The fact that a lot of miners/pools do not bother to merged mine all the coins that they can simply means that the coins they are still ignoring are the great opportunities for those who do merge them. It is pretty obvious that leaving coins on the table, so to speak, is silly, but as logn as most people do not yet see how silly it is they are awesome opportunities for those who do take the trouble to pick up all those "free" coins while they are easy to pick up.

-MarkM-

Using -rescan and -reindex I managed to get my version 2 wallet working again and consolidate the rest of my version 2 coins and send them to Cassie.

Meanwhile I have also been able to (solo) mine a few of the version 3 coins so all seems to be working okay for me now.

-MarkM-

I0Coin ought to do pretty well too, no japanese name but like bitcoin it is less coins per block over time, but unlike IXCoin it will keep making a few coins a block for a long time yet.

-MarkM-

Version 2 is screwing up for me, it hangs even just trying getinfo or backupwallet.

I tried restarting it but same thing happens, no RPC calls are working.

I had managed to consolidate a bunch of coins to another machine though before it got all stuck, and have sent those along to Cassie.

-MarkM-

Is version 2 moving at all? I was consolidating coins by sending them to another machine and got stuck, now I cannto even do getinfo, and on the other machine the block number has been stuck at block 233451 a long time now...

-MarkM-

DeVCoin is designed to be worth less than 1/1000th of what "normal" coins that only create 50 coins per block, a block per ten minutes, are worth.

So in the long run maybe it will tend to be worth about 1000 DeVCoins per GRouPcoin.

Since BiTCoin produces less than 50 coins per block it should tend to be worth more than 1000 DeVCoins per coin.

(DeVCoin produces 50,000 coins per block forever, GRouPcoin produces 50 coins per block forever, BiTCoin halves coins per block periodically.)

-MarkM-

Then what is all the crap about modifying a recent bitcoin?

And screwing the economics / schedule of the minting?

-MarkM-

I0Coin should be simple to modify to make a new version of IXCoin.

It already has merged mining, it also has fixes for the RAM problems caused by the older ways of approaching merged mining.

It is based on recent bitcoin code.

Basically all the merged mined coins all are waiting to be updated based on I0Coin so that they can all stop being RAM hogs and will have recent modern code.

If you make a hard fork of IXCoin you are just antoher clonecoin, not IXCoin. IXCoin is the way it is, the way it has always been, and its prices are based on that presumably, including its recent rising in price.

Some idiot who seemingly is not even aware of all the problems of the old merged mining code, nor that I0Coin has new fixes to fix the RAM problems, making a clonecoin  loosely based on IXCoin does not seem helpful at all. Just more pointless and maybe deliberate ignorance. (Why not actually research instead of just jumping in to try to hijack an old classic coin with your favourite clonecoin theories and ignorance of what is actually going on in the merged mining code field?)

This all has been said umpteen times over in many merged mined coin threads.

Just take I0Coin, with all the new fixes that every merged mined coin needs (as all will be RAM hogs more and more without it, it is merely that the faster block times ones showed the RAM problem sooner than the slower block time coins), and update all merged mined coins to that. Noticing, hopefully, though, which that has already been done for and which so far only have the dirty fix done not the full fix.

Please don't send donations to that idiot who evidently has no idea what is really going on in the merged mied coins, especially don't promote the idea of forking an established coin with his new fake version that has the economics screwed around with as the economics is the coin, the whole point of IXCoin, if he wants endless making of coins he has groupcoin and coiledcoin and devcoin for that. IXCoin stops, its know, people buy it anyway.

He just will be sabotage-ing all the people who, depending on the fact no one will be able to minet more soon, have been trying to position themselves in preparation for that time.

Not everyone wants to back coins minted by third parties, some prefer that the coins they back are the coins they minted and sold, so that they know they have the "reserves" to back them with. They cannot do that if cointerfeiters are to just go on printing more of the damn things.

-MarkM-

The Brits and Canucks tried this with United Kingdom Britcoins (UKB) and Canadian Digital Notes (CDN) respectively.

( See http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html )

Their theory was that actually "backing" coins by retaining everything they sold them for to use as "reserves" with which to buy them back would work out much better than trying to "back" coins that random miners all over the world were mining and dumping without offering to buy them back.

However they also used the bitcoin approach of only ever having 21 million coins in total.

