[ANN] i0coin - Back from the dead

[Hazard]

For those of you who don't know, i0coin was one of the older alternate cryptos that had a decent backing before being abandoned by it's developer. Among other issues, a crippling memory leak eventually made the client unusable and the coin died.

I'm currently in the process of fixing all these issues and bringing this coin back to life. To that end, I need people who still have the i0coin blockchain to help me beta test the new client. Inquire if interested!

Disclaimer: I own zero i0coins so this project is at the low end of my priorities list.

[1714764762]

1714764762

[1714764762]

1714764762

[BrewCrewFan]

For those of you who don't know, i0coin was one of the older alternate cryptos that had a decent backing before being abandoned by it's developer. Among other issues, a crippling memory leak eventually made the client unusable and the coin died.

I'm currently in the process of fixing all these issues and bringing this coin back to life. To that end, I need people who still have the i0coin blockchain to help me beta test the new client. Inquire if interested!

I have the wallet.... what do you need?

[Hazard]

I have the wallet.... what do you need?

The blockchain

[BrewCrewFan]

I have the wallet.... what do you need?

The blockchain

Well I am not sure if the installed wallet has what you need? I looked in my %appdata% and I see stuff.

[Hazard]

I have the wallet.... what do you need?

The blockchain

Well I am not sure if the installed wallet has what you need? I looked in my %appdata% and I see stuff.

If you have (at the very least) a blk001.dat file that is greater than 1MB, you have what I need.

PM me

[Starlightbreaker]

aw heeeel nawww

[BrewCrewFan]

Pm sent 6.71mb

[markm]

addnode=198.154.60.61

It regularly dies on failed DNS lookups but I restart it.

I had it on both my servers until yesterday but since there are still other people out there running it and I needed RAM on my other server I switched to only running it on dvcstable02.dvcnode.org (198.154.60.61).

"blocks" : 752514

Oops, connections zero, okay, I will start it on my other server too, I guess the other people it had been connected to have dropped overnight.

-MarkM-

[Hazard]

addnode=198.154.60.61

It regularly dies on failed DNS lookups but I restart it.

I had it on both my servers until yesterday but since there are still other people out there running it and I needed RAM on my other server I switched to only running it on dvcstable02.dvcnode.org (198.154.60.6).

"blocks" : 752514

-MarkM-

I can connect, but the blockchain won't download. I'm on the old client.

[markm]

I am using an old client too. There is a big tendency to get some kind of memory errors when trying to get the blockchain.

Maybe I can put a .tgz of ~/.i0coin in my sourceforge downloads directory.

-MarkM-

[Hazard]

I am using an old client too. There is a big tendency to get some kind of memory errors when trying to get the blockchain.

Maybe I can put a .tgz of ~/.i0coin in my sourceforge downloads directory.

-MarkM-

That would be very helpful, Im sure the blockchain is massive in size by now though.

[Tomatocage]

I may still have the block chain. I'll check when I get home. I'd love to see i0coin back!

[markm]

What are you basing the newer client on? I am currently trying to apply the merged mining patches to bitcoin to make a "Mergecoin" repo that all the merged coins can then use to update themselves to new bitcoin code...

-MarkM-

[peonminer]

What are you basing the newer client on? I am currently trying to apply the merged mining patches to bitcoin to make a "Mergecoin" repo that all the merged coins can then use to update themselves to new bitcoin code...

-MarkM-

This would be beautiful.

[Hazard]

What are you basing the newer client on? I am currently trying to apply the merged mining patches to bitcoin to make a "Mergecoin" repo that all the merged coins can then use to update themselves to new bitcoin code...

-MarkM-

Bitcoin 0.7.2

[markm]

What are you basing the newer client on? I am currently trying to apply the merged mining patches to bitcoin to make a "Mergecoin" repo that all the merged coins can then use to update themselves to new bitcoin code...

-MarkM-

Bitcoin 0.7.2

Ah so the merged mining patch applies fairly easily probably?

Can you maybe make a repo of that bitcoin with ONLY the merged mining patches applied?

That way all the merged mined coins can upgrade that far if they don't want to wait for the repo of 0.8.x bitcoin with merged mining apatches applied to be ready for use.

