To fork, or not to fork, this is the question


#1

I am starting this thread to squelch a burgeoning moan from some and to bring transparency for others.

There have been a few community members desiring that we move this entire project to another chain. This would involve a snapshot at a set block and everything, lock stock and barrel, gets implemented on a new chain, they have mainly suggested Litecoin as the destination. Litecoin has proven itself to stay lock step with Bitcoin Core and I imagine that this will continue down the road.

Bitcoin fees are high, and I believe they will remain high, this has dramatically changed the way Counterparty had been used up until now. Counterparty needs on chain scaling to work as it was initially intended. If we have learned anything of recent Bitcoin events, a Founder’s vision and where the project ventures can be contradicting, this does not mean it is a failure.

We do need lower fees in order for the DEx (Decentralized Exchange) to work well for something like the Rare Pepe craze. Only the dankest pepes can now be traded at this time, or perhaps only bulk deals of cheaper rares. But should this powerful protocol follow the needs of cheap, albeit fun and addicting, assets?

When this project started in 2014, Bitcoin was quite a different animal, Core has scaled honey badger well, unfortunately the price to ride along has risen to a point where only the most expensive assets are worth trading on-chain (DEx).

Most of us were drawn to Counterparty because it is Bitcoin! This feeds our maximalist appetite by expanding its use case, and a fork to Litecoin would end that attraction for many.

Personally I am against spending any Counterparty funds to fuel the mission to fork. Regardless of what we want, no one can stop someone from forking onto BCash or Litecoin, but to spend previously donated funds to fork when there is no consensus is not the right thing to do.

I ask the foundation members to vote on this thread in hopes of clearing the air of this topic.

Do you want to fork Counterparty, at a set block, and move the project onto Litecoin?

My vote is “No”.

I would add that I think a Litecoin based Counterparty project could flourish, but it should be a separate project with its own burn and asset registry.


#2

@chiguireitor @Dante @sull Please vote ^^


#3

I vote No and agree that a separate initiative to experiment with the Litecoin blockchain network would be good, as long as it is in the same spirit as the original Counterparty Bitcoin Core (Not ICO endeavors that are modeled to funnel fees to an entity).

I will consider donating funds/time in 2018.

I do not support any BCH related projects. This is a personal opinion that will apply to my decisions as a Foundation member.


#4

XCP is born from burning two thousands BTC,It’s shoudn’t go to litcoin or bcash。but , I think it can do a test to other chain


#5

litecoin is a joke,why not dogs,there is generally cheap transaction ;)?my opinion is ,the counterparty must remain in BITCOIN!


#6

My vote is no.

The need of a DEX on the strongest chain is obvious. Code forks and implementations on other chains are the best that can happen to Counterparty, just look at what happened to Bitcoin with the myriad of other coins and the value they gave to the original BTC.


#7

3 of the foundation members (the majority) have made their intentions on this matter clear, and it is now clear that the foundation :

1.) Is NOT planning on forking Counterparty away from the Bitcoin (BTC) Blockchain
2.) is NOT spending any donated funds on any development work towards a fork.

The intention of this thread was to have the foundation members vote publicly on this matter in a timely manner.

@dante You have been notified of this thread yesterday and have had plenty of time to respond if you wanted to make your views public. Please give your opinion in the next couple hours before this thread gets locked.


#8

Locking thread now as all foundation members have had ample time to vote. Thanks to all those foundation members who participated in this vote to clarify the foundations stance.


#9