5

It's definitely a common problem found in a lot of those platforms that make it easy to create your own colored coin/token. Asking users to acquire the native token, such as Bitcoin with Counterparty and NXT with the Nxt blockchain, is usually not a good way to start off your relationship with that customer. Some people may be fine with it, but it greatly ...


4

They basically let you do the same thing. The differences are that: Counterparty relies on the XCP currency whereas colored coins work directly on Bitcoin, so you don't have to get price exposure or volatility risk with a new currency when you use colored coins. Counterparty uses a monolithic protocol where breaking changes are introduced about every 2 ...


4

The main difference between these protocols is how they associate and store data about asset ownership. Colored coins at least as implemented by Coinprism, put data in the form of a transaction output that must be retained in later transactions involving the associated standard transaction outputs (spending money). If a colored coin is handled by a wallet ...


3

Colored coins just "mark" coins with a "color". This is done by using unused data space in the Bitcoin transactions. Counterparty on the other hand has: the same functionality as colored coins decentralized asset trading with automatic order matching assets that can pay distributions (dividends) assets can be customized (divisibility, callback, locked or ...


3

It is reasonable solution. The main problem is not in the size of blockcain itself. The problem is in growing the number of unspent outputs. OP_RETURN outputs do not increase size of Utxo database


3

The basic idea is that one party makes a payment in such a way that the funds go back to them unless the other party makes the other payment, in which case the other party gets those funds. The other party can then make the payment and claim the output of the first payment. Here's one possible more detailed sketch: A and B each generate a private key, ...


3

I think Ethereum is ideal for this. As you say, it's not ready for prime time yet. But I think it offers the most flexible toolkit for managing orders in a truly decentralized way. You can create and manage arbitrary database structures that are secured on the blockchain. I wrote a toy digital artwork market using Ethereum - http://robmyers.org/2014/07/24/...


2

This is possible. In default NRS client this can be done via [Asset Exchange] -> [My Assets] -> [Transfer].


2

Agreeing with all of the above, especially the point about seeing the native tokens in these systems as a form of fuel, rather than purely and simply a currency. Nxt has taken a couple of approaches to mitigate the issue of having to use native NXT tokens to pay tx fees (even if you're only trading/using Nxt-based Assets), and to make it as easy as possible ...


2

This is a tough one, and I think it's possible to find a solution to it, but it will depend on what your application is and the tradeoffs you're willing to accept. Today: Using Bitcoin, you could fund an account for your users, but it is far from ideal. I have done this before, I do not know of a service that offers it, and I don't recommend it. Pretty ...


2

Deleting, updating and delisting are not supported now.


2

I think you're not understanding what decentralized exactly means. Sure, a company with a large stake can control the price ( up to a certain degree), but this does not mean that they control (the protocol) Bitcoin itself. There's no central power which decides what transaction is good, or which one is bad, or who controls what. which would still be the ...


1

Say they do. First, in the process, they'd push the price of bitcoins way up. And this is while they're buying. So they'd be buying high -- not a very good strategy. Every bitcoin holder would be quite grateful to them. Now, they start taking over control of bitcoin. Let's just assume somehow they could do this. Well, if they make bitcoin more valuable, ...


1

In this situation you are the third party who verifies those deposits are legit. All banking transactions take place directly between the buyer and seller. Bitcoin goes into an on-chain 2of3 multi-signature address (in the case of bitsquare and cancoin) or a custodial wallet (in the case of localbitcoins). Once the bitcoin is in escrow the seller gives their ...


1

I noticed that even if I created an account for my customers, they have no way of sending that token back to me when they wish to redeem it as these platforms require their transaction fees be paid in their native currency. That's kind of true for Counterparty. The transaction fees are paid only in Bitcoin (which is a native currency of Counterparty), but ...


1

Unfortunately, fees are part of the protocol and cannot be avoided. However, there are some platforms that release users from this burden. For instance, as far as I know, the Colu platform (based on the Bitcoin blockchain) automatically covers all transaction fees (for free). Hope this helps


1

Use multisig wallets for funds. Use a SP (Service Provider) as a separate entity to handle your smart contracts. Use Bitcoin and the Blockchain to act.


1

I don't think so, because the use case of, "I need to pay (the equivalent of) five dollars to buy this comedian's work is more common than the use case of "I need to store this 128-bit string for an indefinite period of time." Prediction: By the end of 2016, transactions intended to hold metadata instead of actually sending coins will make up less than 10% ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible