|
With Namecoin hash rate declining, iXcoin has been in second place lately.
Bitcoin 225,321,593 Giga H/s
Ixcoin 96,185,205 Giga H/s
Devcoin 83,715,869 Giga H/s
Namecoin 65,745,566 Giga H/s
|
|
|
|
About the website: I hope ixcoin.org will simply mirror what ixcoin.co will be. The reason is simple: I made an effort to convince websites to update the address of the official website, while others did not do it. Having both it will give anyone the chance to be updated to the last developments.
The previous host for ixcoin.org wants $85 because of the bandwidth over-usage charge. I had no idea a $5/year hosting plan could generate $85 without blocking the account way before for over-usage. I'm not sure it is worth going back to this host if such things are possible. I'd like to find another cheap host to host the old ixcoin.org page. I'm fine with ixcoin.org mirroring ixcoin.co if everybody else is. ixcoin.co would need a bit of cleanup first though. Can we use the old logo? Found it. That is a bit mysterious if he's rich, and high bandwidth usage charges should be a good thing. It means people are interested in iXcoin. |
|
|
|
According to his statements above, Thomas quite possibly worked for Mtgox, but isn't Karpeles. Even so, he should be loaded with Bitcoin.
Then explain this: When he came back about 8 months ago and the .org site was totally gone he said he lost it cause he didn't have the ~$80 and that he would try to get the money to get it back. He said this while sitting on a huge premine and supposedly a Bitcoin early adopter. This is what I mean, nothing about Thomas Nasakioto adds up. Nothing. It's all some sort of game, a ruse and the only question is: What is the plan and who is Thomas Nasakioto.I took that to mean he needed to find the time to renew the domain, not that he didn't have the money. |
|
|
|
ok so is this coin gone? no point to invest here anymore.
Not true because now there's a much more involved support group. iXcoin has a great future. I heard that months ago and today I came back here and this coin is going down and down sombody was saying that this coin is Bitcoin twins the price will go higher like the Bitcoin one but nothing,what the price prediction per coin now? just your opinion I know that is not possible to predicte the price. All altcoins are in a price decline, not just iXcoin. Bitcoin has been dragging everything down, and all will likely go lower still. But this too shall pass. |
|
|
|
Do you mind revealing your alter-ego?
Yes And please don't compare me to Mark Karpeles. I might be flaky, but I haven't stolen anyone's money. Question: why is the website ixcoin.org not yet mirroring ixcoin.co?  Please Nasakioto, do it. Work hard as IXC was your own coin... Ah! But ... It is your coin...  I've been distracted lately with the Mtgox debacle. But I'm trying to get the website back up. I'd like to keep a separate domain for the .org with a placeholder page with prominent links to ixcoin.co . I'm getting nowhere with basicnetworks.net so I've just registered with someone else. Waiting for them to invoice me in bitcoin. According to his statements above, Thomas quite possibly worked for Mtgox, but isn't Karpeles. Even so, he should be loaded with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
ok so is this coin gone? no point to invest here anymore.
Not true because now there's a much more involved support group. iXcoin has a great future. |
|
|
|
My guess is Thomas is a big Bitcoin holder and since Bitcoin has risen in price so much since 2011 his get rich iXcoin scheme is no longer important to him. That would explain why he's only on the iXcoin forum once every few months. He has no reason to dump iXcoin because he doesn't need the money and wouldn't get much for it anyway. He keeps paying out bounties because he's following his original plan, just not so aggressively. That's my take on why he behaves as he does.
Ok, so he did a premine with the intent to scam but then got unexpectedly rich like 1 month later? 3 months later? 1 year later? No, that theory has a massive hole in it. Bitcoin didn't take off for quite some time after IXC was launched and at that time Thomas spent more BTC launching IXC than the entire value of the IXC premine. Not a very good way to make money off premines. And, right after the coin was launched he was buying IXC on the open market, something premine dumping scammers NEVER do, which means he was NEVER in need of the premine money. If he had gotten rich off Bitcoin after the launch it would have been more than 1 year later by which time he would have dumped the premine if that was his original intention and he would have never spent BTC to buy an overpriced IXC if he knew it was a premine pump and dump. So once again, the most plausible conclusion points to a premeditated - well thought-out [long term] plan.
