BTC to XCP is like TCP/IP to HTTP

1)
HTTP was built on top of the TCP/IP protocol
Counterparty was built on top of bitcoin network/protocol

2)
http uses TCP/IP as the transport layer to transfer information
counterparty uses the bitcoin network as transport layer to transfer information.

Actually the value in counterparty are a kind of information. The value in any blockchain is a kind of information that include UXTOs, tx hash, digital signatures.

3)
HTTP does not necessarily need to be on TCP/IP. And theoretically, it can be built on top of UDP

Counterparty does not necessarily need to be on bitcoin network.
It can switch to whatever other blockchain, e.g Litecoin Dash Doge Bytecoin through proof of burn. That is, you burn your XCP, and you will receive proportional amt of xcp in the new network
Any financial assets on counterparty can be transferred to another blockchain as well

4)
TCP/IP's value is only in its functionality to transfer data, nothing else
TCP/IP consumes band width which is a major resource in the global communication network
HTTP's value depends on the amount of web appllications that will ever be built to faciliate real world businesses

Bitcoin's value can only represent the utility of a global cryptographic ledger, nothing else
XCP transactions consume bitcoin which represent the resource of a global secure ledger. Bitcoin's value is from hashing power, electricity, band width and etc
XCP's value depends on the amount of financial assets that will live on it and the amount of escrow that is needed for financial transaction on counterparty network and else

5)
http positively affect the usage/value of TCP/IP. More apps that make http calls, more usage of TCP/IP

counterparty positively affect the usage of bitcoin network and BTC value. More smart contracts on counterparty, more transactions on bitcoin network, more demand of bitcoin

6)
it is not feasible to build web apps directly on tcp/ip the transport layer, you have to build them on HTTP

it is not feasible to build smart contract, financial settlement directly on bitcoin network, you have to build in on counterparty
 
complex system are always in the hierarchical structure. In that sense, ethereum, rootstock both won't work

finally, bitcoin is the transport layer and counterparty is the application layer for a decentralized financial system

As yourself said there is a demand, doesnt that increase its value? Besides the noble unspeaked reasons we have for bitcoin?
[/quote]


Since every transaction in counterparty involves sending some assets from one address to another address using the bitcoin network, a tx fee is needed for the miner to add it to a block, success of counterparty will incur much more bitcoin transactions. And the users of the counterparty network will need to purchase bitcoin and put it to their addresses.

hello, guys, where i can see list of currencies accepted by counterwallet?

if xcp runs on top of btc, then wouldn't overload and pollute the btc blockchain if it became successful?  or is it like ftc, that only locks in one chksum of the sidechain every 10 minutes, reducing the effect on bitcoin?

with just transferring BTC in the BTC network, the tx fees become burdensome fast.  this is the problem that occurred when the price went up to $1200.  All of a sudden it became "cheaper" to use Visa/Mastercard.

imagine having to pay a large group of people with BTC, the costs would be very very high.

now imagine that all of those people have some meta-token using XCP.  the XCP system knows who they are and only requires 1 BTC transaction to do a pay all payment to the entire group

http://counterparty.io/docs/pay_distribution/

this saves a lot of tx fees and unnecessary BTC transactions.

so yes perhaps XCP does "pollute" in some case, but in other cases it allows for efficiencies that help BTC network squeeze more TX into 1 block that it otherwise could never achieve.

another use case, which has not been developed is the payment of recurring subscription services.

in this case a user address would send a "subscribe" type message to another address, or a smart contract, which would mark his address with a subscription token which presumably would be used to give access to some online service or content.  the contract would then deduct some amount of XCP (or SJCX or BCY ) at set block intervals specified in the contract.  The contract would also know to delete the seubscription token if the subscriber address ever defaulted on payment (did not have enough funds to make the scheduled payment).

in this case, it would allow the bitcoin network to support possibly millions of subscription transactions over long periods of time, without needing to do a btc transaction each month.  that allows BTC to scale to handle more transactional capacity without having to do large increases in blocksize which some people are again.

XCP needs to get into the mainstream media

the message: We are better than Ethereum

start from btcmedia to mainstream media

i thought the send to many has limitations as to how many address you can squeeze in (25?).

so if I have an XCP coin that say 500,000 people own some piece of, and i want to pay a dividend.  in XCP i can use the "pay all" code and just send one transaction to the network, not to all 500,000 addresses.

explain to me now how your method has the same economics as this method?  

my way using XCP has 1 tx, your way would result in 500,000 transactions...  am i missing something here?

thus, if what you say comes true "blocksize restriction will make fees only worse when price is rising"; then I am correct in saying that there is a significant advantage to using smart contract and the already built-in smart contracts (i.e., pay all) within counterparty.

furthermore, this does not exist yet, but once the EVM is running, it would I think be cheaper and possible to create transactions via smart contract that execute the distribution of some tokens based on external files in another block chain.

so therefor one could allocate value without needing to do tons of transactions. 

a very good example of this would be paying miners. 

right now miners get paid in all sorts of different coins, but the main one still being bitcoin.

this obviously has transaction costs associated with for the mining pool, which I assume get passed on to miners, or miners must wait some time until their payout is big enough - in which case they have counterparty risk.

if the miner were given an option to accept some sort of meta-token that represents something of value USDCoin, BTCProxyCoin, SJCX, XCP, whatever... at large scale payouts could happen with less bloat.  As the contract would reference some locator info meta data to another blockchain (say on SJCX) and the XCP software would interface with that blockchain to retrieve that information to calculate payments.

but i'm getting way ahead of the state of the art of this industry...

Well, Counterparty is more secure than Ethereum and that's a pretty simple message.

Or you could focus on fixing the darn locking bug, at this rate darkclam will get out of xcp without ever locking it.

If Ethereum is not 200 times better than XCP is time to do something.  


First is the crypto community.

We need to make a list of the btc media. The person to contact. Their mail and Twitter. Their btctalk thread.

Once we have that list, we send them all the same message.




This is called Guerrilla Marketing. We dont have their budget, but can also hit the fucking media


Remember:

repeat atleast 3 times the message an each interview

the more you repeat, the better

you may sound silly, but they'll get the message clearly.