TxBrnVHs

1Counterparty Foundation Meeting Detailed Minutes	 December 15th, 2017
2
3Devon:	No, it wasn't
4
5J-dog:	Make Counterparty great again,
6
7Devon:	Right pretty much so, but he even, he was like, I don't even really care what I mean, he's a big Bitcoin cash guy, so he was kind of, you know, biased toward that, but he's like, I don't really even care, I just want' it to work and I think that's, I think that's kind of how a lot of us - a lot of us are feeling now so cool. So we're not waiting on anyone else right? I don't think anyone else said they can make it.
8
9Dante:	I thought there were more people that were supposed to be.
10
11J-dog:	I thought John said he was going to try to make it but [inaudible] vacation time.
12
13Devon:	Yeah right,
14
15J-dog:	Their mandatory vacation
16
17Dante:	Was reuben gonna join?
18
19Devon:	No, it's 12:30 am there so he said he probably wasn't going to make it. But I had a, I had a real good chat with him on slack early this morning and he's definitely not a Bitcoin Cash Supporter anyway, but he said, you know, he, he was able to put the politics aside and kind of talk through the technicals and he made a really, a really good point that was pretty convincing to me and he reminded me that Litecoin is, their whole mission is to be almost a hundred percent lockstep with bitcoin.
20
21Devon:	Just, ya know, the couple parameters they changed, but then other than that they adopt everything that Bitcoin core does. So in that sense, I think long term it's actually easier to maintain a fork on Litecoin than it would be on Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash I think is going to diverge more and more over time. So, uh, so I, you know, I, I kinda came around, um I think Litecoin makes a little more sense now after talking it through with Ruben and I don't think it really matters as much about the - I mean as long as Litecoin is liquid and I think Litecoin is always going to be liquid for the foreseeable future. I think it makes as much sense as any other chain.
22
23J-dog:	Yeah
24
25Dante:	So, when you say, when you're talking about Litecoin are you talking about, keeping everything the way it is on Bitcoin and then also having Counterparty on Litecoin?
26
27Devon:	Yeah. So that's the other question, right, is how do we want to do the fork? I feel like that's what everybody's in favor of. So there would be two completely different Counterparties. They would be, they would have a common root ancestor block just like Bitcoin cash forked Bitcoin.
28
29
30Dante:	So let me, let me ask you this. Um, I'm just using SCOTCOIN as a, as an example. It's the first thing that popped into my mind. So SCOTCOIN has a, I guess an active community and they have people using their token and all that. Um, what happens if this thing goes to Litecoin and what happens if someone... I guess it becomes like a free-for-all type of a land rush for people to register those assets or does SCOTCOIN automatically get the SCOTCOIN that is on Litecoin and they don't have to worry about it?
31
32Devon:	It's the latter, yeah everything would uh, it's a snapshot exactly the way things are when we fork.
33
34Dante:	So SCOTCOIN would have, and I'm just picking a number out of my hat, so let's say they have a million tokens and it's locked, as an example, um what would exist on Litecoin? Would it also be an additional million tokens and they're locked and that now they have 2,000,000 tokens, you know, 1,000,000 on Litecoin and 1,000,000 on Bitcoin?
35
36Devon:	Yep, that's exactly right. So as a community they would either say, now we're going to say the Litecoin SCOTCOIN as the official one and the Bitcoin one is legacy or they may not - they can just ignore the Litecoin version of SCOTCOIN.
37
38J-dog:	I think I just prefer a new - a new burn even though it would give us all an advantage on Litecoin just forking, it's [inaudible] I feel like it's not really the path we should take. I'm, I'm totally supportive of a fork of counterparty running on Litecoin because they both [inaudible] in lockstep it would be pretty easy to maintain but not really supportive of forking the whole ecosystem over to Litecoin... I think we should just say 'hey, we're running a new branch on Counterparty here on Litecoin and there's going to be a new burn period language where you can burn Litecoin for whatever currency is created and then people can just register just like before.
39
40Dante:	OK. So, but, but then that would not stop someone other than SCOTCOIN from getting SCOTCOIN before they got SCOTCOIN.
41
42J-dog:	Correct. Somebody could, it's going to be a first-come-first-served thing. Either way you're going to wind up with some confusion, either somebody's gonna register SCOTCOIN on Litecoin and then or rather fork it and we're gonna have two SCOTCOIN.
43
44Dante:	I was always under the impression that a lot of people were opposed to things that would create confusion uh even when there was talk about doing the three letter uh assets, a lot of concern was raised about what if somebody were to register ETH and you know, it would, it would create confusion or scamming even, uh where all of a sudden people are trading or dealing in a token that already has an ecosystem that would cause this. You would have people rushing...
45
46J-dog:	either way. I think, I mean and and it's no different than Dogeparty launching their fork and saying 'hey, there's burn period but nobody gets an advantage - first-come-first-serve on the names' and yes, there was Dogeparty names where people registered it and there people in Dogeparty and on Counterparty who have the same names but they were completely different ecosystems. I think that is more honest and less confusing than saying, 'hey, copying this database and running it, a copy of it on Litecoin'.
47
48Dante:	well, if the whole point of going over to Litecoin... and I'm not even sure of the point, I haven't really heard what the rationale is that necessitates doing it, but, you know, I'm just kind of skipping past that point. I'm assuming that the big reason for it is because it would make things um it would facilitate the trading of things in the whole Pepe community.
49
50J-dog:	Fees
51
52Dante:	The fees, right, but if people...
53
54Shawn:	And for cheaper gaming assets, yeah...
55
56Dante:	But there was supposed to be certain things that we were looking forward to, uh, that would mitigate the fees somewhat. I mean, such as uh... well, I mean, whether it's a... some kind of a... you know, whether it's Lightening network or ya know, whether it's Segwit, what have you. Now we don't have Segwit fully operational where the fees would be reduced right now?