But who at that time could have planned something so sophisticated and had that kind of vision [about cryptos and Bitcoin] so many years ahead of everyone else?I think the odds are GREAT that Thomas is a well known big name Bitcoin insider. But who could it be?I didn't say iXcoin was a pump and dump scam. I doubt that was his intent or he would have dumped all his coins by now. He probably just wanted to get in on the ground floor on a new coin. Remember this was a time when basically only Bitcoin existed. Namecoin started less than two weeks before iXcoin so the iXcoin planning was already well underway and expected to be only the second coin in existence. So there would be a good chance to get the jump on other coins and share the world with Bitcoin. It makes more sense that Thomas planned to support iXcoin long term, and he is. So I'm agreeing with you that it was a long term plan. I don't know if I'd say it was well thought out since the crypto world was and is too new and unpredictable to plan the future all that well. So if it was a long term plan it appears he set aside the premine for iXcoin updates, and bought more iXcoin for his own nest egg. Sounds like a legitimate and relatively fair plan to me. I think the complaints about the premine are unfounded as long as he continues to pay out bounties. In the mean time Bitcoin made him wealthy and he's obviously very busy so he just doesn't spend much time on iXcoin. |
|
|
|
That is true, I do have over 200,000 IXC on an HD somewhere but it is meaningless.
Nakasioto was the original pre-mine scammer and I promised him way back in mid 2011 that no matter when, where or why until he destroyed his 500,000 premine or turned it over to a neutral third party that IXC would never get past me. I keep my promises.
~BCX~
But seriously, aren't you shocked that a supposed scammer like Thomas still has the premine over 3 years later and is still actively paying out large bounties [as promised]? That shocked even me. I thought that premine was Loooooong gone. Why would someone like Thomas hold on to it all these years and still pay out bounties? It was worth quite a lot of money on these last couple of big spikes? And when did you ever see a dev buying coins for a lot of Bitcoins right after launch when he already had a huge premine to cash in? That's unheard of. Devs with premines dump coins - they don't buy more! Doesn't anyone else think about this stuff? I do and it masks me crazy - crazy enough to have bought up IXC like a madman. Why isn't anyone else shocked by this and why isn't anyone trying to figure out why?  Cause if he cared about iXCoin he would actually be here once in a while and he wouldn't have abandoned ixCoin for 2 straight years. So why then?? Why?? My guess is Thomas is a big Bitcoin holder and since Bitcoin has risen in price so much since 2011 his get rich iXcoin scheme is no longer important to him. That would explain why he's only on the iXcoin forum once every few months. He has no reason to dump iXcoin because he doesn't need the money and wouldn't get much for it anyway. He keeps paying out bounties because he's following his original plan, just not so aggressively. That's my take on why he behaves as he does. |
|
|
|
As of today we have no list of miners and what 'Tx fee' they will require in order to process your request to send money over the Ixcoin network, I've been using 0.001 in the client(s) a long time, and never have a delay in sending, more than likely, it could be set to zero and the miners are building your transactions in there for free. Don't expect that to continue very much past the last mined block...
As cinnamon_carter pointed out, some clients force a minimum, others do not. How do we want our new 0.9.2 client to act? I vote for a default min Tx of 0.001 ixc in the next release, as long as it's constructive, would appreciate others with an opinion on that subject.
So in order to compile a list of what the current Tx fee's are, the only thing we can do right now, is use the various exchange withdrawal fees as a proxy for that minimum. NOTE: Cex.io is mining (via ghash.io) as well as offering you trades to bitcoin on their site, the others are simply exchanges:
The withdrawal fees are:
Cex.io 0.001 ixc withdrawal fee
Cryptsy.com 0.000700 ixc withdrawal fee
Vircurex.com 10.0 ixc minimum, withdrawal fee 8.0 ixc (OUCH!)
Poloniex.com 0.01 ixc withdrawal fee
Swisscex.com 0.05 ixc with a 0.1 minimum
Sidenote: Wow - 24hr trading volume on cex.io just shot up to 29850 ixc in the last few hours...
ETA: Based on today's ixc price of ~0.00006, the Vircurex withdrawal fee is still only ~0.00048 btc, as Ixcoin price rises, that number will have to come down, IMO we can look at that 8.0 ixc withdrawal fee as a high water mark for what miners can expect to earn for a transaction fee from participants, otherwise it would be cheaper to just use bitcoin for the transfer. Remember though: a miner is collecting as many transaction as possible to make a block, so added together, those fees could really add up to some serious Cheddar over time. The balance between price discovery and transaction fee costs is the experiment we're about to begin.