As a result, other nations and corps that were not trying to "peg" their own coins to fiat tended to take advantage of the "low" prices the Brits and Canucks tried to maintain; basically whenever the Brits and/or Canucks sold off their own coins "cheap" to try to prevent their price rising higher than the fiat they were trying to "peg" to, others, particularly the Martians, would snap them up.

So I guess for starters you will need a coin you can mint more of as needed, so that any time its value tries to rise higher than the fiat you are hoping to "peg" it to you can mint more to sell to try to bring the price down to fiat-parity.

The Mastercoin project and the Bitshares project have ideas they plan to try for "pegging" somethign to fiat, have you looked into those?

-MarkM-

You can get DeVCoin at probably its lowest price ever or thereabouts right now, and unlike those others you mentioned it is not one of the recent endless stream of scamcoins.

Are any of the others you mentioned even securable blockchains at all, or just scrypt etc waiting for miners to gangbang and/or 51% them?

-MarkM-

I received all my klondikes, but have not unboxed all of the yet as it takes time to set them up then I also found I just do not have enough electrical circuits so I have been shutting other stuff down unboxing more klondikes, shut more stuff down, unbox more etc.

Mostly they work well out of the box, but in the first box of eight one of them produces nothing but hardware errors. I guess I am going to have to test all the others even though I can only really run just over half of them until I get an electrician in here to route some more power.

They were really well packed so it doesn't really seem very likely it got damaged in transit, but I ordered tested units so it also doesn't seem likely it was producing nothing but hardware errors before it was shipped.

I hope it won't take too long to get the electrician to visit.

-MarkM-

Most likely what you were seeing was the one coin to the exchange and the change going back to your own wallet.

-MarkM-

But it does, the whole point of the mastercoin project is that such things can in fact be done using the bitcoin blockchain.

So far I have not come across any technical problem/glitch that necessitates a whole alternative currency to serve as collateral instead of bitcoins themselves serving as the collateral.

-MarkM-

SInce bitcoin already has value, it does not seem very clear why there is a need for a whole new altcoin to serve as collateral. Is there some technical problem that made it impossible for bitcoin itself to be used as collateral?

-MarkM-

Isn't this simply a matter of remaining competitive? Any bank/currency (currency as in things like Liberty Reserve, e-gold etc type "banks") that refuses to cater to this type of customer will simply be deprecated; person to person currency-exchangers will simply tell people "I don't accept Paypal or e-gold, use Liberty Reserve, Bank Of Blackmarkestan, or Lloyd's of London" or whatever the banks/currencies happen to be that they know do provide such a service?

Back in the late 1990's to 2000 or thereabouts this was actually happening. I think e-gold might not have given users the ability to expose their transaction history, but some other service(s) did; maybe it might have been Liberty Reserve that did, I am not sure as I never used Liberty Reserve personally.

Basically you would say "okay expose your transactions on the account you want me to send to and I will expose the transactions on the account I will send from, once we can both (and in fact everone on the trading forum, if we post our URLs here on the forum instead of in private messages) see each other's transaction histories I will send". Also of course things along the lines of "e-gold is no good, use Liberty Reserve" or whatever one it was the person preferred that did offer this exposure capability.

The resistance to signing statements could possibly be "justified" by arguing that such a statement, being non-repudiable, should be regarded as in effect a public publication, because there is no assurance that the recipient or their heirs and assigns would not make it public. Thus maybe this approach of setting an entire account to have a public transaction-history is better because it makes it more likely that the user will realise the data is public, instead of falling into the trap of imagining that the other party and the heirs and assigns of the other party will never make the data public.

Maybe though if Liberty Reserve was one of the banks/currencies offering this option that might be part of how it ended up getting in trouble about money-laundering, since obviously people would want to be able to open throw-away accounts if they didn't want all their verifiable transactions to be publicly known to all pertain to the same actor. That is, maybe the same people who wanted to be able to provide a link on a currency-trading forum whereby anyone could see they did indeed send the money they said they would send or had not received the send the other party claimed to have sent also wanted there to be no way any of those forum-denizens could strongarm the currency-provider to find out the real identity of the person who thus "proved" they had done the send, leading to the provider deciding such a feature needs to be accompanied by the ability to open throwaway accounts anonymously in order to truly be useful/competitive?