57
58Devon:	No, no Segwit at all, and I'll just say, you know, we were kind of doing the estimate on the fees. back when bitcoin was $5,000, you know, and it's just, it's gone up so much that we can't even keep pace with it. I mean the fees are going up faster than we can come up with...
59
60J-dog:	All those improvements that you've talked about Dante, all those are happening. They're actively happening and they're going to happen on Counterparty no matter what. We're not talking about stopping development, like just talking about, hey, the fees are going to keep going up. We need to have some alternative for PEPE type people. What are we going to do? Let's create a new blockchain...
61
62Dante:	Yeah, no and I get it. That's kinda what I thought, but my big concern is is that if, if it's primarily a, PEPE concern in terms of you know they have like low volume cards or not low volume but low value cards that they want to trade frequently so they want to have lower fees and I understand from their standpoint, but if you had some very high value things which counterparty should also be able to accommodate, one of the real things that had been brought up in the past has been uh, even on bitcoin, has been potential chain weight where the additional chain weight becomes very heavy uh because possibly the assets that are on top of the chain uh a have a greater value than, you know, the all the, the total market cap of Bitcoin, and I don't know if I buy into that argument a hundred percent because we don't know what the security of Bitcoin is able to sustain.
63
64Dante:	You know, it might be able to sustain far more than itself, you know, so the chain weight thing really might not be a problem, but if you move it and you have heavy duty chain weight for let's say, uh, you know, financial services or whoever's like now coming to this industry uh and we put it on a less secure chain, you know, the chain weight thing becomes a much bigger problem for let's say much more valuable assets but maybe it's less of a problem for the PEPECASH but you know, I feel like, like what Devon was saying sounded like it mitigated the problem a lot more because there is no conflicting..., I mean for counterparty itself to be involved in creating a confusing state you know where someone else now has a conflicting asset and the only difference is that it's on a different chain, which most people are not even going to understand the difference that it makes. Um, you pretty much have taken all of the assets like SCOTCOIN for example, if some other party gets a hold of SCOTCOIN you've destroyed SCOTCOIN who was on Counterparty operating just fine. They'd been decimated at that point. So if some other actor like a, like, like a malicious actor wanted to go out and do this and decimate SCOTCOIN or whoever is operating on the Bitcoin blockchain, that's a big enough problem as it is...
65
66J-dog:	The alternative could happen too where I think it's more likely that if we fork the ecosystem to, hey, we're going to keep running Counterparty on Bitcoin, but from this point, at this point in time, we're taking a snapshot and Counterparty and now everything that was was running on counter party is also running on Counterparty-Lite. I think we're gonna see a ton of people dumping their XCP because now all of a sudden, hey, why do I need to hold my asset on Counterparty or hold XCP or do anything on Counterparty when I now have this Litecoin ecosystem so I think I, I've my preference, even though it gives me a huge advantage of forking is to start from scratch and have less confusing starting with an entirely brand new ecosystem with a fresh burn than forking everything and having the two ecosystems entirely separate start from beginning with being overlapping and entangled I think it's way more confusing.
67
68Shawn:	Yeah, I kind of agree. I mean, at first I'm like, yeah, it makes sense, take a snapshot and move it over. There's a each, you know, each program has a chance or each project has a chance to decide but yeah, I think, I think like what J-dog is saying, let's do a new burn and give everyone the same opportunity too, to have access to it. There'll be a lot more support for it if we open it up and...
69
70Dante:	Well you're...
71
72J-dog:	Especially if we make all the projects aware of beforehand. Hey, there's gonna be a burn period and if you want to secure your name, you better do it on this date [inaudible] open registration.
73
74Dante:	But then yeah, but the problem is this, now it becomes a race for, for example, in the domain space, you have something called uh, you know, where domains drop, right? And they expire on a particular day, time second and that domain drops and quote-unquote anybody, you know, can go ahead and now register that particular domain. And you could say everybody has an equal chance, but that's really not the case because you have various drop services that might have 62 different servers all running, pinging, you know, trying to, uh, in an automated fashion go ahead and do whatever they can to get that domain before any human can go ahead and do it. So it...
75
76Shawn:	That's a... domains a good example to, to bring up because the lower quality domains the dotCC's and the other dotTV's that aren't as valuable and I'm sure Google probably has jurisdiction over the other ones in court and whatnot, but it's, you know, it's a lesser...
77
78Dante:	Google has nothing to do. Google's got nothing to do with the example I just made. I'm talking about if a domain drops, it's expired and then it, it becomes available for re...
79
80Shawn:	I [inaudible] people like J-dog can write a script and get all the good names and sell them to SCOTCOIN for 10 bucks or 80 bucks or wherever he wants to do. I think that's fair
81
82J-dog:	or somebody can hold the [inaudible]...
83
84Shawn:	it's still fair
85
86J-dog:	it's... nobody should get an unfair advantage starting [inaudible] you're gonna start this system in controversy. In my mind the difference between starting an alt-coin or forking Bitcoin...
87
88Dante:	I don't think...
89
90J-dog:	Much less controversial...
91
92Shawn:	Maybe it'll get SCOT you know, like SCOT and not SCOTCOIN, it'll be even more valuable ya know?
93
94J-dog:	I think they'll all actually be happy and move probably because they're kinda bitching about fees
95
96Dante:	Well I'm only using them as an example. And I'm not talking about fees, I'm just saying that whoever has assets right now, what you're really saying is that this is the equivalent of, this is the equivalent of somebody having a hundred dotCOM names. OK? And not an opportunity to go ahead and get those same hundred names, but with the dotNET extension...
97
98Shawn:	Does Google have that opportunity now?
99
100Dante:	Google's got... Google doesn't even fit into this universe so I, I don't, I don't know how...
101
102Shawn:	Ok, sorry dante, let me ask you a domain question. Let me open up a new domain [inaudible] ... three letters, dotTV, dotNET, do people named squat. Google.TV or Apple.TV, or does Apple automatically get those?
