You're the MAN!! Good to go with 8 connections straight away - many thanks dude  Let me know if you have any issues with the new client. BTW, are you merge mining with the new client? That's the plan my man - I'll let you know how goes it if you like? Peace. But are you using a pool? |
|
|
|
I like the use of Go and Angularjs, but I'm concerned about the lack of tests, given that this is a completely new client being written from scratch. Are they just not committed at this point or are they being written as an afterthought?
That's interesting. I also like the combination of technologies, Go and AngularJS. Looking forward to this. Is the source out? |
|
|
|
You're the MAN!! Good to go with 8 connections straight away - many thanks dude Let me know if you have any issues with the new client. BTW, are you merge mining with the new client? |
|
|
|
Still not working......
Would some kind sir please tell me where I can download the latest Ixcoin wallet source/package for Ubuntu?!!!
I'd rather not use a two year old client.........
Thanks & Peace.
...........................................or is everyone using the 2 year old client still?
Got it! Git cloned, built it & it's up & running again. I've added the two nodes as stated on the website but I still have no connections - could someone please throw some more addnodes my way to help it get started? Muchas gracias peeps Peace. Here are the peers that my client sees: { "addr" : "24.34.40.175:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920832, "lastrecv" : 1389920831, "bytessent" : 228480, "bytesrecv" : 7892538, "conntime" : 1389920778, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0, "syncnode" : true }, { "addr" : "142.4.208.71:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920788, "bytessent" : 111563, "bytesrecv" : 1328, "conntime" : 1389920786, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "24.42.148.53:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920788, "bytessent" : 114684, "bytesrecv" : 1838, "conntime" : 1389920787, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "184.78.215.89:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920801, "bytessent" : 112344, "bytesrecv" : 2378, "conntime" : 1389920799, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "62.75.167.48:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920807, "bytessent" : 111563, "bytesrecv" : 1628, "conntime" : 1389920806, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "83.163.120.176:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920809, "bytessent" : 111948, "bytesrecv" : 2318, "conntime" : 1389920807, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "123.203.84.34:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920816, "bytessent" : 106379, "bytesrecv" : 1958, "conntime" : 1389920815, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "86.93.208.193:8337", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1389920838, "lastrecv" : 1389920838, "bytessent" : 1397, "bytesrecv" : 1838, "conntime" : 1389920833, "version" : 32430, "subver" : "", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 184272, "banscore" : 0 } |
|
|
|
Sorry to say, but the one who's mistaken is you. In PPC PoS secures the network while PoW is supplementary and helps distribute coins. PoW blocks are granted score of 1 while for PoS score is computed as (CBigNum(1)<<256) / (bnTarget+1) It means that any PoW block can be overwritten by a PoS one. So PoW doesn't contribute to chain security. You can check GetBlockTrust method in main.h. That formula that you show has got nothing to do with security. High Hash Rate equates to higher security... that is just plain fundamentals. Claiming PoS secures a network is like saying that NXT with its 100% PoS is the most secure coin ever devised. So don't give me this B.S. that PoS secures the network. All it does is it secures the profits of the current stake holders. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme. |
|
|
|
This is a very interesting application for colored coins: https://github.com/wetube/bitcloud/blob/master/Bitcloud%20Nontechnical%20White%20Paper.mdIn this application you define a coin that represents bandwidth. Then you create a P2P algortihm that distributed coins based on bandwidth made available. These coins then may be traded by nodes in the network to gain bandwith access. Very useful for mobile applications!!! Cool! The reason this requires colored coins and not say bitcoins is that the price of bitcoin relative to bandwidth is not constant, you want a currency that is pegged to bandwidth. In fact, this notion of trading commodities in a competely decentralized manner is extremely powerful and can be applied to many industries. Can you folks think of more examples? Man... I should start talking to a VC to gobble up all these cheap IXC coins! |
|
|
|
All the infrastructure is in place to make it a major coin. Peercoin for example has a 100+ million market cap, but only 550 tera hash to secure its network. Compare that with iXcoin with 10,200 tera hash. Also, I don't see any new PeerCoin innovation, their client is still back on version 0.6 or something.
