[ANN] ION [ION] | POS 3.0 | Mobile Gaming | Join the ionomy today!

[WildShark]

And an embarrassment of a whale, but a whale none the less. Even though you paid to be called a whale. And apparently Ionomy whale = shill.

There are 8 Ionomy LTD Whales(defined by ownership of 5000 Atoms) and only two of us choose to educate and promote Ionomy Vision to the BCT users..

[CryptoBuds]

And an embarrassment of a whale, but a whale none the less. Even though you paid to be called a whale. And apparently Ionomy whale = shill.

There are 8 Ionomy LTD Whales(defined by ownership of 5000 Atoms) and only two of us choose to educate and promote Ionomy Vision to the BCT users..

Educate? You're too funny. Promote? Again, you're being waaaaaaaaaay too funny. Shill and act ignorant is a more accurate description. But what ever lies you need to tell yourself to make you sleep at night, I guess.

[suchmoon]

And an embarrassment of a whale, but a whale none the less. Even though you paid to be called a whale. And apparently Ionomy whale = shill.

There are 8 Ionomy LTD Whales(defined by ownership of 5000 Atoms) and only two of us choose to educate and promote Ionomy Vision to the BCT users..

It's a wasted effort. How many non-paycoiner users/slackers does ionomy have? Or is that also a secret?

[WildShark]

How many non-paycoiner users/slackers does ionomy have? Or is that also a secret?

I don't think the Ionomy LTD keeps stats for the number of paycoin users using Ionomy. Being that the team does not get the info, it must be secret...

[WildShark]

With the Cake announcement, it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

[suchmoon]

With the Cake announcement, it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

Great, more inflation is just what it needed. Let's hope it's not some kind of a bug in difficulty adjustment, we would laugh ourselves to death if they need another hardfork/rebase.

And how is that related to Cake?

[WildShark]

With the Cake announcement, it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

Great, more inflation is just what it needed. Let's hope it's not some kind of a bug in difficulty adjustment, we would laugh ourselves to death if they need another hardfork/rebase.

And how is that related to Cake?

This difficulty re-targeting defect started happening about the time of news of the partnering with cake Ionomy announcement... super charged the ION blockchain to produce more income  

[suchmoon]

With the Cake announcement, it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

Great, more inflation is just what it needed. Let's hope it's not some kind of a bug in difficulty adjustment, we would laugh ourselves to death if they need another hardfork/rebase.

And how is that related to Cake?

This difficulty re-targeting defect started happening about the time of news of the partnering with cake Ionomy announcement... super charged the ION blockchain to produce more income  

It also started happening around the time of me having a very nice bottle of Valserrano... I think that had a much better chance of affecting the ION blockchain than some random announcement

It looks quite thoroughly fucked:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ion/#@inflation


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

Slackers must be excited. Moar coins!

[WildShark]

With the Cake announcement, it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

Great, more inflation is just what it needed. Let's hope it's not some kind of a bug in difficulty adjustment, we would laugh ourselves to death if they need another hardfork/rebase.

And how is that related to Cake?

This difficulty re-targeting defect started happening about the time of news of the partnering with cake Ionomy announcement... super charged the ION blockchain to produce more income  

It also started happening around the time of me having a very nice bottle of Valserrano... I think that had a much better chance of affecting the ION blockchain than some random announcement

It looks quite thoroughly fucked:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ion/#@inflation



Slackers must be excited. Moar coins!

it seems to have caused the ION blockchain to  start accelerating the block rewards...

@Suchmoon I have noticed a increase in dollars from my ION profits to see the accelerating blockchain defect. Here is some more info from Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The difficulty re-targeting looks off.  Difficulty is spiking way lower than what I would assume would be a good design choice. @mrcoins can you collect data for us. In particular the entire getmininginfo output every min along with whatever else you are collecting. I also need the time of your sample. (Ideally I would want to plot the block number vs duration of each block vs the difficulty of that block vs time)

I have seen a graph similar to this on another coin. While the integrity of the blockchain is not an issue, the consistency does change outside perception.  If this is the same re-targeting issue, the oscillations will become greater as time goes on. The increase in total blocks per day is not a symptom that I saw on the other chain, but it could be related to how the re-targeting is calculated.   The mathematical reason for the issue is that the up and down adjustments are done with the same set of data. While this seems logical, you create a resonance issue under some circumstances. It is possible that we are seeing that resonance now.  The data will help show if it is this or something else.