103
104Dante:	Well, there's different rules in that space so if somebody were to go ahead and do that then it would go into kind of the equivalent of a court because they're... well, it would go, it would go into... because there are laws against it. Alright so we're, we're dealing in it. We can't make the exact comparison. I'm just talking about automation, which is, let's call it unfair automation compared to those other people who have a legitimate claim on the exact same asset name with the exact... I mean for Counterparty the entity or the project or the Foundation or whatever. For them to participate in doing something that unfairly disadvantages those folks who already have assets on Counterparty uh, it, I, I just don't even think it's within the... it's not even ethical in my opinion. You know?
105
106Devon:	Let me sugg... can I suggest a hybrid approach? So what if we start with a blank slate, but we have a register my old domain on the new [inaudible] period where people can broadcast a message on the bitcoin chain and say register their intent to also have a [inaudible] register with the uh, issuance rights on the new chain and they won't have any don't have any values or anything but they'll automatically get issuance on the new chain
107
108Dante:	That, that would, that would do a lot to mitigate some of what we're talking about because the
109
110J-dog:	Similar, we just do the registration of domains separate from the burn. Um instead of opening and all at once we launching a platform, have a burn. Everybody, nobody has any XCP or whatever it is. And then have a 30 day period. Where before we opened up normal registrations were people like me can just honk and do registrations. You give 30 days for [inaudible] who want to do the transferring or the whatever reservation, give them a fair opportunity to get it and not just like a 10 day windows or something. A full 30 days. And then after that, open...
111
112Dante:	Well, if we're, ok, So if I'm not sure if I'm understanding you completely but what Devon was saying in the beginning was talking about something that was an automatic snapshot of what's on the original chain, uh, you know, in other words, those would be the same owners and they're not needing to go purchase Litecoin. They're not needing to go then purchase... you know, some version of XCP for the Litecoin,
113
114J-dog:	And to secure their domain... to secure their name on a new thing then I think it wouldn't be worth, you know, a dollar or $5 or whatever to transfer.
115
116Dante:	Well, I don't know. I mean, you know, that's one opinion. You can say it's worth it. On the other hand, it's also like putting a gun to somebody's head and saying it's worth it to you to give me your wallet because if you don't give me a wallet, I'm going to put around right through your brain so you can say it's worth it to you. OK? I mean, and that might be a valid argument. You know, the, the robber could say "it's really worth it to you to give me your, uh you know, your hardware wallet and uh, you know, let me own all of your bitcoin. It's worth it to you. It's a good deal. You get to live.
117
118J-dog:	[inaudible]
119
120Dante:	Well, I agree. I agree. But what I'm saying is those are all different opinions. I mean they're OK. Uh, I guess, uh, however it gets decided, you know, within the community as to whether those people would have a reserved spot on this other... because the thing that Devon mentioned in the beginning really makes the most sense. Now for example...
121
122J-dog:	you, you're just one opinion Dante
123
124Dante:	I am not, I don't think I am just one opinion. I don't think I am...
125
126J-dog:	What I've heard so far from the five or six people that have been asked including 
127Shawn, um John and the other... um Sullivan, was that they don't want to move off of bitcoin. That Lite-coin makes sense and that they want just a flat burn. I haven't heard anybody except you and and Devon
128
129Dante:	and Devon
130
131J-dog:	specifically say let's, let's fork this
132
133Dante:	Right, and, and so what the thing is the, if you want to talk about let's say, a social contract or the community contract or whatever. It was never anticipated or expected that the Foundation using Foundation money and Foundation resources would go ahead and undermine the...
134
135J-dog:	Now who's undermining anything? Nobody's talking...
136
137Dante:	Hello, wait a minute. I don't know why. I don't know why you decided to interrupt what I was just saying...
138
139J-dog:	Ok, I'm out of here
140
141Dante:	You can. You can go ahead and. This is very, very typical and what I was trying to say is I don't think it's appropriate for the Foundation to use their resources to undermine the assets that are already owned. The people who participated in the original burn and they they did not have an expectation that the Foundation was going to take its resources and then go ahead and do something that could potentially undermine the assets that they own. Uh now there's an argument to be made that the Bitcoin blockchain is a superior blockchain with more security, but there are a lot of people who are not going to make that distinction. To them. Getting a SCOTCOIN is getting a SCOTCOIN. They're, they're, they're not gonna know the difference, especially if someone else happens to end up owning SCOTCOIN.
142
143Shawn:	I think if they do a new burn that um you could um... Joe Looney had a really good idea, was have burn addresses one and you get a hundred percent XCL or whatever the token is. The other other one, you're, you're going to get 95 percent and the other five percent would go to a developer fund. So it might actually come back to the oundation. We actually might have a huge developer fund and actually, you know, help the project in general that never had funds
144
145Dante:	Well, let me also address that. I mean because I've gone through that discussion with people before and I've been on various sides, you know, playing devil's advocate, you know, with that particular position, just trying it on for size. And I think first of all, if there is no conflict, uh, like let's say a legal conflict or any kind of a compromising position by now you're accepting funds or what have you in that kind of way, then I don't see the reason why any percent of a burn would go to, to a burn another words. If five percent is good to go to a developer fee, why not have it be a hundred percent or 95 percent?
146
147Devon:	It's voluntary
148
149Shawn:	It's voluntary you don't have to
150
151Dante:	No, no, I'm saying in theory, but there have been people who have brought up a good arguments and concerns about the unintended consequences of, of doing that. Um, you know, maybe it's slightly different venue than doing an ICO because it's, you know, it's kind of uh, it's under the guise of some other function or purpose or intention. That's uh, you know, I mean those are all worthy things. Well, I mean there's, uh, I don't, I mean I don't have any compunction, problem with having all of those different discussions, but I think that that's kind of a different topic from whether people's assets that they own are going to be potentially undermined or that they...
152
153Shawn:	Devon, you know I think its's a great hybrid plan that we allow a month or two so you know, where you can actually say I'm going to buy it. Here's the money or where I want to secure it somehow or broadcast a message, I don't know um, I would think you'd have to have some skin in the game to get the asset on the new chain if you don't kind of rebuy it somehow or at least dedicate money to it. I don't see why you would get the, you know, like you'd have to have... Just being here already, it doesn't make sense to me logically that you'd get.
154
155Dante:	It's not just a question of being here. Right? A lot of people have been there like I was here from the beginning, but I, there's a lot of assets that I don't own and I could say, hey, you know, I really should have gotten that asset because I was here and now is my chance to get it and you know, the, those don't belong to me. Someone else has them. And just...
156
157Shawn:	Let's carry that logically out where you say, well I do have these 10 really great assets. I spent back when it was five or 10 bucks in each asset name. Counterparty Lite forms and you start, you get those five names and that's it?
158
159Dante:	Well, I'm, and I'm not proffering that, I'm just saying for example, that should be looked at and considered. And what if I, for example, what if I ended up, um, you know, if somehow it was made where the gates are open and it's provably fair and nobody gets to run a script and you know, there's like a magic method right, for that to happen? And what if I end up with Pepecash and I end up with Rarepepe and I end up with Hair-Pepe, I end up with the Kekpepe and all this, and the people who are, have the skin in the game for that whole thing for whom you're thinking about making these changes to kind of accommodate their dilemma... What if they ended up with only about 25% of the assets that they currently own that they're caring about doing on the other chain? How would that work? I mean just tell me...
160
161Shawn:	You'd have to create a system that you have to have skin in the game on the next chain. And maybe it would be you have to, uh say you're going to burn. I'm gonna burn one Litecoin for or whatever the 10th of a Litecoin or wherever it is for each asset name, and you're going to get the [inaudible] token as well on the other chain as well as the asset name, I don't know. I don't know how...
162
163Dante:	And and, and my point. And then the other point I'm making is if, if those things are simply being burned, if the whole purpose of this thing that's occurring is really to accommodate a certain class of users... this is similar in a way, Shawn, I want you to think about this example that I'm going to give you, OK, when they had the DAO contract and that thing blew up for whatever reason, it was in those people's best interest that the platform take an action to accommodate them and make things better for them right? And they did. The people that were not in the DAO, there was no reason on earth that, that, that needed to occur if you had never invested in the DAO. So what, what I'm saying is that there are a lot of asset holders that are here right now that are using the BTC chain and they're perfectly happy waiting for the, uh, you know, the Fintech people and the investors, and the banks and whoever to come along and say, wow, we got the secure chain and we have this feature, this layer two thing, this is awesome. Oh, but wait a minute now, but we don't want to do that because there's this other thing it's confusing it's Litecoin, it's this, it's like this is all screwed up, you know? and then they shy away from the entire purpose that people were involved in uh, counter...
164
165Shawn:	[inaudible] the domain example, the dotCOM's are the Counterparty assets and the dotNET's and dotORG's are the Litecoin counterparty.
166
167Dante:	But the difference is in dotCOM's, you have something called. I'll give you example. You have a dollars.COM and that's sold for big money and then you have dollars.net, which is only worth a small fraction of what the other one sold for. But there is no confusing dollars.com with dollars.net, it's inherently different. It only shares the one name, it doesn't share the other name. You know in this case we're talking about PEPECASH on the Bitcoin blockchain bearing the exact same name called PEPECASH on the Litecoin blockchain.
168
169Devon:	I don't think it would be the exact same name. I think it would be analogous to dollars.COM and dollars.NET It would say PEPECASH and then there would be PEPECASH.XCL or whatever we call the Litecoin chain. Like say they would be visually differentiated in at least the reference wallet of Counterparty.
170
171Shawn:	That's a good point.
172
173Dante:	Ok so you're, so you're talking about not bearing the same names, like so, on bitcoin. It's PEPECASH. On the other chain it would be called PEPECASH.LTC or something?
174
175Devon:	Yep
176
177Dante:	Well, I mean, you know, that's the first time I've heard that being suggested so that's different information to, to process so...
178
179Devon:	I mean, I just came up with it right now just trying to solve the problem, it wasn't...
180
181Dante:	right
182
183Devon:	We're just brainstorming here.
184
185Dante:	No, I agree. I agree. And so am I, um, I'm going by the seat of my pants and uh, I, I think the, to me the least offensive and also the least damaging, right? Which maybe those are the two same meanings, but the least damaging to someone who, uh, has an asset on the BTC chain would be the first suggestion that you came up with where they automatically... now, I mean, I don't know how this is doable because it's a blockchain, but, uh, I think there was also a timeframe mentioned...
186
187Dante:	Uh, I don't know. I don't know that it's even, you know, that they should even have to then turn around and burn anything. I mean, I, I, it doesn't hurt. What I'm saying is it doesn't hurt. The stated goal is so that this whole PEPECASH, you know, 100,000,000 dollar market cap, uh, you know, ecosystem for them to have... Because those are the people that are concerned. Everyone else is pretty much, they're they're not moving stuff at the same volume. So it's really not a problem for anything other than the whole PEPE ecosystem to be real. I mean...
188
189Devon:	What do they want to do? Maybe you talked to anyone?
190
191Dante:	who is "they"
192
193Devon:	anyone from PEPECASH
194
195Shawn:	Litecoin, Joe's not a big Bcash...
196
197Dante:	Wait wait, I missed something. I'm sorry, what were you referring to?
