Re:The Parity fallout: Which ICOs are affected?
by wyldfire on Friday November 10, 2017 @02:07PM
(#15672118)
While counterparty (XCP) isn't as rich as Ethererum, I wonder: is it adequate for what many of these ICOs are intended? It's unfortunate that it likely requires higher transaction fees but it seems much simpler to me (and trustless).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Parity fallout: Which ICOs are affected?
by willitpamp573 on Friday November 10, 2017 @04:18PM
(#15673133)
You're spot on. counterparty is a better platform for token offerings, and was the dominant platform until the term "ICO" emerged, and all token sales took to ERC-20.
Re:The Parity fallout: Which ICOs are affected?
by CryptoPunk on Friday November 10, 2017 @06:31PM
(#15673992)
The ERC-20 standard is now finalized as an official EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal), meaning any bugs in the leading implementation will almost certainly be considered a protocol bug and rolled back with a hard fork.
So I don't think there's any disadvantage in using Ethereum for token sales, and plenty of advantages like experimenting with new token sale smart contracts (different auction mechanisms to allow better price discovery), not to mention the larger suite of compatible applications (anything ERC-20 compliant like Etherdelta or 0x for decentralized exchange).
Also, Counterparty uses a port of the Ethereum Virtual Machine, so any innovative uses of it will have the same risks as using Ethereum.
Re:The Parity fallout: Which ICOs are affected?
by willitpamp573 on Wednesday November 15, 2017 @05:09PM
(#15708320)
Counterparty can run the EVM port, it doesn't run on the EVM port.
Re:The Parity fallout: Which ICOs are affected?
by CryptoPunk on Tuesday November 21, 2017 @03:36AM
(#15746591)
Yes I didn't intend to imply otherwise. That's why I specified "innovative uses", as opposed to all uses, of Counterparty as suffering the risks as Ethereum