But yes, it would be nice to have a legit site like the new and improved Bitcoin.com.  I would gladly pay for one myself if ixCoin ever takes off.  It's impossible to get anything done without proper funding and it seems nobody is willing to help out.  I have single handedly outspent all of our partners combined who together are probably worth well over a billion dollars.

Hahaha.

Thanks for the laugh.

But you pose a good question, why remain anonymous at this point?

Can someone with a good understanding of the tech explain the logic behind this massive oscillation in hash/difficulty?

The initial drop I get, f2pool wanted to drop most of their hash power and thus reduce their massive centralized control over IXC in order to invite and allow all of the other pools to mine and secure IXC, and in the process, PAY them to do it (f2pool currently offers 8 IXC for every 1 BTC mined).  Thank you, f2pool - proving generosity is one quality iXCoin embodies.

At any rate, after that initial [freakishly massive] drop - the hash and difficulty shot back up to nearly equal that of Namecoin.  That suggests a huge pool or multiple pools started merge mining IXC.

But now we are back down, way down, [again].

So where is the logic in that?

The only thing I can think of is that we are witnessing some kind of [stealth] test for iXCoin but I don't understand the tech well enough to deduce any logical [but crazy] conclusions.

So can anyone shed some light on what's going on here and what the scope is [assuming there is one]? 

Thx!

I admire your optimism.

Difficulty: 1,823,728,969
Network: 3,807,638 GH/sec

0.9 was never tested fully in a production environment. So i would say no personally. I'm also not willing to put hours of my time into upgrading IXC to 0.9 or later. When i was willing to, f2pool, ghash and others did not want to help at all. So unless someone's willing to foot the bill for my development time. I'd advise everyone to stick to 0.3.
Ahmed

Called me biased but this sounds like the BEST solution to Bitcoin's scalability issues and iXCoin would be the best natural fit in the world.  Any input?


-----------------


A hard fork to increase the block-size limit is the same as creating a new altcoin (bootstrapped on Bitcoin's blockchain), and then just telling everybody to switch to it; that's an idiot's approach to a decentralized system.
You want new characteristics for Bitcoin (e.g., a bigger block size).

This requires making a new system called Bitcoin 2.0 (or BitcoinXT) that copies over and begins to extend the same blockchain used by Bitcoin; this is the same as making a new altcoin (boostrapped on Bitcoin's blockchain) and then just telling everyone to move over to it.

In technical terms, doing this is called a hard fork, and it's disastrous because it can split the network, and thereby destroy fungibility—people will disagree on what a bitcoin is (that is, their software will disagree); hard forks as a policy for upgrading - means that the characteristics of Bitcoin are always at risk—the contract to which people thought they had agreed can just vanish! Furthermore:

* User support for Bitcoin 2.0 is NOT well known.
* Mining support for Bitcoin 2.0 is NOT well known.
* Whether Bitcoin 2.0 functions as intended is also NOT well known.

-  A sidechain Bitcoin 2.0 is basically a hard fork Bitcoin 2.0 as described above, except you do NOT copy the old blockchain over to the new system; instead, you connect a new blockchain [e.g. *iXcoin*] to the old blockchain by means of a 2-way peg [with a 1 to 1 ratio?], and then disable the creation of new coins, (iXCoin is already done minting) deferring solely to the old system to continue that minting process.

-  To use the new Bitcoin 2.0 system, any user can simply choose at his leisure to transfer control of his assets from the old Bitcoin system to the new Bitcoin 2.0 system; if he wants to return to the old system, he can do that, too!

This transfer of control back and forth can either be explicit or implicit:

-  The explicit approach requires no counterparty; it uses the transaction mechanisms of the 2 systems. However, it is a slow process, because security requires, essentially, many confirmations in order to synchronize the 2 systems.

-  The implicit approach requires a counterparty; it involves exchanging the assets of one system for assets of the other system—but possibly with the security of atomic swaps, because both systems are digital and cryptographic; this could be very fast and cheap, and would facilitate an influx of new users who want to try out the new system.

-  In the beginning, people will move their coins to the new system to get access to its new features, and then move back to the old system for the sake of security; as time goes on, people will just use the new system almost all the time; eventually, they'll use the new system all the time [iXcoin = daily use currency].

-  Thereby, the new characteristics (e.g., larger blocks, etc.) can be tested, and the Bitcoin 2.0 system can therefore be built slowly until it proves itself; hopefully, eventually, lots of people and miners will transfer to the Bitcoin 2.0 system as it becomes apparent that it's a good system.  [Exactly why IXC can perform and pass the 20mb stress test and other huge tests and forks down the road].

-  If Bitcoin 2.0 is successful, the decision can be made to hard fork Bitcoin 2.0 to copy over the rest of the original Bitcoin blockchain and continue the minting process; this makes it an altcoin to which virtually everyone has already moved! Yet, isn't a hard fork what everyone was trying to avoid in the first place? Well, at that point, the hard fork is much more trivial, because:

* It is known how well the economy supports the new system.
* It is known how well the mining industry supports the new system.
* It is known whether Bitcoin 2.0 actually functions as intended.


Here is the whitepaper for such a system:  whitepaper https://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf


--------

I don't know about you guys, but this sounds like the best total solution.  And the best part is that Gavin et al will have the full compliance and approval of the Chinese mining pools without whom they cannot update Bitcoin without splitting it up anyway.  This makes this solution a done deal as long as those making the decisions inside Bitcoin can see it and agree.  


Edit:  Who runs and controls Blockstream?

That's hilarious.   Truthfully tragic but funny.

You both make excellent points but I don't want spillover and the crypto field is moving so quickly; I don't think we can afford to wait too long.

I have an idea on what may be happening with ghash.io.  It's just a guess.  I have no proof.  

They're located in the Ukraine, right?  At least that's the rumor.  They started mining in August 2013, and since February 2014 there has been a looming civil war.  I remember thinking at the time, crap, the one major pool keeping ixcoin alive is in a war zone.  Not good.

If I were them I would be looking for a place to move, especially if they want to develop a long term operation.  The area is too unpredictable.  With the price of Bitcoin in decline and ghash.io reducing their services and staff, this is the perfect chance to pull up stakes and move to a safer location.  It would explain why "right now their mining operation is in focus until year's end ".  It would allow other pools to pickup the slack, at least for now.  

Anyway I think it's a plausible explanation, but there are many others as well.  Maybe they're actually in Syria, lol.

I didn't even notice but ghash.IO is only finding 3-4 blocks a day on IXcoin anymore.  They used to be finding 99% of them.  Wonder where all the other hash comes from.

That's our guy.  I sold him on iXcoin in half hour.  Haha.

Although he did his due diligence for a few days after I talked to him.  I did not ask him what he saw to convince him to join ixc so I have no idea what, if any, plans he has.

Either way we are very lucky to have a man like Mr. Terpin.

I don't know what he will bring, but keep pushing.  Bitcoin market is heating up again.

I think that allowed them to offer financial services in the US.  It's very expensive and takes time to get it.

Very big news for CEX and [by extension] for IXC.

April 30 CEX.IO has obtained an MSB (Money Services Business) status in FinCEN

sigh. the ixc comes off the open market by trading the coins mined for BTC then that BTC for IXC

Ahmed

Given there are no more blocks to mine for ixc, that would mean payouts to miners of other coins would have to come from current IXC holders.

If you look at the current iXcoin market, there are very few sellers.  I just don't see any regular selling for such a mining scheme given most ixc holders will not sell their coins as has been evident for quite some time now.