|
jimhsu has volunteered to administer the website.
I will give him administrative rights.
PM if you have any issues.
|
|
|
|
Thanks to the hardest working member of the iXcoin community! If we had 10 Dexter44, we would be at $10! |
|
|
|
If this is the company of Luke Connell http://www.itransform.net.au/It seems he is able to find the right person for any kind of work. I would not be surprised if he finds the way to recruit a former IBM engineer for iXc in Australia. Social media... that's the key. |
|
|
|
If we can get BTER on any chinese exchange, we'll be in good shape. BTW, I thought you had chinese friends who could translate? |
|
|
|
"A dog biting its tail" condition. We need a way out. Learning from the crazy dogecoin results, we need excellent marketing along with good development (even a BTC-e or a BTC38.com exchange). And ... we need it ... now.
We need to sparkle the process.
DogeCoin is an excellet example of what marketing and good development can do. Here is a background: Dogecoin was created by programmer and former IBM engineer Billy Markus of Portland, Oregon. He was originally trying to tinker with an existing cryptocurrency of Markus's called "Bells" based on Nintendo's Animal Crossing. His hopes were reaching a broader demographic than the investors who made up Bitcoin's economy and something that wouldn't be involved with the controversial history behind Bitcoin (namely its association with the Silk Road).[12]
At the same time, his friend Jackson Palmer, a worker for a marketing department in Sydney, Australia for Adobe Systems, and the original individual who first conceived of the idea for Dogecoin, was encouraged by a student at Front Range Community College on Twitter to make the idea reality.[13] This led Palmer to reach out to Markus.[14]
After getting several mentions on Twitter, Palmer bought the domain dogecoin.com, which was shown to Markus and quickly began the partnership between Markus and Palmer, launching the coin shortly after the development of Markus' Dogecoin wallet was done.[15]
So, if some dude from Sydney, Australia can market DOGEcoin to be big, then some dude from Melbourne, Australia can do the same. If some former IBM engineer can develop DOGECoin then some former IBM engineer can also develop iXcoin. |
|
|
|
|
5000, OOO
1000, romawi
10000, garicup
10000, nomailing
20000, canth <--- exceeds limit
10000, chetalk
3000, kolbas
10000, teco051
10000, bitular
8000, indigon
4000, homerzhu
2000, nfigueir
5000, tobyliciously
10000, atomiclock
1000, hvezdasmrti
10000, smophf7
10000, ow48uh
10000, rioshock2
1000, fragout
10000, sottymax
4000, LeFiste
10000, soarlyzed
10000, snipedrunk
2000, Swisscoin
5000, dannac
10000, fibbonac1z
10000, vemdoctor9
5000, Siegtal81
5000 irrawaddybtc
10000 Franconomasky
2000 cntrlsquare
10000 Jaguar0625
5000 NapoBear
10000 tylenol3mit
6000 dlog
1000 toolatetoberich?
2465 eXme
10000 miramare
1000 langkeming
1000 steyast012
1100 alrose
7000 bitfromit
1000 icoinv
4000 lenco
1000 Msile
10000 ripplebtc
10000 cremstopper
10000 jajansen
2683 lonesoul
5000 zurra
5000 td services
10000 lda1000
7000 SyRenity
10000 wallacemckart
10000 Attack.of.the.Clones
3000 serogen
4000 atleticofa
7500 Kuttingco
7500 Kuttingcorners
10000 User705
1000 tk808
1000 virtualaddict
10000 Revelations86
2500 psybits
10000 aa417444103
1000 sydorFunk
2500 silanmil
9500 solracx
10000 hunglejungle
5000 godt
10000 olano
1000 mingophoria
2000 yshuifejng
7500 mattmct
2000 Onkel S.
2000 Microove
1000 Maverick69
5000 kavin2468
10000 atriz
2000 tk808
10000 cc5alive
2500 Bourbon44
2500 extee
1000 rb2
2000 waytogo
2000 standards
5000 td services (added 5000)
1500 luckygenoug56
3000 bluedude
3000 xperiencia
1000 BitSugar
10000 grajson
10000 wizzardTim
1000 Abyss_X
10000 Gaman
3000 bitdraw
5000 xzh4518
1000 CoinManiac
542,000 total <-- 54% of Limit
Limit is 1,000,000 NXT
Limit 10,000 NXT per User
Amounts under 1000 NXT not listed here but will be included
If in the event that NXT prices continues to fall, we reserve the right to request BTC at an exchange of 0.00007 BTC/NXT.
