Show Posts
CataCata, I’ve been able to find a coder to help out. The negative is that he’s still learning so it may take time (soon), the positive is that it’s my son so it’s free slave labor. Character building stuff. Doing everything I can with what I got.
Send me one with the 2014 logo below
- iXcoin - copying bitcoin means copying bitcoin (at least until v 0.9.0 when Bitcoin Core began restricting the protocol, however merge mining retains data on all chains and all these early Bitcoin 2.0/layer 2/smart protocols already on chain from early 2014 and beforehand. Color me crazy? All the smart money is headed to Ixcoin per "vitalik.eth" remember?
Some reading to spark interest...
https://github.com/devcoin/core/commits/devcoin0.9.2 (reaction to bitcoin v0.9.0 protocol 70002 restrictions on CP/OP_RETURN)
https://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain (story on Counterparty.co and bitcoin "core developers" battle)
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-dev-update-5-transaction-fees-embedded-data Originally 2013 announced plans for 0.9 sparked CP idea
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property (via prev announced OP_RETURN 80 bytes allowing CP protocol to work as originally written)
https://www.devtome.com/ixcoin_-_the_surviving_odd_coin (devtome info on iXcoin from 2014, v 0.8.6 test and old 0.3.24 version for windows)
https://github.com/knotwork/old-devcoin-qt/commit/95a21c762cbc603126caefdd82d2492443fa7c8c markm (Mark Metson "knotwork") old-devcoin-qt "to add merge mining to it"/commit for new seeds w/ unannounced changes to png/svg files from original Bitcoin "qt"/GUI May 12, 2013
"IXCoin, same spelling from Devcoin co-founder, creator as 2014 logo contest accepted here and pink logo"
If Counterparty type protocols work on bitcoin presumably they should be able to work on IXCoin.
Looks like we have some work left "TODO" here.
Think (OTC) Pink - everything done manually, on other platforms (tokens of the GM include IXC on Horizon, DOTS - Open Txs, Stellar) "over the counter" no automagically on chain, but maybe partially written to chain and different DLT (Horizon blockchain, Stellar DEX/Ledger, kept track of in parallel chainz via merge mining but Bitcoin Core nodes rejecting them as valid on their "BTC value end", doesn't mean its not there.
https://bitcoin-otc.com/
Bitcoin OTC marketplace - off-chain trades for BTC, from these early days for other currencies - through IRC
Quote
"#bitcoin-otc marketplace
#bitcoin-otc is an over-the-counter marketplace for trading with bitcoin. The marketplace is located in #bitcoin-otc channel on the freenode IRC network. If you don't have an IRC client, click here to visit the channel with your web browser.
#bitcoin-otc is an over-the-counter marketplace for trading with bitcoin. The marketplace is located in #bitcoin-otc channel on the freenode IRC network. If you don't have an IRC client, click here to visit the channel with your web browser.
Quote
To complement the OTC marketplace, we offer a web of trust service. Due to the p2p nature of OTC transactions, you are exposed to counterparty risk. To mitigate this risk, you need to have access to your counterparty's reputation and trade history. This is precisely the kind of information that the OTC web of trust provides.
Are we using a combination of alt chain, original testnets, other nodes and merge mined projects, to abstract true value from the main Bitcoin network? You bet.
OTC doesn't mean just value in currency for crypto, it means what is OTC hashed onto different chains from transactions made directly out of one chain and into another, just manually inserted by the parties involved. Automagical relay requires time and interoperable relay / consensus.
