There’s a couple of topics that need discussion, the first being; Should we even want to do this?
Please keep this topic about this general question, I’m creating topics for each subject, so try and keep details about the other subjects in those topics!
This seems an odd question that a more appropriate one would be why would we not want to see EVM on CP?.. I can’t think of a good reason not to have it, unclear whether the OP does but perhaps these simple questions are just being put on the record rather than being assumed.
So, the answer to this should be from anyone with interest in CounterParty, a resounding yes!.. the more services and capability CounterParty offers the better.
The only risk would be if there was a liability to maintain it in a way that’s beyond the resources available but if the appetite is there and CounterParty can, then that potential surely would draw more devs in to support it.
We don’t want to tie CounterParty to Ethereum’s fate but if we can offer them an alternate to having their own chain, or even worst case, learn from the experience, then it’ll be worthwhile. Since putting EVM to CP is possible it should be done - it’s one of the more obvious bonuses that has people look again at what CounterParty can do.
I think the concern of having enough development resources to support it is a valid one.
Robby has put a bounty out for me to carry the supporting of the EVM in the first months after release.
After that it defaults back to the whole dev team / community being responsible for it, it definitely wouldn’t hurt to introduce more devs into contributing to Counterparty and knowing how things work, including the EVM.
I’d personally wouldn’t mind being on speed dial (Slack / Skype) for any developer who wants to get into contributing to CP to get them started.
During the past months I’ve also tried to make the test suite a lot more dev-friendly, though it’s still not super easy to get started.