Actually the merged-mining.patch might even already be against that version or a version close to it.

-MarkM-

[Hazard]

I'd imagine.

More focused on getting a working client out there than merged mining, for now. That'll come later. Really just need the blockchain before I can do any serious work on this.

[nesic1]

i am tired and bored of this new shitcoin popping all day long, where can i find info about this coin client and other?

[jnada]

I'd imagine.

More focused on getting a working client out there than merged mining, for now. That'll come later. Really just need the blockchain before I can do any serious work on this.

nice that you recovered dead one...
Always appreciated.

[jnada]

I always liked I0coin, it's what prompted the creation of the original Solidcoin 1 by Coinhunter.


~BCX~
[/quote]
as a newbie I'm slightly out of clue - wish you explain in Simple English - many thanks
(I mean  exactly this one :Solidcoin 1 by Coinhunter)

[markm]

I'd imagine.

More focused on getting a working client out there than merged mining, for now. That'll come later. Really just need the blockchain before I can do any serious work on this.

You have to have the merged mining, the difference between being able to be merged mined as a secondary chain and not being able to be merged mined as a secondary chain is a breaking change, when first adding merged mining to a coin you need to schedule in advance a block number at which merged mining will be enabled, the blocks are different from there onward.

If you wanted to fork off a variant that no longer can be merged mined as a secondary chain you'd need to do the same, schedule a block number at which the block format that enables secondary chain ability is replaced with the old format the blocks used to have back before the merged mining was started.

So basically to base off of bitcoin you need a copy of bitcoin to which the merged-mining.patch has been applied. To base off some other coin you'd need to base it off of a coin that already has the ability to be merged mined as a secondary chain.

This is not a change a few constants "sed -i -e 's/bitcoin/scamcoin/g' -e 's/Bitcoin/Scamcoin/g' *" type of job, unless some existing coin that already can be secondary chain in a merge has already been updated to the version of bitcoin you are trying to update to...

-MarkM-

EDIT: I am uploading doti0coin.tgz to https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/ it will take a while as it IS large, but it includes everything so should just need download time, no CPU overhead nor the database overhead of building indexes and so on. It won't show on the page until the upload completes. It contains a dir called doti0coin, not .i0coin, so untarring it won't walk over any existing .i0coin dir

[Hazard]

I'm aware. I'm setting up a hardfork. Hence why I require the blockchain.

[markm]

I'm aware. I'm setting up a hardfork. Hence why I require the blockchain.

So you are trying to 51% attack the i0coin network?

Or steal the name for some new coin?

Or what?

All the merged-mined blocks will not validate as valid if you don't have the merged mining patches.

If you update to very recent bitcoin though, I don't' think it bothers to validate anything prior to the last checkpoint, maybe?

So very-recent bitcoin code maybe might let you get away with having the real blockchain even though you cannot actually validate any of it prior to some checkpoint. Not actually sure about that though.

Someone actually wants a branch of I0Coin they cannot muster hashing power to actually secure due to it not being able to be merged mined?

-MarkM-

[markm]

Huh? Forking the chain is a worse bug than simply using a lot of RAM. Geistgeld uses a lot of RAM too. It might even really just be due to all the dust transactions, since all available to be spent all live in RAM don't they? So most likely the massive amount of dust causes a massive amount of RAM to be used. I think dust transctions may have already been dis-allowed so maybe just paying people to consolidate all their "dust" could help decrease the size of the in-RAM txout set.

-MarkM-

[Hazard]

Merged mining will come, it's just not my primary concern right now. I'm currently trying to fix a coin that I don't even have the blockchain for I'm sure you see how that could be problematic.

[markm]

Merged mining will come, it's just not my primary concern right now. I'm currently trying to fix a coin that I don't even have the blockchain for I'm sure you see how that could be problematic.

YOu cannot do profiling looking for memory leaks etc if you cannot run the client, so you just need the current client and blockchain and a debugger / profiler, no hard fork no new bitcoin code just find the damn bug and fix it.

But better might be to help get the merged-mining.patch applied cleanly to the latest bitcoin code.

Then all the merged mined coins, not only I0Coin, can upgrade to that.