Also a protocol change away from making all nodes whether IXC, DVC, I0C, CLC, GRP, NMC, XGG, and this current Bitcoin Core dominated Bitcoin Network from relaying interoperable data. Old data already written there - colored satoshis, bitcoins, you name it. Merge mining means at least this all relays back to Dec 29, 2011 from the knotwork repository I linked. Probably why that very initial commit has the patch here (https://github.com/knotwork/old-devcoin-qt/commit/14c8f0e47894790d4eb3e683fe0440d56fd1f694#diff-c67444ecf75e00c9c2e229b32ad6db8361bd999741dbc02d169f70cc42e8f7dfR933) and mentions Ixcoin Miner, I0coin Miner, to implement merge mining in that tweaked old-devcoin-qt GUI
Code:
CBlock* CreateNewBlock(CReserveKey& reservekey)
{
CBlockIndex* pindexPrev = pindexBest;
@@ -2925,11 +3001,35 @@ bool CheckWork(CBlock* pblock, CWallet& wallet, CReserveKey& reservekey)
uint256 hash = pblock->GetHash();
uint256 hashTarget = CBigNum().SetCompact(pblock->nBits).getuint256();
- if (hash > hashTarget)
- return false;
+ CAuxPow *auxpow = pblock->auxpow.get();
+
+ if (auxpow != NULL)
+ {
+ if (!auxpow->Check(hash, pblock->GetChainID()))
+ return error("AUX POW is not valid");
+
+ if (auxpow->GetParentBlockHash() > hashTarget)
+ return error("AUX POW parent hash %s is not under target %s", auxpow->GetParentBlockHash().GetHex().c_str(), hashTarget.GetHex().c_str());
+
+ //// debug print
+ printf("I0coinMiner:\n");
+ printf("AUX proof-of-work found \n our hash: %s \n parent hash: %s \n target: %s\n",
+ hash.GetHex().c_str(),
+ auxpow->GetParentBlockHash().GetHex().c_str(),
+ hashTarget.GetHex().c_str());
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ if (hash > hashTarget)
+ return false;
+ //// debug print
+ printf("I0coinMiner:\n");
+ printf("proof-of-work found \n hash: %s \ntarget: %s\n", hash.GetHex().c_str(), hashTarget.GetHex().c_str());
+ }
+
//// debug print
- printf("BitcoinMiner:\n");
+ printf("IxcoinMiner:\n");
printf("proof-of-work found \n hash: %s \ntarget: %s\n", hash.GetHex().c_str(), hashTarget.GetHex().c_str());
pblock->print();
printf("%s ", DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M", GetTime()).c_str());
@@ -3152,3 +3252,22 @@ void GenerateBitcoins(bool fGenerate, CWallet* pwallet)
}
}
}
But you know this already. I just am providing a reason to stay optimistic. Many manual and OTC like direct transactions of value and relay of different code on different chains done without being relayed, yet very much accounted for by the oldest and longest continuously running/surviving projects.
"BitcoinX" (Colored Coins, EPOBC, colored satoshis) and the detail in the citations. What DNS did original token protocols reference on Bitcoin as layer 2 began on the base bitcoin block chain layer. Parallel to where the early altcoin protocols began under Bitcoin Project Development attached to the post 2011 new "official" Bitcoin Project home domain, formerly host of the official community forums that early alt/mm with Bitcoin projects were born of, along with one of satoshi's last protocol discussions "bitDNS"
. Whats in a name? 
Would I be upset if on this end that a one satoshi value of DVC was in fact colored in a way that the code is there all over say, non standard Bitcoin coinbase txs, but accepted in DVC merge mined blocks? Hell no. Smart Property and planned chaos are great security. EPOBC dates back to a earlier 2011 implemented colored satoshis by genesis and colored satoshi transfer in Bitcoin transactions on the bitcoin block chain, the year before the original colored coins paper was written by a bitcointalk member "killerstorm" (released as "BitcoinX.pdf) who takes part in discussion throughout man Devcoin, Groupcoin, Tenebrix etc threads (GM coins) in early bitcointalk pre-0.9.0 and concurrent 2014 layer 2 protocols (Counterparty) Bitcoin 2.0 discussions on Bitcoin Forum.