198
199Devon:	I'm just, I'm just asking what the PEPECASH [inaudible]
200
201Shawn:	I'm in the core chat along with J-dog and [inaudible] Villar [inaudible] create [inaudible]
202
203Dante:	by the way, but
204
205Devon:	they're in favor of a fork, I guess that's really the question
206
207Shawn:	correct, like Jay dog and it's it's it would be the land grab with the pie in the face of current asset owners which J-dog has a bunch and I've got a couple hundred or whatever,
208
209Dante:	but he'll have a lot more. He'll have a lot more
210
211Shawn:	correct, he'll write a script and sell you SCOTCOIN for, [laughter] I don't know.
212
213Dante:	Yeah, he wants, yeah he has and this is very much to J-dog's advantage because he has...
214
215Shawn:	He's gotta take the risk and burn Litecoin to get it...
216
217Dante:	it doesn't matter, he can burn, he can...
218
219Shawn:	It's a risk
220
221Dante:	It's not that big of a risk. I mean because the, the overall dollar amount that it would require is not that much. He could run the scripts. He could have all of this inventory to turn around and sell back to the people who own the premium... Uh, I mean it's, it's a, it's a great strategy. I mean if, you know, if you had all of the tools and everything that he has all wind up ready... This is like a pre... This is like a pre-mine. This is very, very much like some of these other...
222
223Shawn:	You can, you could probably get someone to do this as well, I mean, if if you wanted to grab the assets, J-Dog doesn't have just complete privileged knowledge. A lot of other people can help
224
225Dante:	Well, uh, you know, uh, the. OK, so here's the other thing. So if we know that what we're doing is we're creating this like race where everybody gets their scripts, gentlemen start your engines, get ready to rip and tear and take advantage of the people who are driving normal cars and you have all these, you know, dragsters, you know, I mean, that's the kind of race that you're setting up. It's not exactly fair. In fact, you know, here we're talking about doing something that primarily benefits the PEPE community. So here we have an open source project. We have this, we have a, you know, our community, we have the Foundation, the PEPECASH community is inherently closed. No one, no one from the outside can go ahead and just join into the chats and see whatever their, what they want and what their strategies... It's only a select few people who are, you know, the insiders.
226
227Devon:	Let's move away from talking about PEPECASH, I mean I don't, I don't, they're not...
228Shawn:	I'm there, I'm there, J-dog's in there, I mean it's...
229
230Devon:	Yeah, this is this is getting off-track, let's, I, I... that's why it's probably the biggest user of Counterparty, which is why I asked about them so um...
231Dante:	Well, yeah...
232
233
234Shawn:	Maybe it gets screwed. All those asset names would be up for grabs again, it probably just make, I think the project I think from John Villar's standpoint, the game will work with just he'll just add a letter at the end of each asset name and so be it.
235
236Devon:	So be it there won't be that big of an issue.
237
238Dante:	Well, the reason, the reason though that I'm bringing it up Devon, the reason I mentioned PEPECASH is if it were not for the whole PEPECASH ecosystem, this would be really a non-issue because everybody would be waiting. They would all sit back and they would wait until everything fleshed out. We had lightning networks, we had everything in place, we had, you know, Segwit all working properly, you know, in other words, things would normalize and this really wouldn't be an issue. The reason it's...
239
240Shawn:	trust you have to trust Devon's opinion here that I'm not the programmer, but he's pretty... it's dire, I mean it looks dire. I don't know, what do you think Devon?
241
242Devon:	Yeah, no there's so I have those three ways that we could scale Counterparty and I pretty much hit a dead end on number one because the fees are just never going to be low enough again unless Bitcoin drops so the two remaining options are the Segwit Lightning Network kind of approach, which is what you're talking about Dante and going to another chain, um, Segwit lightning I think has enormous challenges may be too difficult to overcome um so it's a question of whether or not you believe Lightning payments is ever going to be a feasible solution for Counterparty. I tend to think that it's not unless you have a token that is extremely well distributed and highly used like PEPECASH.
243
244Dante:	Ok so I, I guess coming back to what you first brought out is this, if, if, if there was an alternative chain for those who cared, you know, so the, the PEPE community could go ahead and transact much easier, cheaper, less security, but they don't care, you know, it's fine and they're doing it. It would solve their problem, serves their purpose. It doesn't harm anyone at all. You know, who's interested in making that easier pathway for the PEPE, you know, ecosystem. It doesn't harm anyone to automatically do what you stated. Whoever has this asset on BTC automatically has the same asset on LTC and there's no land grab and there's no rush and there's no conflict. There's no confusion, there's no unintended consequences. And in a case like that, if somebody, back to SCOTCOIN, if they said, look, we're, we're just not interested in doing anything differently than we're doing now, that's fine. That coin can sit there. It could be belong to them, it could be absolutely deaded. It's been, um, you know, if you want to call it a defensive, you know, like they, they, they own it by default. It doesn't harm anyone. There's no loss to anyone, no one gains in, you know, burning anything on that chain. I mean, it, it just would be the most fair thing to do.
245
246Shawn:	That's the spirit of Counterparty, it's burning and [inaudible] it's clean and fair
247
248Dante:	It's not this, this that we're talking about...
249
250Shawn:	[inaudible] hurt your assets, doesn't hurt your investment. I haven't heard a good argument of how it hurts your names on Bitcoin Counterparty.
251
252Dante:	wait,
253
254Shawn:	[inaudible] names there business as usual if anything it's going to enrich the environment and
255
256Dante:	wait wait, what enriches what environment? I'm not. I'm not following you.
257
258Shawn:	What's gonna happen to your asset names right now. If you just left and didn't think about this for 5 years on Counterparty Bitcoin? Nothing, they're still gonna be there.
259
260Dante:	I'm not sure what you're saying. What would happen to them? I'm not, I'm not following you...
261
262Shawn:	Why are you worried if someone on the Litecoin chain buys one of your assets?