I have yet to see an original coin that has it right on the first try. Almost all coins have resonance, even BTC. It is just masked by either long duration between adjustments, or by people not seeing or caring. ("oh that was a couple of lucky blocks")   It does not matter much because in the long run and it does not impact the integrity of the blockchain.

[suchmoon]

I have noticed a increase in dollars from my ION profits to see the accelerating blockchain defect. Here is some more info from Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The difficulty re-targeting looks off.  Difficulty is spiking way lower than what I would assume would be a good design choice. @mrcoins can you collect data for us. In particular the entire getmininginfo output every min along with whatever else you are collecting. I also need the time of your sample. (Ideally I would want to plot the block number vs duration of each block vs the difficulty of that block vs time)

I have seen a graph similar to this on another coin. While the integrity of the blockchain is not an issue, the consistency does change outside perception.  If this is the same re-targeting issue, the oscillations will become greater as time goes on. The increase in total blocks per day is not a symptom that I saw on the other chain, but it could be related to how the re-targeting is calculated.   The mathematical reason for the issue is that the up and down adjustments are done with the same set of data. While this seems logical, you create a resonance issue under some circumstances. It is possible that we are seeing that resonance now.  The data will help show if it is this or something else.

I have yet to see an original coin that has it right on the first try. Almost all coins have resonance, even BTC. It is just masked by either long duration between adjustments, or by people not seeing or caring. ("oh that was a couple of lucky blocks")   It does not matter much because in the long run and it does not impact the integrity of the blockchain.

What a load of bullshit. ION is now shitting out nearly twice as many coins as it used to and the block times appear to be still accelerating. Show me when BTC had difficulty drop to nearly zero. That's not the same as "a couple lucky blocks", it looks like a bug or an exploit in difficulty adjustment. This matters very much (well, except to paycoiners of course) in the long run or the short run or the medium-length run.

[WildShark]

I have noticed a increase in dollars from my ION profits to see the accelerating blockchain defect. Here is some more info from Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The difficulty re-targeting looks off.  Difficulty is spiking way lower than what I would assume would be a good design choice. @mrcoins can you collect data for us. In particular the entire getmininginfo output every min along with whatever else you are collecting. I also need the time of your sample. (Ideally I would want to plot the block number vs duration of each block vs the difficulty of that block vs time)

I have seen a graph similar to this on another coin. While the integrity of the blockchain is not an issue, the consistency does change outside perception.  If this is the same re-targeting issue, the oscillations will become greater as time goes on. The increase in total blocks per day is not a symptom that I saw on the other chain, but it could be related to how the re-targeting is calculated.   The mathematical reason for the issue is that the up and down adjustments are done with the same set of data. While this seems logical, you create a resonance issue under some circumstances. It is possible that we are seeing that resonance now.  The data will help show if it is this or something else.

I have yet to see an original coin that has it right on the first try. Almost all coins have resonance, even BTC. It is just masked by either long duration between adjustments, or by people not seeing or caring. ("oh that was a couple of lucky blocks")   It does not matter much because in the long run and it does not impact the integrity of the blockchain.

What a load of bullshit. ION is now shitting out nearly twice as many coins as it used to and the block times appear to be still accelerating. Show me when BTC had difficulty drop to nearly zero. That's not the same as "a couple lucky blocks", it looks like a bug or an exploit in difficulty adjustment. This matters very much (well, except to paycoiners of course) in the long run or the short run or the medium-length run.

