Let's burn some BCH!


#21

This is the most important argument IMO. XCP holders burned their BCH already when they burned BTC to create XCP. That BCH was never received as a result. They have to be credited for this when the project moves forward onto the BCH chain.


#22

Please do not abandon me !!!


#23

This - the original XCP burners burned their BCH along with the BTC.

BCH is Bitcoin.


#24

then only the original XCP burners should get XCPC. What claim do people who just bought XCP today have to XCPC? At the very least, folks should have to burn their current XCP holdings.


#25

I’m just hearing about this project today and didn’t follow the Bitcoin Cash fork very closely. With that said, if Cash operates on a forked blockchain, it doesn’t seem like it’d be possible to know anything other than who owned XCP before the fork. There shouldn’t be any XCP transactions on the Cash blockchain since then, correct?


#26

Why not? You abandoned me.


#27

I understand and respect the argument that we should just snapshot the chain.

For the record, here are my counterarguments:

  • When you give people something for free, they don’t value it. When people pay for something they value it. By burning BCH, XCPC becomes valuable in both reality and perception.

  • The XCP chain is polluted with squatted asset names. We need a fresh start on the BCH chain. Counterparty.cash will be about real projects with real active users.

  • I’m sad to say this but there really aren’t many active projects on XCP right now. We really aren’t losing much by starting fresh. The few active projects that want to migrate to BCH can migrate their users.

  • Counterparty.cash is in no way an “official” fork of the original Counterparty project. Counterparty.cash is using the code under the terms of the open source license. Counterparty.cash intends to share code as it benefits both projects. But there is no contract, social or otherwise, that says this project owes XCP holders anything.

There are reasons to do it both ways. Above all else, I want this project thrive. I think it has the best chance of being successful by starting with a clean slate.


#28

You know yourself counterparty community will give value for free coins. It is only community probably who can do it.

We have burn already BTC and we have sametime burn position for BCH. New burn is wrong.

Only new users who havent hodl 4 years part of their stack want burn because they feel it is right for them. We who have bring counterparty with each own work, donations etc forward know we have lose money and time and also BCH already.

1:1 is only fair way to go.


#29

The obvious question is, have you considered that you may be wrong about this?

When you give people something for free, they don’t value it. When people pay for something they value it. By burning BCH, XCPC becomes valuable in both reality and perception.

Try this instead:

When you make people pay for something they have already paid for, they will become resentful. Burning BCH, XCPC becomes valuable only in the reality and perception of those who are not annoyed by a centralized approach.

Who are you working for? What is their agenda?


#30
  1. How to calculate “value”?
  2. BCH is not free?(BTC holder)
  3. Without XCP user support, there may not be today’s XCP source.
  4. If this is a fair idea, why not conduct the public vote?
  5. Why do we hold XCP for 4 years, but now they are synonymous with “speculation” and “get nothing” and “do not care”?
  6. It does not matter, you can do what you think, but it will only give up all XCP users to XCPC.

#31

Because dew and some other devs sold their coins while back and doesnt buy back?


#32

why don’t we do a vote?


#33

“When you give people something for free, they don’t value it. When people pay for something they value it. By burning BCH, XCPC becomes valuable in both reality and perception.”

WRONG. Those of us who burned BTC to get XCP also gave up our right to receive BCH in that fork. If I would have seen your proposal then I would not have given up BTC and all future benefits of BTC (BCH, other forks) if I had known you would make me buy BCH with additional BTC in order to burn that for XCPC. So I have not only burned BTC, I lost out on free BCH, and now have to purchase more BCH to burn for XCPC. A 1x1 air drop to XCP holders is the only fair way to compensate them for originally burning the their BTC and ultimately giving up their right to the BCH they would otherwise have received. You are proposing we pay twice for XCPC! This is not fair. Do not make a unilateral decision when it is clear that the community wants a 1x1 air drop.