Just signing one-off acknowledgements of individual sends does seem more private than having the entire history of an account be made public, but, bear in mind that merely proving someone's bank/currency-provider claims to have sent the funds is not as damning, in fraud accusations involving an intended recipient claiming not to have received funds, as being able to tell the intended recipient to "prove" they did not receive the funds by exposing the account-history of the account the funds were sent to.

(Showing the intended recipient did or did not receive the transfer is "stronger" than merely proving the sender did send it. It helps diagnose, for example, whether the problem lies with the sender, the receiver, or the site/entity that was supposed to actually implement/perform/make-so the transfer.)

-MarkM-

Well if these activists who are posting arrived as authors, which I suspect a lot of them did, it seems maybe the pay per 1000 words campaign did accomplish something useful, regardless of whether Devtome rakes in any or more advertising revenue or not.

I think some of outr admins arrived as writers too. So whatever happens I suspect the paying for articles concept has been useful.

-MarkM-

I used to have some problems quite a while back with Fedora 17 but for a long time now akmod-catalyst has behaved nicely.

Recently I started upgrading some of my machines to Fedora 19, on one of them I seemed to have trouble with akmod-catalyst so used kmod-catalyst. Then used kmod-catalyst on another machine since it seemed to work. But after an upgrade yesterday that second machine didn't get the right moduel loaded so I installed akmod-catalyst and rebooted and it worked. So likely the first machine will want to go back to my usual choice, akmod-catalyst, instead of sticking with kmod-catalyst.

From the sound of it maybe I am lucky that I loitered so long on Fedora 17 - past its lifetime - and went straight on to 19.

I gave up long long ago on the drivers direct from the manufacturer though, as soon as I had akmod-catalyst working long ago I soon learned to stick with it even though sometimes if I happen to upgrade at the moment when there is a new kernel but not yet a new akmod-catalyst to match it I had to boot back to the previous kernel.

I did find with scrypt though that my 5870's that would get 400 to 407 or so gigahashes on SHA would not get similar number of kilohashes on scrypt, even messing with the clocks to optimise them the way scrypt likes them instead of the way SHA likes them. I'd get only about 250 Khashes from them.

Thats a lot of why I keep hoping for scrypt FPGA units, I am sick of the fiddling around with GPUs and the seemingly poor scrypt efficiency of GPUs in Fedora.

-MarkM-

The next address in you list of upcoming addresses to use I used, I think.

(The wallet typically creates 100 addresses in advance when created.)

Basically each block it finds, probably including orphans, it mined to another new address you had not yet used.

Some people tell their walelt to generate thousands of addresses up front so they can put the same wallet on multiple machines so that until those pre-generated addresses have been used all the machines will "see" all the blocks mined by any of them. This lets them see from just one machine when some one of their many many machines they have rented or that are part of their botnet or whatever have found a block. (Though it obfuscates which machine it was exactly that found it; they'd have to check the debug.log logs of all the machines to discover which one it was that actually found the block.)

-MarkM-

Oh I thought you meant 0.1 bitcoin each. Misleading title, dude!

Clickbaiter!

Clickteaser, even!

-MarkM-

Don't let them FUD you to death, I just went to a browser-tab where I had coinmarketcap.com, to see whether Ixcoin is even dead enough to not be one of the top thirty cryptocoins.

It was number fourteen.

Until I pressed reload, whereupon it became number 13. Lucky for some?

Ixcoin reloaded for the win!

All the talk about it not being latest code is mostly some kind of code-feitshism I think, there is no big hurry, the longer folks allow it to be picked up cheap and mined at lower difficulty than it otherwise might, that is good for people who don't feel they have a big enough chunk of them yet to be ready to make large open moves with it. All the merged mined coins are going to be upgraded based on I0Coin, it is mostly a question of in which order/sequence they will be upgraded. If no one is in a big enough hurry to make bounties sufficient to motivate the upgrading to happen quickly maybe it will wait until a coder who can do it has accumulated enough of a particular coin to feel that it is time to upgrade it. It will happem someday, or some year, or one of these decades anyway, heck maybe before the end of the century!

These Johnny Come Lately coins are all about rush rush rush hurry hurry hurry, often because hustlers gotta hustle and they need a fast pump so they can do a fast dump. Such coins haven't been around long enough for users to feel confident they will still be around in even just a few years, maybe.

Looks like Ixcoin just slipped ahead of megacoin by a nose, maybe it will be neck and neck or a bunch of eskimo snogging for a while, we'll see...

-MarkM-