Are you sure you don't mean .0001, not .001, for your transaction fee? If you look at the block explorer the most common iXcoin transaction fees are .0001 and .0005 ( http://darkgamex.ch:2751/chain/IXCoin ). I never quite understood how the minimum transaction fee works. Sometimes I can select zero transaction fee for Bitcoin, but I still have to pay .0001. Other times I pay nothing, but it may take up to 10-12 hours to send. I've never had a transaction held up for more than 12 hours if I select zero transaction fee. We need to be careful not to set the overall minimum too high. The miners can set what they want for the blocks they mine. Also, withdrawal fee and transaction fee are very different animals. I wouldn't use exchange withdrawal fees to decide what the transaction fee should be. |
|
|
|
This is for coin holders still running Thomas's final client release back in '11...aka: ixcoin-0.3.24.3-win32
Today I got a clean download of the blockchain using that client, and transferred a small amount of coin into it, so it had one transaction. Backed everything up and proceeded to attempt various upgrades to it. To my dismay, both ahmed_bodi 9.2 & cinnamon_carter's 8 builds crashed after a short while, never in the same place & I've been looking at logs and tested it a couple of different ways, then decided it wasn't really that important, because when I tried FrictionlessCoin's executable, it worked flawlessly the first time and reindexed all the blocks from disk, right up until today with no problem. You are left with nearly a 1GB of 'junk' files from the 'old days', but it worked. Then I applied ahmed_bodi 9.2 executable to those files and it instantly popped up without any re-indexing on disk or any other download, the client was ready to go. Wallet has the small amount of coin in it, tomorrow I'll do some more testing with sending/receiving, but everything looks good to go, and there is an upgrade path for those of you that haven't checked in for 2 or 3 years. Credit to FrictionlessCoin for making this possible.
GR
If the new clients crashes using a block chain from an old client you can always just download the whole blockchain again, instead of reindexing. Then you don't need to use the FrictionlessCoin client. So it shouldn't be a show stopper. |
|
|
|
Daily update for everyone. Currently running the 0.9.2 Client myself. Synced up ahead of the block where merged-mining started I'll let it sync fully and then we can start up testnet and do some merged-mining on myriadcoin's PolyMYR pool. Once thats done the network urgently needs some new DNS Seeds. Other coins have 15+ while we have 0. After that we can roll out the clients  EDIT: Also Reverted the switch to a 40 Byte OP_RETURN by the bitcoin dev's EDIT No 2: 1 hour and 30 Mins, 1 Blockchain Rescan Later. The client is fully synced. Time to get some Win QT's out Don't we need at least an 80 Byte OP_RETURN for counterparty? |
|
|
|
|
It would be great for iXcoin to take the lead among the merge mined coins to stay synced with Bitcoin, but so far we haven't. At the moment, I think it's more of a priority to get the Counterparty update released. That would set iXcoin apart from the other merge mined coins.
|
|
|
|
honestly I am not familiar with where i0 coins development is right now although I have a few i0 coins laying around
If i0 is current with btc then it would be a much easier job to update iX to the 9.2 client.
I am not the person who is working on that so my comments were my own thoughts on how I would have to approach it.
The only differences really from i0 and ix i know of are the difficulty retarget system, magic number value, block spacing, reward system ect.....
iX seems to be much more in use and traded/mined ect..... higher difficulty too last time I checked
i0 is more current with BTC than any other merge mined coin correct. So thats why i think that should be used. It would also make upgrading to the 9.2 client the easiest i0coin was used as a baseline for the latest iXcoin client. Both wallets are at v0.8.6. I haven't seen v0.9.2 yet. i0coin dev site still shows 0.8.6-1 as lastest http://i0coin.snel.it/ |
|
|
|
if nmc, dev or i0 coin have not updated to 9.2 it is no copy and paste job with just a change in the magic numbers,
the aux pow has to be rewritten , certainly would be a challenge , i was looking over 9.2 and built it last weekend, many things have changed in btc and the current source of iX does not use the chainparams.h and chainparams.cpp style so its a big step.
When cinnamon talks about 'aux pow' she's talking about merged mining. All the merge mined coins had their Proof of Work algorithm changed to share mining info with Bitcoin. Since POW algorithms are the core of the security scheme you need to get it right. |
|
|
|
@kraizi - Thanks for that, was just about to speak on that very thing (merged mining), without knowing the specific details I was of the opinion it would be critical to keep intact while upgrading this wallet. I'm curious to know why you think the updates are 'not trivial', guess looking at the code myself is the best way to answer that and note that DVC has a nice new shiny wallet, one might want to cross diff their changes in this regard to speed up the IXC upgrade. Also the latest NMC wallet is working great too... (both merge mined with BTC)
Changing the max number of coins produced by a crypto is one number and you're done. Anyone can do it. But, adding merged mining requires changes in a number of sub programs. Obviously it can be done, but you need to know what you're doing. It takes some time and dedication to get it right. Very few devs have worked with it, and that may be why very few coins merge mine. It's one of iXcoin's main advantages. |
|
|
|
1st on the development side, there must be about 10 lines of code difference between IXC and BTC, the rest is all cosmetics, such as titles, error messages, logos & build scripts, what is the hold up, for not staying in time sync with developments and release of upgrades between the two coins? IMO the binding between the twins is IXC's biggest asset.
So, we need a good team which quickly responds to changes on the bitcoin side and upgrades happen to IXC in time sync with those developments, I'm volunteering to help, but that will be of little value until at least Oct or Nov.