263
264Dante:	Oh, b... absolutely, I'll tell you why because, because to have Counterparty on Bitcoin and Counterparty on Litecoin, especially if back to using SCOTCOIN as an example, you now have a complete conflict between those two unique asset names, that are now running on two different chains and to have that conflict supported by this community, by the Foundation, by the resources of Counterparty, which has always existed the way it is now. I think that's a real conflict. I think it actually could damage. I think it could damage
265
266Shawn:	[inaudible] your one argument is not spending funds that we have generated here, which is a fair argument and I've given you an example of how you could do a donation burn and you're saying [inaudible] maybe we'd actually [inaudible] and then you're back to how you feel like you should get the asset name because you you I am... it was kind of a disconnect there.
267
268Dante:	Not really. I don't think there's a disconnect at all. I think...
269
270Shawn:	we can lay it out as plain as where we don't spend any money.
271
272Dante:	Well listen, there's, there's about 70,000 names that are registered on Counterparty that leaves about like 300 billion possible other names, so people can still register names. They'll still burn for any of the, but these particular names that were registered on the Bitcoin blockchain, if they are automatically going to the asset holders on the Bitcoin blockchain, I think you're going to have a lot less a conflict in general, and I'm even talking about a moral conflict
273
274Shawn:	is that fair to the new projects on the new chain on the other side?
275
276Dante:	Yeah, sure. They can get a new name. They can get a new name on the other side. This should not be 'because I could not get an asset that I wanted on the BTC chain. Now instead I will get the same asset that is owned on the BTC chain. I'm going to get that asset on the LTC chain.' That's bad. That is bad juju. That's really a bad thing.
277
278Shawn:	Like I said you could create a one week period where you actually, I don't know, lock up something that you're gonna burn into the new system. I just, I don't see how burning it once on the Counterparty Bitcoin side gives you the right to...
279
280Dante:	you know why? you know why Shawn? Because you really were not. You did not spend a lot of money and a lot of time for a long time in the early days of Counterparty, uh acquiring asset names. You're big on the PEPE space alright? and so you were there early in the PEPE space so I'm sure you're really protective of your...
281
282Shawn:	I'm here I'm here for the Counterparty Foundation and I don't want these funds wasted the [inaudible] and I you know I hold XCP. I have some assets and I want to do what's best for the community. I don't want to, I don't want to devalue the Counterparty brand
283
284Dante:	I think you would
285
286Shawn:	It could be be a way to keep like kind of like almost like a Bitcoin core and a Litecoin core, I mean, we have that opportunity here and if you do it the right way without devaluing the original one...
287
288Dante:	then I think the only way of doing it without blowing up entirely the credibility of, I think this could kill Counterparty completely because what you're basically saying is if...
289
290Devon:	I'm going to interrupt, just a second, I think not doing anything is going to kill Counterparty.
291
292Dante:	That's possible. That's possible. Uh, I'm, I'm in the discussion, but I'm more in favor of what you suggested in the beginning, Devon, uh, without all these other schemes and you do this for a week and you do that for a month and if this and if that... Just, it, it. It's really no harm no foul. If whatever assets are owned on the BTC chain automatically belong to the same people.
293
294Devon:	How do you feel about taking a complete snapshot to LiteParty?
295
296Shawn:	I wish there was a way to somehow blend the two like you, no, I don't, I don't see the big allure to owning asset names I know that there's a market for it. I know that a lot of domainers... I know there's money in it, but I, I think that you can acquire those names again, if you, if you need them.
297
298Devon:	Is there a downside to a snapshot of everything, like all the assets, all the tokens, and how you know, the quantities you have and everything. Is there a downside to that?
299
300Shawn:	Then there won't be a burn period then. It would just...
301
302Dante:	Right, what's wrong with that?
303
304Shawn:	Uhhhhhh [thinking], I don't think we're going to get the attraction of more people maybe? I mean, I don't... that's a good... There might be nothing wrong with that. Maybe hmmm...
305
306Devon:	J-dog was very much against it, but I didn't, I didn't really get to hear his reasoning before he left. I mean that's the easiest from a just from a straight up technical standpoint. That's why I suggested it first because the burn and the registration all that and that's all complicated. But I mean it essentially doubles the amount of XCP in the world. That would be a down side because now you have the XCP and then XCL or whatever we call it, twice as much, but I'm honestly there'll be a big run up probably on XCP before the split because people will perceive it as a, you know, one-to-one stock split kind of situation
307
308Shawn:	[inaudible] that's attractive too for holders so, you know, I don't know
309
310Devon:	then there'll be a big dump maybe afterwards. So, who knows?
311
312Shawn:	I think, I think it's gonna it's gonna come down to an old fashioned vote, unfortunately I think it's just gonna be uh you know, I don't know.
313
314Dante:	Well, let me tell you something, if it, if that is the way it's going to be measured in terms of a vote, then I think since the only thing that is really at stake is, uh, is impacting asset owners and individual assets. Then the only measurement of a vote should be per asset.
315
316Shawn:	No, I mean the Foundation, I'm talking about us as the five of us will vote...
317
318Dante:	Well there's only four people in the foundation so we, we'd have to get a new Foundation member to begin with, but, but I'm saying if you did a, if we did a community...
319
320Shawn:	[inaudible] a tie
321
322Dante:	If it's a tie then what?
323
324Shawn:	then well, if it's not a tie I don't think it matters if we have an extra person but...
325
326Dante:	Well, I mean if it's a tie then that's the whole point. I mean how do you break a tie? But if it's, if it's a community vote, which is the only thing that makes sense because I don't know that there's anyone on the Foundation that really owns any significant number of assets other than myself.
327
328Shawn:	yeah I own 100 or whatever. But J, I mean, but wouldn't J-dog...
329
330Dante:	J-dog J-dog is not, J-dog is not on the Foundation and...
331
332Shawn:	I thought you were saying you wanted to have asset votes?