PeerCoin doesn't really need hashes to secure the network, it's secured by other means. You are entirely mistaken. PPC proof of work secures the network, PPC proof of stake keeps the network moving when there aren't enough miners to secure the network. You can see how it works by just looking at the block explorer. When miners can't keep up with the difficulty, PoS kicks in. My point however is that hash rate determines cost to acquire coin and therefore has an affect in price. So if Peercoin has only 10,200 tera hash, the hash required to acquire PPC is less than that of IXC. Of course, to be fair IXC is merged mined and pooled mined with BTC, NMC and IXC. While PPC is mined individually. So the real equation can be seen in the coinwarz calculatios: For the same GHs - PPC is 96% Merge Mine - BTC (100%) + NMC (1.71%) + IXC (.15%) + DVC (.01%). So in other words, for the same hash power, if you get paid $96 for mining PPC, you will get only 15 cents worth of IXC and $100 worth of BTC. Over time as the price of NMC, IXC and DVC go up, it become less and les economical to mine PPC. So long term ... PPC mining is a losing proposition. |
|
|
|
Maxpower? What? I thought Friction did the QT update? Hmmmmm. So who's gonna do the .7 update along with the native colored coins code upgrade? Cause I thought our Friction was doing all this coding. I've been praising that man as a Brilliant Genius so I'm a bit confused now. Bitcoin comes in two parts, bitcoind (which includes the core protocol) and the QT stuff (which includes the UI). I worked on the bitcoind, porting it to iXcoin. I also modfied the QT code so it would be specific to IXcoin. Maxpower, is an expert at putting together the MacOS X binaries, so I had him build the source to create these binaries. I paid him IXC to perform the work. This stuff is complicated and time consuming. Like I said earlier, I delegate some of the work because I don't have all the time in the world to do everything. The Windows QT is a bit delayed because the person who does that is delayed. In short, the QT compilation is a pain to do, and prefer someone else to do it. Compiling and testing the C++ core libraries is entirely different and much more fun to do. |
|
|
|
As for quark, insiders either do hold massive amounts of they don't. It's not a trivial question. I have read they do which is a deal breaker for me.
What do you call massive amounts? If I recall you own a "massive amount" of IXC...... 3% is not massive, especially when I paid cash for it. Rumors are quark insiders own close to 80% and they didn't pay a dime for it. That means they will dump on anyone on any rally. Huge difference. Will have to agree with you here. The way quark was designed, there was massive mining in the first 6 months. to the tune of 240+ million coins. Then it drops of dramatically after 6 months to 1% inflation. So while nobody is looking ( or rather, while everyone sees it as a pump and dump) they accumulate milions of coins using a network of CPUs. Actually, they want you to believe it is CPUs, however the Quark algorithm is easily translatable to GPU. After all, it is almost like running SHA-256 7 times in sequence. So the insiders have a GPU farm, while the masses are karnking away with CPU. IMHO, people playing Quark are being gamed big time! This is exactly what I've been hearing. Like always, thanks for the technical explanation. Algorithms that don't use memory like SHA-256 ( Quark is just a variation of this ) can easily encoded to work with GPUs. Scrypt uses memory but does not use a lot, so it still is efficient with GPUs. Scrypt_Jane based algos vary with the amount of memory, the Yacoin variant can use GPUs but not with the kind of speed up as Litecoin's scrupt. There are memory hard implementations that make GPUs difficult to work with (see memcoin, electreum) these are truly CPU bound and can't easily be gamedby GPUs. Primecoin is a CPU bound coin, because the multiprecision operators it requires aren't very efficient on GPUs. Primecoin however if flawed because it can't raise its difficulty beyond a limit. Stuff like NXT and MSC aren't really coins because you can't mine them. So they are kind of like stocks that are strangely enough issued by annonymous people living in Russia (in the case of NXT). |
|
|
|
|
Vlad,
Could you post the codes for your signature so other folks can use it?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
As for quark, insiders either do hold massive amounts of they don't. It's not a trivial question. I have read they do which is a deal breaker for me.
