’m not sure how to reference my username properly either!
When I say security I include privacy, but it is good that you made it explicit.
Surely counterpartyd could interface with a remote Bitcoin Blockchain API service like Blockchain.info or Chain.com instead of running a local copy? Couldn’t you also download just the recent embedded Counterparty data from “trusted” sources?
@“Equality 7-2521” I think online blockchain API services are interesting and I hope it’ll ultimately become one of the back-end configuration options.
I’m guessing this will also be modular, making it possible for people to easily build their own GUIs using this as a base.
I personally prefer paper wallets. They are very convenient to transfer funds to, and you can easily sweep back into Counterwallet.