333
334Dante:	if we, well, if we had asset owners vote, uh, he has a, uh, you know, he, he probably holds more assets than anyone else, so that gives him a lot more uh say. But I mean, it should not be an XCP holder vote. It should be an asset holder vote because that's who's going to be affected. So if somebody owns 100 assets, they would have 100 votes. If they own like J-dog, like eight to 10,000 assets, he's going to get more, you know, that's like a, you know, probably one seventh of all of the assets in the entire space. So, you know, he might get, he might get what he wants, he might get the land rush and then get to, you know, resell those things to the other. I mean, it, it, you know, it's great business if you can get it, you know. But, um, I just think that some of these things are so inherently unfair that I think people would just shy away from Counterparty. The PEPE people will stick around. But I think, I think it blows up the rest of the, uh...
335
336Shawn:	There's like ya know, a couple thousand cards so that would be one you know, someone could squat all those and try to sell them back... I don't...
337
338Dante:	Well, I would think that the people who have cards who, you know, own those assets, I would think that they would want to be assured that they would still own it on the other side. So it might be surprising to see that they say, hey look, I just want things to remain the same. Right? I'm not looking for like a horse race. I just want things to go easier for us. And that's fine. I, I think that would keep a little bit of cohesion within the community. Um, you know, you, you might because the whole idea of, of doing this thing, let's say on Litecoin blockchain, there's some contention there to begin with. If you remove some of the disadvantages that you're going to be handing people, then you might not get as much pushback in general. Um, you know, we need cohesion right now in the community. We don't need, you know, everything going to hell in a hand-basket
339
340Shawn:	I sorta think that moving or giving people the option to move to Litecoin is going to hurt Counterparty more because half the projects will just leave to the Litecoin chain [inaudible], you know, or if you just do a full new burn, people are investing in that that ecosystem. I think adds much people and it adds more [inaudible].
341
342Dante:	The idea...
343
344Shawn:	The two options are either a one-to-one like mirror image or a full clean slate with a burn right? That's the only...that's it. That's where we're at
345
346Dante:	I liked Devon's suggestion. If this is going to happen, that is the only uh method that I can see that is not contentious and does not do a number of people harm. I mean that's the only thing that makes any sense to me. And, and, and the thing about having people do another burn again so that they're not damaged, that's like, all of a sudden telling people that they now have to pay a tax, you know, just to continue to own your house because we just sold the deed to another person unless you pay this extra tax quickly, you get what I mean? It's just not intended
347
348Devon:	for what it's worth, Ruben also [inaudible] have a long discussion, but he, he picked that option out of the list that I had posted in the document too, just doing a snapshot on the new Liteparty chain. I, yeah, I do. I like the opportunity to the burn [inaudible], Shawn for the, you know, to raise. That's a real problem for Counterparty, right? Is funding long-term. We haven't solved that. But uh, yeah. I don't know that we can. I don't know if that's worth the contention. Yeah, you're also airdropping it to everybody, right? If you do a snapshot, like everybody now owns assets on Liteparty immediately.
349
350Dante:	Right. So, right. I look, I, I think if anything along the lines of this discussion, I think that would be the option that people would, would probably be OK with maybe not everybody, you know, maybe for different reasons. You might have some that wanted to do the, you know, the free for all and you might have...
351
352Shawn:	What gets people into long-term dedication to the project more having [inaudible] own a token from the initial burn or the asset names? It's like a the age-old question.
353
354Dante:	What, wait, wait. You mean owning XCP versus owning asset names?
355
356Shawn:	Yeah what will get people more dedicated to this project and [expanding] the project?
357
358Dante:	Well, I. OK, so I think to kind of answer that question. It's almost like that is a different strategy or different question after the fact. In other words, if you're trying to it OK, If someone is hemorrhaging and the bleeding from their artery and there's, it's like, Hey, you know, let's do this because it's going to stop them from dying and help their bleed from bleeding out. What we don't want to do at that point is start saying, and how can we go about this so we can give them a prettier nose and a nicer set of ears. You know what I mean? and plastic surgery, it's like, Whoa, whoa, whoa, where the person is on the operating table for this reason let, let's solve this, and all of those other things are definitely worthy of a discussion, but that might be for like the second, third, fourth office visit.
359
360Dante:	You see what I mean? I'm not negating what you're asking and you know whether those are valid things because they, those concerns existed before when, you know, when we were all talking about how do we attract, how do we this, how do we that? I mean that those are all valid questions, but I think they're separate questions. I think it's like step one, let's do this and this will solve these particular things for those people and not do any harm to the rest of this to the rest of the group. And then the other stuff can, can all come as a follow-up and it might even might even come naturally without even figuring it out. You know?
361
362Shawn:	Is there a way to um, do a burn and do that mirror? And then snapshot a fork? Would that work?
363
364Devon:	We could open a new burn period. There's a lot of social contracts implications we'd have to think through. But there's no technical reason, we couldn't open another burn period on the Counterparty chain
365
366Shawn:	Cause I mean you're being airdropped tokens, so you're getting a one for one. Um almost in the spirit of Litecoin you almost want the token the token to be burned just because that was the whole point of Litecoin to be kind of the silver to the Bitcoin's gold so that might make some people happy, especially getting a development fund, which is what I thought we'd be the big perk of doing it so...
367
368Devon:	Yeah, but my favorite funding model, if I could pick one, would be like the Linux foundation where companies need Linux so much that they will dedicate resources to it. And there is absolutely no one's paying anyone directly from the Linux Foundation to develop Linux. That's a pipe dream that we're probably a long ways away from. That's where I'd like to see it eventually.
369
370Shawn:	Sure.
371
372Dante:	It's a bunch of companies scratching their own itch. I remember speaking with various people from IBM, including especially the attorneys, uh, that were with IBM and it was kind of like, well, why are you guys putting so much resources? They had attorneys showing up for meetings and little conferences like, you guys charge a lot of money. Why did they send you here? But they obviously knew that this was going to benefit them in some kind of way. And, and you know that, that I think I agree with you Devon, that, that really would be the ideal for, you know, for fundraising.