What do you call massive amounts? If I recall you own a "massive amount" of IXC...... 3% is not massive, especially when I paid cash for it. Rumors are quark insiders own close to 80% and they didn't pay a dime for it. That means they will dump on anyone on any rally. Huge difference. Will have to agree with you here. The way quark was designed, there was massive mining in the first 6 months. to the tune of 240+ million coins. Then it drops of dramatically after 6 months to 1% inflation. So while nobody is looking ( or rather, while everyone sees it as a pump and dump) they accumulate milions of coins using a network of CPUs. Actually, they want you to believe it is CPUs, however the Quark algorithm is easily translatable to GPU. After all, it is almost like running SHA-256 7 times in sequence. So the insiders have a GPU farm, while the masses are karnking away with CPU. IMHO, people playing Quark are being gamed big time! |
|
|
|
Dude that's not cool. K, you were right. But don't rub it in. Clenell, I feel for you too. Honestly I think the best way to get a miner is on eBay. Preorders are so unnatural, unethical, and uncalled for. Nobody should sell a product that they do not have in stock.
There are several vendors that are selling from stock, Bitfury and Bitmain to name two good ones. The best bang for the buck is a 200 GHs system for around $3,000. Unfortunately, at $15 per GHs, you aren't going to break even! |
|
|
|
well, I very much disagree. you can't shift property around which is rooted in national jurisdictions. also it does not make much sense, because there are no courts, no law makers, no government which applies those rules. to prevent fraud you need rules which have an effect. you can see this playing out with alt-coin scams. then people calling for the "police". what a bunch of nonsense. first people believe they don't need the government and no rules, and if something goes wrong the same people call for a man hunt. that's hardly an improvement. the political philosophy of bitcoin is in its infancy.
the system I designed creates a congress of authority nodes who can preside over the application of various laws(which are defined by the participants). Thus you can have things like refunds, bankruptcy, etc. It's more like a distributed government/legislation system that is specifically designed for economic purposes. It also has a stronger privacy model than Bitcoin. The main difference is it doesn't use PoW and it doesn't attempt to deliver 'zero trust' [1]. -bm [1] personally I think that the trust model for Bitcoin is flawed anyway. So what you got is a page rank algorithm as your proof of work? ;-) |
|
|
|
IXCoin? 9 peta hash? What's extraordinary about it? It lives in the shadow of Bitcoin. I give you some constant figures NMC: 75-100% BTC, on average 80% DVC: 35-55% BTC, on average 45% IXC: 35-55% BTC, on average 40% So, if tomorrow BTC goes to 30 peta hash, I know the others will be NMC ~ 24 DVC ~ 13.5 IXC ~ 12 Bitcoin and Litecoin have been 'sponsored' by SilkRoad and Atlantis. PeerCoin and PrimeCoin have a great team behind. What have you? 2-3 BTC trading per day? Conspiracy? Nobody cares! Nobody knows this coin. Nobody mentions it. Nobody uses it. Do you know when a person doesn't show any sign of life, like no breathing, no move, well it's dead!!! Or maybe not, it's a zombie.  Sigh... Junior member and his first post is to slam iXcoin? I don't even know what exactly his point is. Some truth in is that nobody knows the coin, but that is exactly why its such a great investment! All the infrastructure is in place to make it a major coin. Peercoin for example has a 100+ million market cap, but only 550 tera hash to secure its network. Compare that with iXcoin with 10,200 tera hash. Also, I don't see any new PeerCoin innovation, their client is still back on version 0.6 or something. The point is, iXcoin used to be pretty dead, but now it is indeed rising. Like they always say in investing, buy low... sell high. |
|
|
|
|
iXcoin network hash rate is now 10,309,297.6412
I just updated the website yesterday to say 7.2 Peta Hash!
|
|
|
|
For example, if ActiveMining will issue its shares in form of colored coins, you'll be able to buy those shares via ChromaWallet p2ptrade... But in that case you're investing in ActiveMining shares, if company goes bust their value will be negligible.