@suchmoon Here is more info coming out of Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The block reduction is always going to be an estimate based on average block times. The block reduction takes place at an absolute block number... so we are currently in a time warp situation, the inflation cut will happen sooner as that specific block number will arrive sooner if the timing is shorter than estimated I would not envisage this increased block rate to be at this rate for very long. We've been running 10% under for 4 months, so we'd need to run at +40% for a month just to be "even"

[suchmoon]

I have noticed a increase in dollars from my ION profits to see the accelerating blockchain defect. Here is some more info from Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The difficulty re-targeting looks off.  Difficulty is spiking way lower than what I would assume would be a good design choice. @mrcoins can you collect data for us. In particular the entire getmininginfo output every min along with whatever else you are collecting. I also need the time of your sample. (Ideally I would want to plot the block number vs duration of each block vs the difficulty of that block vs time)

I have seen a graph similar to this on another coin. While the integrity of the blockchain is not an issue, the consistency does change outside perception.  If this is the same re-targeting issue, the oscillations will become greater as time goes on. The increase in total blocks per day is not a symptom that I saw on the other chain, but it could be related to how the re-targeting is calculated.   The mathematical reason for the issue is that the up and down adjustments are done with the same set of data. While this seems logical, you create a resonance issue under some circumstances. It is possible that we are seeing that resonance now.  The data will help show if it is this or something else.

I have yet to see an original coin that has it right on the first try. Almost all coins have resonance, even BTC. It is just masked by either long duration between adjustments, or by people not seeing or caring. ("oh that was a couple of lucky blocks")   It does not matter much because in the long run and it does not impact the integrity of the blockchain.

What a load of bullshit. ION is now shitting out nearly twice as many coins as it used to and the block times appear to be still accelerating. Show me when BTC had difficulty drop to nearly zero. That's not the same as "a couple lucky blocks", it looks like a bug or an exploit in difficulty adjustment. This matters very much (well, except to paycoiners of course) in the long run or the short run or the medium-length run.

@suchmoon Here is more info coming out of Ionomy Slack on the defect:

The block reduction is always going to be an estimate based on average block times. The block reduction takes place at an absolute block number... so we are currently in a time warp situation, the inflation cut will happen sooner as that specific block number will arrive sooner if the timing is shorter than estimated I would not envisage this increased block rate to be at this rate for very long. We've been running 10% under for 4 months, so we'd need to run at +40% for a month just to be "even"

That's just MrCoins' rationalization with no basis in fact. Still haven't learned to attribute properly?

What is the "team" doing to fix it? ETA? Thought so.

Edit: some pictures in case the words are too complicated for you Sharkie.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ion/#@diff


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

See how the difficulty approaches zero on the right side? Doesn't look like there is anything to substantiate MrCoins' optimism on where this is going.

Another one:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ion/#!overview


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

The date is of by 1 day, i.e. June 11 actually means June 12 (UTC). See how starting from June 6 (7) the number of blocks per day has been rising. Today with 5.5 hours to go we have 1751 blocks so if this keeps up it will be 2250-2300 by the end of the day. Still more than yesterday and far more than the usual ~1240.

Is MrCoins getting the SEC to fix this or what?

[CryptoBuds]

Looks like the price is reacting to all the extra coins the Blockchain is shitting out. Seems people wants to sell those extra coins. They really got the blockchain breathing good.

But MrCoins said it's alright, so it must be.

WildShill, do you always post other people's shit as your own to sound intelligent? That is even more shilly than you already were. Using someone's else word to sound like you know what you are talking about (not that MrCoins words filled with farts and unicorns, but he makes it sound better than WildShill ever could), is disgraceful and downright shady as fuck. Almost worthy of some negative rep, but I think your reputation is well known around ethers parts.

[suchmoon]

2175 blocks yesterday (~1240 was the typical average).

1800 today in just 11 hours... it's flatlining:


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

It looks like the pay-per-clone business model is backfiring, again.

[CryptoBuds]

Nothing going wrong here, everything is fine. Carry on and by moar coins. With the mad geniuses that are behind this project, I'm sure a fix has been in the works for months.

Just think how many extra free coins the team is getting. No need for transparency, they're nice guys. I wonder what CakeCodes thinks about all of this?

[suchmoon]

10 blocks in less than a minute, but hey, it's actually good news:


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

And that's the shitshow trying to bring crypto to mobile gaming or whatever the latest cover story is

Edit - orphan rate:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ion/orphans.dws


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

[HFTisking]

Do you think they're preparing something ?
A pump and then sell what they have ?

[amsd75]

Get ready for tomorrow boys it's an 100% minimum

[amsd75]

Do you think they're preparing something ?
A pump and then sell what they have ?

yes

[wayniac33]

wow these ico's are everywhere but they all seem to be doing pretty well too..