|
|
|
|
If you discard the transactions (and likely the merkle roots in the blocks) you aren't able to do a Simple Payment Verification that a transaction exists in a block. Is there something similar where you can have a lightweight client? I haven't really thought much about this but I believe it would be possible to do something similar. You could get the proof chain and all the headers from the mini-blockchain and then to check the balance of any given address you could just request a specific branch of the account tree which corresponds to the account you are interested in. The advantage of using a merkle tree is that you can acquire small pieces of the whole tree and confirm them against the master hash without needing the whole tree. What about a solution that has both a Transaction Block and an Account Tree? |
|
|
|
There are two possibilities:
- all the lazy holders have, by coincidence, bought ixcoin
- the real holders are just a few, but very big ones
I don't believe in coincidence.
There are 3 possibilities. Even though the second one is very much the case as well. Holding a large % of coins, and not trading them causes the coin to grow very stale. The 3rd possibility, which I know for a fact exists, as I have a few friends that are big BTC miners. The coin is merge mined with BTC. That is a blessing and a huge curse rolled into 1. The BTC miners are getting these coins, but since they are worth virtually nothing, they don't even bother downloading a wallet to pick them up or sell. They just sit there collecting dust, and causing the coin to grow stale in the process. They aren't even touching their NMC coins, as they feel $7 a coin isn't worth their time to collect them up and sell either. Granted Cryptsy isn't the biggest exchange out there. But looking at volumes and seeing times where no IXC was traded, ad other times when 3 coins traded here, 7 there is very discouraging to anyone wishing to invest in this coin. Especially when you consider the sheer number of coins that are available in the market. This isn't 21 coin we are talking about here. There is a 4th possibility, the coin is so evenly distributed. |
|
|
|
Interested!
Come-from-Beyond -- you need a smack if you didn't realize a flaw that big in Nxt.
I don't think they realize it is a flaw. It is the same with the private key that they are sending out for all accounts. They don't think it is a flaw. The inside joke though is that you can mine NXT with GPU farms, cracking secret phrases and rewriting transactions. |
|
|
|
We have talent here offering to design the website. Who wants to wait for Luke's cryptic messaging to come true and who wants to take this to the next level now since we're nearly there on our own anyway?
Do you want the keys to add content to the website? Do you want to manage all the translations that are needed for an international website? Here's the link to the translation tracking tool: https://crowdin.net/project/ixcoinAre you going to step up and do the work? |
|
|
|
Yes they are, all inputs linked to the hash of the previous output. You cannot create a valid Bitcoin transaction without the previous hash.
So you are saying Nxt doesn't have this critical Bitcoin feature? Every alt-coin in existence has this feature, but for some strange reason Nxt does not. I think the burden of proof is on your court. You need a strong explanation why your timestamp solution is sufficient.
I doubt you will find it because Satoshi would not have gone through all the trouble of linking transactions.
Looks like u found a fatal flaw in Nxt. U should create a separate thread for this. Put the link here, so I could watch it. No need. Recorded here for posterity. |
|
|
|
There are two possibilities:
- all the lazy holders have, by coincidence, bought ixcoin
- the real holders are just a few, but very big ones
I don't believe in coincidence.