Fixing some ancient version is pretty much a waste of time since whatever you end up with will be obsolete almost as soon as the applying of the patches to latest bitcoin is complete, because once that happens I0Coin, IXCoin, CoiLedCoin, GeistGeld, GRouPcoin, DeVCoin, heck maybe even NaMeCoin will all be upgraded using that so will all be up to date properly.

Whatever bug there may be evidently is in no other coin except possibly GeistGeld, and certainly not in the latest bitcoin code, so is going to go away anyway as soon as this "Mergecoin" repo is ready.

-MarkM-

[Hazard]

Merged mining will come, it's just not my primary concern right now. I'm currently trying to fix a coin that I don't even have the blockchain for I'm sure you see how that could be problematic.

YOu cannot do profiling looking for memory leaks etc if you cannot run the client, so you just need the current client and blockchain and a debugger / profiler, no hard fork no new bitcoin code just find the damn bug and fix it.

But better might be to help get the merged-mining.patch applied cleanly to the latest bitcoin code.

By latest I hope you mean 0.7.2

[Tomatocage]

Welp, turns out I don't have the block chain :-/ Will this resurrected i0coin still run SHA256?

[Hazard]

Correct.

Currently the plan is to just get the block chain to load under 0.7.2 by disabling block checking, and seeing if the memory leak issue is fixed (which it should be). Then I can move onto applying the merged mining patch and release it.

[markm]

Correct.

Currently the plan is to just get the block chain to load under 0.7.2 by disabling block checking, and seeing if the memory leak issue is fixed (which it should be). Then I can move onto applying the merged mining patch and release it.

Okay well if you do apply the merged mining patch to a version of bitcoin, please make a repo of just that.

That way all the coins can go ahead and update that far if they want to instead of having to wait for the patches to successfully get applied to the latest bitcoin, which is not as simple as applying them to the versions of bitcoin that still used Berkely DB.

-MarkM-

P.S. Sourceforge only got 1.1 gigs of the doti0coin.tgz but shows it on the list anyway even though that is broken. I am trying the sftp again.

SInce I fired up i0coin temporarily on my other server too you could try temporarily adding 198.154.60.183 to your addnodes, maybe with more nodes to get blocks from it will have more success getting blocks.

[Fuserleer]

PLEASE don't give it a new name Hazard 

[Tomatocage]

Wait, what's going to happen to all the old i0coins?

[Hazard]

Wait, what's going to happen to all the old i0coins?

They'll still be there.

[worldinacoin]

Have not seen Lolcust for a long time after that Geld Geist coin.

[MaGNeT]

I have a 1.25GB size blk0001.dat

i0coin.rar (898.0 MB)

[Rubberduckie]

I'm aware. I'm setting up a hardfork. Hence why I require the blockchain.

So you are trying to 51% attack the i0coin network?

Or steal the name for some new coin?

Or what?

-MarkM-

I think he's just going to make a few patches that will fix those "bugs" and it might hardfork the chain. It's kinda surprising BCX is still alive just to (maybe) help out with the fixes.

BCX never died LOL.....

I'm back because somebody's gotta clean up this Alt Coin mess, they're breeding like Rabbits  LOL...........


~BCX~

Maybe someone like Lolcust or ArtForz can be back into the whole altcoin drama business minus CoinHunter to make things more interesting.

Oh I have a very good feeling ArtForz will return as well as Lolcust...and most definitley we'll see Coinhunter.


~BCX~

I'm fairly sure coinhunter runs the mcxnow exchange

[worldinacoin]

Now Solidcoin is known as Microcash with a 1:1 exchange.  But I haven't heard about Solidcoin/Microcash for ages now.

[Tomatocage]

I'm fairly sure coinhunter runs the mcxnow exchange

No that would be Realsolid.

Coinhunter has made it clear that him and Realsolid are not the same person. 


Coinhunter will be back! So will ArtForz and Lolcust.


~BCX~

Is Art close to being done with the Scrypt ASIC yet?

[twobits]

I'm fairly sure coinhunter runs the mcxnow exchange

No that would be Realsolid.

Coinhunter has made it clear that him and Realsolid are not the same person. 