373
374Devon:	OK, well I think we have two kind of options on the table now. Um one is to do a complete mirror image and the other one is to do some kind of a hybrid where everyone has zero balances and there would be a new burn but maybe some kind of a way to cross the registrations for the old chain and we'll just kind of, you know, get the opinion of the other two foundation members and see if we're mostly in agreement or all in agreement or not in agreement and then maybe that'll take take next steps.
375
376Dante:	Yeah, it's going to be interesting because, um, you know, well we're going to be on the horns of a dilemma. If we end up with two two, then we're at a stalemate and if we end up with three one, then it wasn't really the right [unintelligible].
377
378Shawn:	What's the model that helps us go to even more than two chains? I don't know if that's beneficial or not, but do you see that? I don't know, three years down the road Litecoin is too expensive now and they're not willing to [unintelligible] block size and what have you. [unintelligible] the third chain we go to and whatever we do now like kind of sets the precedence
379
380Shawn:	We have to think about it that way. And then tomorrow J-Dog says screw this, I'm doing a fresh Litecoin fork and then a Block-freight and Tokenly sponsor a Bcash fork and then now we're going to have like four Counterparties and just totally shoot ourselves in the foot. It's going to be. You can't stop anyone from doing anything you can always try to make it the least painful and hopefully beneficial for these projects
381
382Devon:	I like the split model I think works down the road too. I mean that's the good news is like Litecoin at now are saying we will hard fork to a larger block sizes if we need to. That's their official position.
383
384Shawn:	That's great.
385
386Devon:	And Tokenly, um, yeah, I mean I've kind of [inaudible] Tokenly is really more as much my decision anyone else there and I, I've kind of come around with the Lite the Litecoin thing, after talking to Reuben this morning, so it's just Block-freight that's that's hardcore on that Bitcoin cash thing and they're, they're a new company so they haven't even built their solutions yet, so maybe they'll come around too, who knows.
387
388Shawn:	Excellent. Well good. I'm glad we, I'm glad I got on here and uh, hopefully, uh, I don't know, I guess to put it out there and see what happens.
389
390Dante:	By the way, let me, let me just throw one other thing out that kind of addresses your questions. Shawn. Um, every single asset has its own set of rules, right? They decide how many tokens, whether they're locked, whether they're divisible, indivisible, whatever. Um, they are inherently centralized. Every single token holder, you know, makes all of the centralized rules for their particular circular economy. Um, so settlement on the blockchain is a wonderful thing when it's needed but there's also another thing that's been kind of disregarded, just like you would have a, you know, a lightening network, you know, from a certain perspective, it's not terribly different than keeping track of the, uh, you know, what's owned, what's owned, what's this, what's that? and you know, it's, it's, it's simply in a database for high frequency trading. And then when it's time to settle the batch, just like they do with a merchant account with credit cards, they go ahead and at the end of the day and they settle everything up.
391
392Dante:	So I'm not saying that that exists and what have you. But those types of things for certain games or certain functions like that are perfectly legitimate and they're not hard to do. Like databases had been around for a long, long time and there are a, one of the, a very used counterparty tokens by the name of TOPCOIN, they do exactly that. So they issue you TOPCOIN, you can spend your TOPCOIN and it gets, you know, it back and forth. And it's essentially sitting in your web profile with the company who manages TOPCOIN and anytime you want to take your TOPCOIN, you know, out of the database and have it in real life where you can settle it on the blockchain, you just say so and then it's done. So I, I'm just saying that to answer your question about what happens if this were to go and the same thing occurred on Litecoin or what's the next solution and where do we go? What happened, what have you, like the simple solutions are seemingly in large part being ignored while they are not bad solutions because you know, everyone's playing in those individual sandboxes. It's not likely that someone is going to, if they're involved in the ecosystem, they're not going to abscond with, you know, the days receipts worth of trades that were done, you know, in XYZcoin, you know. So it's just something to think about. Devon, do you see any validity in that? That, that whole mindset,
393
394Devon:	Totally I mean at Tokenly that's part of our model. There's solutions. That is the right solution for a lot of problems. But counterparty I think tries to be a little bit bigger than that. I think SCOTCOIN is a good example of that, like it wants to be a currency and when you have a currency you can't, you don't want to centralize all that on someone's database for obvious reasons.
395
396Dante:	Right, right. And then again, I mean centralization um can be a question and obvious reasons you don't want to centralize things because of the risk, but the risk also is a matter of how much time and how much volume you know, so you know, the everyone can agree, hey, we will only accept risk up to this number, this equivalent of dollar value, and as soon as that dollar value gets hit in that database, boom, it's time to settle and then you have your transaction fees. And especially if we're dealing with some of the things on the horizon like MCAT and uh MCMA, I think if we complete some of these things I think will be in a lot better shape than we are today. Right?
397
398Devon:	Yeah, but even that settlement transactions, even that's getting too expensive for the use cases, you know, even if you're only in settling once in awhile, it's still too expensive. That's the, that's what I'm seeing anyway.
399
400Dante:	Right, right. Yeah. I don't know the raw numbers, but I'm just trying. I'm just trying to do it in, concept anyway. Sometimes things are not getting settled on a frequent basis, so I mean I might have a whole ton of this TOPCOIN stuff and you know what, I never care about settling it. Only the only time I do is if I know somebody and they want to purchase some domains and they want to get all these discounts and I'll say, yeah, well let me give you some of my TOPCOIN here. Boom. And I'll just send it to them, you know? Um, but other than that, it's just like a, it's like looking at your sky miles balance, you know, it's in the database. ya know so...
401
402Devon:	Cool. All right, well this is, uh, this has been really productive for me. Thanks for meeting. I'm going to have to run here.
403
404Shawn:	Thanks for getting on.
405
406Dante:	OK guys. It was really good talking to you both.
407
408Devon:	Right see ya.
409
410Dante:	OK, bye. Bye.