There are 3 possibilities. Even though the second one is very much the case as well. Holding a large % of coins, and not trading them causes the coin to grow very stale. The 3rd possibility, which I know for a fact exists, as I have a few friends that are big BTC miners. The coin is merge mined with BTC. That is a blessing and a huge curse rolled into 1. The BTC miners are getting these coins, but since they are worth virtually nothing, they don't even bother downloading a wallet to pick them up or sell. They just sit there collecting dust, and causing the coin to grow stale in the process. They aren't even touching their NMC coins, as they feel $7 a coin isn't worth their time to collect them up and sell either. Granted Cryptsy isn't the biggest exchange out there. But looking at volumes and seeing times where no IXC was traded, ad other times when 3 coins traded here, 7 there is very discouraging to anyone wishing to invest in this coin. Especially when you consider the sheer number of coins that are available in the market. This isn't 21 coin we are talking about here. However, how do you explain the massive trading volume of NMC every day? In BTC-E NMC ranks #3 in trading volume after BTC and LTC. So your explanation that miners just hold the coins also doesn't explain the lack of trading volume. |
|
|
|
What is the explanation why Nxt does not need to link transactions together while Bitcoin does?
Nxt does link transactions. Implicitly. Linked by timestamp, not cryptographically linked. Major difference. Actually, more like 'ordered by timestamp', not linked. What if timestamps are fake, then what do you do? Bitcoin transaction r not "cryptographically" linked. Ordered by timestamp and id if timestamp is the same. Timestamps can't be fake, blockchain ensures this. Yes they are, all inputs linked to the hash of the previous output. You cannot create a valid Bitcoin transaction without the previous hash. So you are saying Nxt doesn't have this critical Bitcoin feature? Every alt-coin in existence has this feature, but for some strange reason Nxt does not. I think the burden of proof is on your court. You need a strong explanation why your timestamp solution is sufficient. I doubt you will find it because Satoshi would not have gone through all the trouble of linking transactions. |
|
|
|
What is the explanation why Nxt does not need to link transactions together while Bitcoin does?
Nxt does link transactions. Implicitly. Linked by timestamp, not cryptographically linked. Major difference. Actually, more like 'ordered by timestamp', not linked. What if timestamps are fake, then what do you do? |
|
|
|
Is that okay? If so, what prevents it?
Timestamping made by forgers does. Is this sufficient in a P2P network? Yes You need a longer explanation than just 'yes'. What's up with your attitude? He owes you nothing. He does need to explain it because Bitcoin links transactions together while Nxt does not. Just saying it is okay to do away with feature without an explanation is not sufficient. |
|
|
|
Is that okay? If so, what prevents it?
Timestamping made by forgers does. Is this sufficient in a P2P network? Yes You need a longer explanation than just 'yes'. Hm, it's somewhere here - http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfOk... you link to Satoshi's paper. In Satoshi's Bitcoin, all transactions are linked to previous transactions. How does Nxt justify not doing this? What is the explanation why Nxt does not need to link transactions together while Bitcoin does? |
|
|
|
Is that okay? If so, what prevents it?
Timestamping made by forgers does. Is this sufficient in a P2P network? Yes You need a longer explanation than just 'yes'. |
|
|
|
Is that okay? If so, what prevents it?
Timestamping made by forgers does. Is this sufficient in a P2P network? Or put it this way, if a node is aware that it is responsible for forging, will it just not create the double spend transactions and create the block? |
|
|
|
Sounds like maybe a dubious Mickey Mouse exchange. We can't even get on a good exchange and Luke thinks we will have media access like no other coin. lol, I don't know if I wanna laugh or cry. What's the guy talking about? Maybe he's the one looking for a quick profit with talk like that. In general, you pay for global media access. What I understand is that Luke is ready to bank roll this. |
|
|
|
One last question about Nxt, why is it not required that transactions need to be linked to previous transactions?
It's linked implicitly (in Bitcoin it's explicitly). Not sure what you mean by "linked implicitly". What are the implicit rules for transaction linking? "Outgoing transaction must not lead to negative balance." Yes, so double spending is okay so long as locally it does not leave to a negative balance? So there are 100 addresses where I want to buy something. I have 100 Nxt. So I send each of the 100 addresses, 99 Nxt ( all without a previous transaction). All 100 receive addresses receive the 99 Nxt because it does not lead to a negative balance. Is that okay? If so, what prevents it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