The key additions to iXcoin which make it difficult to update are for merged mining. Bitcoin doesn't have them and iXcoin can't operate without merged mining because all the pools use it. The updates are not trivial. That's why most of the merge mined coins are updated so infrequently, and why it took over two years to update iXcoin last time. Most other coins just don't even bother with merged mining in the first place. But it does give iXcoin a big advantage by having such a large hash rate. It's an enormous attraction for pools like GHash.io because they can mine iXcoin without extra mining resources. |
|
|
|
And please don't say off chain transactions cause that's just not gonna fly. I'm actually shocked that experts like Eroc Voorhees think off chain transactions will actually work given that would be essentially bypassing Athe BlockChain which is the heart of Bitcoin.
So tell me what you think Bitcoin is gonna do in the next 6-12 months as transactions per second blow up.
No idea. I hope they either lift the limit entirely, or make it float so that max block size for a given period is e.g. max( 1MB, 4 * median block size of prior period ), resetting on e.g. the same 2016-block cycle as difficulty. I suspect lifting the limit entirely would be too controversial so something floating will be decided on. Lifting the limit would be trivial in and of itself; the problem is much bigger than that. See, "loaded" Bitcoin blocks don't propagate as well as "empty" blocks which is why Bitcoin's transaction limit is at around 7 per second. They're gonna need much more than that very soon. If only Bitcoin was fully mature [or another coin just like it]. Guess what: iXcoin is going to have empty blocks in a few months so it will then be able to literally handle many more transactions per second than Bitcoin [while being merge mined with Bitcoin ("magic numbers")] time tested and very widely distributed. You understand programming much better than me so I'm sure you can figure out what could happen next to solve Bitcoin's transaction limit problem. There must be a good reason the likes of CEX.io has such an interest in iXcoin. This is the sort of thing about iXcoin that interests me. iXcoin will soon be Bitcoin's future self, here today. I would not be surprised if mature and immature versions of a coin running alongside each other could be used to produce some interesting synergies. Yes, synergies are coming. Rather than off chain transactions, it makes more sense to use cryptos merge mined with Bitcoin to increase transaction volume. You get almost the same security for just a negligible extra energy invested. iXcoin is a perfect fit for this. I bet the reason CEX.io has jumped on iXcoin has a lot to do with it being merge mined with Bitcoin. They don't need to add any mining equipment to support iXcoin, and they probably realize any Bitcoin business can use iXcoin for overflow transactions, as well as completely separate businesses. If CEX.io ever plans to expand from just being an exchange into payment processing or a mega crypto store like Amazon, then they will need the extra transaction throughput. That's only speculation, but the way they're going I think they have some big plans for the future. |
|
|
|
I however need to make a point here. It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.
So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.
If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.
So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.
Yes, exactly. And now think about average-Joe who wants to make some bets. First he buys IXC. So far so good. Then he starts looking betting markets. He finds three games with nice odds. Game A is definied in terms of user-definied-currency-A (UDCA). So he tries to buy UDCA with decent price. Game B is definied in UDCB, So he buys some UDCB. Game C is definied in UDCC, ... you get the picture. So maybe it might be better just to have metacoin he could buy with IXC and make his bets in all games? jamaer has a point. Why have many disjointed assets doing the job of the original metacoin? We would be forcing the user community to recreate functions already available in the stock CP. Why disable betting using the original metacoin, then expect or hope someone will add an asset to fill the void. I do like ALSO allowing user defined assets/currencies for betting. Is this not allowed in the original CP? It's inevitable that new assets will crop up to duplicate the functionality of the metacoin, but it may be best to leave the metacoin in to get users off to a quick start. My original concern about the metacoin devaluing IXC is lessening. CP doesn't work without assets, which can act just like the metacoin. So why not just leave the metacoin in place to provide full functionality of CP? Aren't we just delaying the inevitable? Friction, any comment on this? I'm leaning toward using the metacoin to ensure liquidity. |
|
|
|
|
We should have some rules for how foundation funds are handled, which will reduce conflicts of interest. The only thing worse than not having funds is misusing them in the public eye. Here are some of my thoughts. I know some have already been discussed.
1. Incoming revenue and outgoing payments are documented publicly.
2. Outgoing payments are signed by 3 foundation members.
3. Recipients of payments can't be one of the 3 signers.
|
|
|
|
We really need some regular income coming into the foundation so we can make steady progress rather than waiting for donations. This is only a modest amount but as CP is used more and IXC prices increase the revenue stream will increase.
Just thinking out loud, but if we had the funds we could do... -Website/forum maintenance -Core client development -Native IXC escrow -Add more financial platforms -Phone apps -ATM's -Online IXC stores -Marketing / advertising |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