Maybe that's why a day before publishing/releasing "BitcoinX.pdf" aka the "Colored Coins Paper" (#1) on December 3, 2012 he was in the original Devcoin development thread discussing http://the purpose of Devcoin (which wasn't truly the original considering Devcoin development began unnanounced yet somewhat publicly in the original Groupcoin thread (even having its genesis block creation mentioned by markm before Devcoin's noted July 20-22, 2011 Block 0 http://created July 8, 2011 in the Groupcoin Bounty Thread - original development on bitcoin.org's hosted forums) -- telling. Once the community seemingly moved over to the unofficial bitcointalk.org forum satoshi wasn't even communicating by mailing list after May 2011 with the bitcoin developers. So maybe this is the point where satoshi himself started stealth operation with a new name, after transfer to new DNS was completed forward (Bitcoin's Project site moved from Sourceforge to bitcoin.org, Bitcoin's community forums moved from bitcoin.org to bitcointalk.org). New names, old data, similar software for the forums but who knows what type of data may not have made the leap to the new host/domain name.
From the first 2011/12 discussions on Colored "satoshis" and their implementations via EPOBC, eventually they were grouped in a paper proposing colored "bitcoins" released December 4, 2012 with some simple references to just 4 sources, one such source being the original bitcoin website slogan, then at https://web.archive.org/web/20110705111938/http://bitcoin.sourceforge.net/?page_id=5 from its v 0.3.21-0.3.24 releases (May 2011 to August 2011, right when the first merge mined coins with Bitcoin IXC, DVC, I0C and even name coin were being developed <-DVC not even being announced at genesis but also continuing on as a chain developed within the Bitcoin Project/Development part of the Bitcoin section of the then bitcoin.org hosted Bitcoin Forum). However the original Bitcoin domain/site with the title Bitcoin P2P virtual currency (at sourceforge where its original project development took place, with source code also additionally on github by then) is cited in the Colored Coins 2012 white paper draft (1) at http://bitcoin.org - which by 2012, was the sole home domain for the Bitcoin Project, but no longer the forums. This is why I mention the forums in 2011 being attached to the bitcoin.org domain, if you are on the official project site in 2011 from sourceforge that's where the "Forums" only link to the bitcoin.org domain exist https://web.archive.org/web/20110705111938/http://bitcoin.sourceforge.net/?page_id=5 and you end up here in 2011 > https://web.archive.org/web/20110705111938/http://bitcointalk.org. But this was also by the time Satoshi Nakamoto was not in the picture.
What I'm trying to say these protocols all use eachother to get around Bitcoin Core dev restrictions for a later date where their nodes non-dominance or a merge/flip of the switch on the actual value and power of these linked protocols and blockchains/tokens all converge into the same network with their own truths and have value back from BTC to reflect their two way value to the success of Bitcoin Core chain and back to the very beginning when protocol was open to develop freely upon (Open Source principals) and "Merge" mining is recognized in retrospect as initial distribution of coins that migrated to being tokens with value written directly to the Bitcoin blockchain and directly responsible for all BTC's success. That's called kickback.
And being tokens isn't a bad thing. Coins are tx outputs generated by difficult POW in these merge mined coins. If they end up being tokenized they can freely travel to other base layer chains and capture the migration value of say, Ethereum (which, could very well be vaporware for anything merge mined of value that may have had their tokens/initial pow merge mined coins repurposed and renamed as the post-2014 Ethereum chain launched with pre-allocated tokens in Block 0 accounts that came from "where exactly?" (but funded by a BTC presale, of course
)Devcoin funding open source developers would make sense here. And IXC and I0C being done with 99-100+% of their generation by POW/distribution make things seem closer than ever for a day where these OG merge mined coins end up finishing their distribution and migration to Bitcoin 2.0. Maybe even nodes naturally having more power to upend protocol of post 0.9.0 Bitcoin Core rebranded software and how the nodes prevent the network "Non-Standard" txs from being properly validated because a mechanism/smart mechanism can unleash it on the dumb/ignorant BTC chain "self fulfilling prophecy"