Coinhunter will be back! So will ArtForz and Lolcust.


~BCX~

you are right, but I did not think too many people knew it as of yet.  I guess I better get to work on that code for Lolcust, but I just can't get motivated, especially being out of disk space lately.

[bitcoiners]

Is Art close to being done with the Scrypt ASIC yet?

He hasn't worked on it in a while, it's been on hold.

~BCX~

I missed Kelly Lee.

[Tomatocage]

Is Art close to being done with the Scrypt ASIC yet?

He hasn't worked on it in a while, it's been on hold.

~BCX~

I guess he's been busy trying to hit 20TH

[TheSwede75]

With 10+ functional coins already established and traded, why would we even need to revive some old crap? Except for the obvious profit potential in hoarding some ancient crap and dumping it, what possible reason is there to 'revive' anything?

[Hazard]

For fun

[Tomatocage]

With 10+ functional coins already established and traded, why would we even need to revive some old crap? Except for the obvious profit potential in hoarding some ancient crap and dumping it, what possible reason is there to 'revive' anything?

That's pretty much what people are saying about Feathercoin

[steelhouse]

I really hope this gets revived, the inflation is very low and there may be bounties if you revive it.

[markm]

Lots of people got it "free" when it was in bitparking's merged mining pool, and since then it has had long long time when anyone could pick some up, so it probably has huge numbers of people holding it by now, even just direct holders not counting people who just use the dI0C tokens in Open Transactions.

Also of course if people sold off a lot in the last days of it being on bitparking's merge list and also on their exchange, someone must have bought what was sold so there are probably peole who invested money into it 9whether bitcoins or whatever) as well as lots and lots of people who mined it.

it is kind of silly to bother with all these orphanfests of the new pump and dumps when you can just stick to merged mining month after month year after year the same stable array of coins.

overall the ancient coins are much more interesting than the new ones, the new ones will start to become intereesting in a year or few when there has been time for lots of people to pick up some after the pump and dump folk have moved on to the next day's batch of new coins.

A big problem with all these recent ones too is how will they ever actually manage to get secured? Without merged mining the hashing just gets more and more diffused day by day.

-MarkM-

[eroxors]

Status on this?

[Tomatocage]

Yeah what's up with i0coin?

[eroxors]

Bump.

[brooksby]

Any progress on the client update?

[markm]

No, like all the other merged mined coins it needs a recent copy of bitcoin with merged mining as secondary chain added, as the common base all the merged mined coins can then customise from.

Unfortunately a DDOS attack fix has recently been added to bitcoin since the last start on making a copy of bitcoin with the merged mining added, so maybe the whole project of adding merged mining as a secondary chain to the bitcoin code might need to be started over yet again using an even more recent copy of bitcoin.

Though i guess that depends on how big the fix for the attack was. Maybe it is just another patch that will need to be applied in addition to finishing up the applying of the merged mining patches.

I0Coin is still humming along even though it does die pretty much every day on some stupid and probably pointless DNS lookup error, so for now just retart it when that error kills it keep on merged mining as usual.

It is actually GeistGeld more than I0Coin that seems in need of an update, since there are fewer people using it, it seems, than are using I0Coin, and that probably means there are less people willing to put up with its RAM consumption than are willing to put up with I0Coin's daily dying.

-MarkM-

[rsnel]

Hi all,

I'd like to share the things i found out while researching the above question.

I0coin is killed by:

• I0coin by keeping all auxpow's in memory
• slow adoption by regular pools
• P2Pool
• high blockrate

Why?

• I0Coin stores all auxpows in memory, because auxpows are included in CBlockHeader and ALL CBlockHeaders are stored in memory, Bitcoin up to at least v0.8.3 does this also.
• Due to normal pools having little support for I0Coin (as opposed to eg. NMC), most of the mining is done in P2Pool
• P2Pool has very large (8kB as opposed to 200B) coinbase transactions (each auxpow has a copy of the full coinbase transaction in the bitcoin block with which it is associated)
• Due to the high blockrate, i0coin's memory usage grew faster than namecoin, ixcoin, devcoin GOTO bullet 2 and repeat ad infinitum

Endresult: i0coin's memory usage grows by at least 8kB per block, which is 8kB*60/1.5*24*365 = 2.7GB per year...  