#34

Glad to see you here. I agree with a burn. You want only the people who are interested in this project. XCP has become too toxic to even visit. Those people should remain there. Now with the price of BCH so much more than BTC was in 2014 we should get a wider distribution.


#35

Okay, so, just to be clear:

  • Since Counterparty.Cash is only using code under the terms of the open source license, which anyone can use … you would have no issues at all if someone else came along, took the same open source code, and built a competing project to your Counterparty.Cash on the BCH chain?

  • And you would also have no issues if they also decided to exploit the Counterparty name for their project, since anyone can do that, and you believe anyone doing that would still owe nothing to any of the original holders of Counterparty? (So it’s fine if they decided to call their coin, say, “Counterparty.Cashbank” or “Counterparty.CashCompete”?)

  • On that same note, if nothing is owed to the backers and supporters of Counterparty, why are you even using the Counterparty name in Counterparty.Cash? If you truly believe nothing is owed to anyone - then why don’t you do that and call it something else entirely?

The answers to all of these questions are clear, and they are all connected. You don’t want someone else using Counterparty’s code to compete with Counterparty.Cash. You don’t want someone else using Counterparty’s name to compete with Counterparty.Cash. You yourself want to use Counterparty’s name in Counterparty.Cash.

Why?

Because you recognize the Counterparty name has intellectual property associated with it, and the Counterparty code is solid and you want to re-use it. How did both of those things get to where they are today?
The Counterparty community built up Counterparty. They invested their money and their time to make it a recognizable brand. They invested their money and their time to help you turn the code into something special.

Now you want to exploit that for yourself. You want to take something that was built up and created and supported by many people, take the most valuable elements for yourself and your new project, and then tell all those people you owe them nothing at all.

This logic doesn’t hold. The whole community is going to look at it as a slap in the face. I believe you only have good intentions, I really do, but it will be very hard for what you are proposing not to seem like you’re being self serving, taking the best parts of what the community helped build, and saying you owe them nothing in return.

It would make it very hard for anyone here to back you or support you in any future projects.

The argument you are putting forward robs the community of all credit for their current participation, and gives you a great asset and a great name without any recognition of everything it took to build this to date.


#36

I don’t know either you or OP but that is a lot of assumptions you’re throwing out.

I think a lot of early XCP devs are frustrated that BTC became unusable.
I think a lot of this anger is misplaced at the OP.

I read a lot of valid complaints. Yea it sucks to have burned some btc and the network turned to shit because of some 7~ people who decided that BTC was going to be something else entirely than what we all signed up for. But this affected everyone, not just XCP holders. We even had to minority fork to preserve bitcoin.

Knowing this, if you know there is a future on XCPC (BCH’s roadmap includes to always have room so txs are cheap), then I think a burn is a small price to pay for that promise.

If there is no airdrop, what do people plan to do with their XCP anyways? It’s not like a BCH burn means BTC’s fees will suddenly be cheap again.


#37

I have no issues with this. That is the beauty of the open source model. Let’s try a bunch of different things and may the best solution flourish.

Counterparty is the name of a protocol. Counterparty.cash is a specific implementation of the Counterparty protocol on Bitcoin Cash.


#38

If counterparty is the name of the protocol then why don’t you just rename your project something else like DeWeller’s cash and on the project’s site specify it is using the counterparty protocol.

A lot of software companies do this when developing new projects on top of other software. You and i know this The only reason you are not because you want brand recognition. At least be honest about that.

If you believe so much in your project and want to go against everyone’s wishes then don’t use the counterparty name. But do specify in your site that your new project is using the counterparty name.

That would be fair if you want to go ahead and do a burn.


#39

Hello! I didn’t hear about the XCP burn when it happened, and I don’t feel comfortable with or encouraged by the current state of the XCP community and chain, but I’m very interested in burning some of my BCH for XCPC! I felt like people like me are being referred to in third person in this conversation so I thought I should say hi and speak for myself. I’m an actual new user who will participate either way but of course I’ll feel more invested if I participate in a burn (my first burn for any reason, I’m excited!), AMA.