Just made me realize that just enabling the capability in the iXcoin daemon is just one tiny step forward. To actually get higher adoption, we need to engage exchanges. I know for one that eToro is extremely interested in this technology. At this time, i look at iXcoin as a extremely viable platform for building this. Oh... BTW... read somewhere about OT and colored coin integration... something about placing the colored coins in escrow.... do you know about this and do you have a more detail explanation? ooops.... my apologies... I though this was the iXcoin thread. |
|
|
|
Friction,
How did you add the large red letters to your signature line, I'm trying but that options is not available. I think it's a great way to advertise iXcoin.
Signatures use same formatting options as posts. This is a testis: [color=red][size=12pt]This is a test[/size][/color] |
|
|
|
|
Folks... before you start patting yourselves on the back.... can you work of finalizing the press release?
|
|
|
|
Simon, it works like this- Color Coins ARENT ZERO TRUST. You must trust the Issuer. The moment you've done that, you not only lose this quality of zero trust, but you make the whole operation of mining pointless. You can move the equation around in several ways, but in all cases you don't need mining, you don't need hash power- it's a waste. They could try and move it in any number of different directions: 1) they try and put it on the main BTC block chain, and you will have transaction overload. You might get the miners to comply, but they aren't going to do so for free. So now we have this 'zero trust' but we have to pay for it. I can get the same thing from many other services. 2) they make an altchain, in this case they lose atomic swapping and don't have access to the hashing power in the main chain. Why do it? Why even use coin coloring at all in this case, you can just redesign the tx formats. In my view the people working on Color Coins lack vision and only see things in terms of the few things they know about Bitcoin. They don't have much understanding of how the greater world of money works at all. There is even a related project to Color Coins that as far as I can tell is some cheap pump and dump scam. these shortcomings I recognized a while ago and this is why I developed Confidence Chains http://altchain.orgI factor out a few things here and there, and you get something quite different. You get a chain of confidence, with nodes you must trust. The advantage to this architecture is many things, one of them is that you cannot disable it without disabling all the nodes. You can look at the whitepapers on the site, its all explained clearly and I haven't revised any of my claims BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED IN WELL UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLES. Of course most all colored coins require trusting the issuer! The main advantage of using a decentralized block chain as opposed to the conventional way is that the colored coins can be exchanged in multiple exchanges and everyone can be assured that what I exchange in one is the same as the one exchange in another. That is a very powerful use case! Mining has almost nothing to do with colored coins. Sure you can devise some kind of mining scheme, but for what purpose? To create another kind of trust free coin on top of the already trust free network? Are you referring to Mastercoin? well that is a completely pointless exercise. I can see where you are going with the confidence chains and I do agree that a decentralized exchange would be better served on a network and protocol different from bitcoin. However, can you explain to me how your proposal compares to Ripple and Open Transactions? |
|
|
|
Let's take namecoin as one example, namecoin is merged mine, so it has at this time around 80% of the hash rate of Bitcoin. Namecoin performs a naming registry function that may be outside the scope of the current bitcoin functionality.
Now what about iXcoin (internet exchange coin), like namecoin, this is merged mined with around 40% of the hash rate of Bitcoin (in the 5 peta hash range). iXcoin can be specialized to handled 'colored coins'. It doesn't make sense to handle colored coins in the bitcoin blockchain.
if you do this, then you lose the 'atomic swap' functionality, which was a key sell of the whole color coins platform. The Color Coins project seems to be in a perpetual state of disrepair and revision. I've found many unreliable claims come out of that project. 'Atomic swap' is over rated. We already have crypto-coin exchanges that already swap between multiple block chains. From the perspective of the user, they would care less if their currency rides on top of the bitcoin block chain or not. All they care is that it is relatively secure, with merged mine coins like iXcoin, its 40% of the bitcoin has rate, so it is going to be good enough for almost all use cases. In fact, I would argue that people will not feel to kindly about polluting the bitcoin block chain with alternative currencies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