Solution:

Port I0coin to v0.8.3. I did that https://github.com/rsnel/i0coin/tree/i0coin-0.8.x (I started with doublec's v32509 and merged sucessively higher versions of bitcoin into it). It seems to work fine. (it can do transactions, it can mine blocks that get accepted eg 01f017f6e86c5de539b0137677e6d096bbd2b05d9859c4c25c14c73579644dc8, which is a nVersion=2 block because it includes its nHeight in the coinbase script) On its own, this port uses about 500MB more memory than v32509. (I hoped to solve the problem by doing this port, but that didn't work...)

Then I proceded by, and I agree that this is a bit dirty, just not storing auxpows. This breaks two things:

• response to getheaders request doest not return auxpow part of header (not that bad, because the Satoshi client never issues getheaders requests)
• CBlockIndex:CheckIndex, it just returns true because it doesn't have access to auxpow (see comment in source)

I implemented this in branch dirty-trick. Please try it out, and run this version besides your own i0coind (it uses about 321MB) and keep an eye on it.

Better solution:

Retrieve auxpow's from disk in the two problem cases.

Further work:

• compile on other os's, only tested "make -f makefile.unix i0coind"
• fix logo's in qt client
• stabilize/test 0.8.3 port
• when to enable BIP30?
• much much more
• irc seeding is removed in bitcoin, include good seednodes and setup DNSSeed for i0coin

Greetings,

Rik.

[markm]

So this is probably why GeistGeld uses even more memory than I0Coin, too.

No memory leaks required, these coins are simply showing us what would happen to all the merged coins if people only merged mined them using p2pool.

People who would prefer not to have to use as much memory for merged mined chains thus have an incentive to try to convince pools other than p2pool to merged mine the coins.

As it is, p2pool makes all the coins other than the primary chain into roulette aka solo mining, which will be more and more of a crapshoot as merged mined coins in general go up in difficulty.

So basically anyone who wants I0coin and GeistGeld and, eventually, most other merged mined coins, not to grow in memory needs as fast should set up methods other than p2pool for merged mining them.

They could also consider pledging to the bounty that DeVCoin already has been offering for a long time now, a bounty for software that can be used to in effect make merged mining pools. The current bounty can be won even just by software letting someone offering access to a p2pool node to divvy up the secondary chain coins among the miners; maybe this finding though will motivate a separate bounty that leaves p2pool out of it and specifically wants free open source merged mining pool software to be created.

I will not be running your dirty trick version of I0coin, it does not seem a good idea. RAM is cheap, lets just throw RAM at the problem.

A non dirty trick updated I0Coin is welcome though even if it does consume more RAM. It should download the blockchain much faster and just basically be a better client with all the modern features.

-MarkM-

[ahmed_bodi]

i have possibly come up with a solution to the problem and will be testing it out on bytecoin first before releasing my idea, if it works ill gladly share my idea and any possible code to u guys

[rsnel]

Hello all,

Thanks for the responses. Note that i0coin-0.8.x is a clean port without dirty stuff. It starts and stops much faster than BDB clients. There probably are bugs, so the thing must be watched until the worst ones are inroned out.

WRT the dirty fix... I have a proposal for a clean fix that conserves even more memory.

The huge in-memory table of all block headers is called mapBlockIndex.

I plan on:

• wrapping access to mapBlockIndex (and LevelDB backend) in a class (there only 57 references to it, should be doable)
• within that class serializing directly from LevelDB, possibly introducing an object cache if performance is bad, in extreme cases this cache should be able to contain everything in which case performance should be equal to what it is now (come to think of it, in some cases it is better to skip serialize/unserialize, like in getheaders)
• creating a branch that will be based on bitcoin tag v0.8.2 so that it can be merged in all current branches

Greetings,

Rik.

[markm]

Well the really important question of course is does it actually work as a secondary chain in merged mining?

I tried to find in the code where it sets its aux chain ID as chain number three but could not find it, but then again going back to the old code and looking there I also could not find it. I cannot remember anymore where the merged mined coins set such things.

-MarkM-

[rsnel]

Well the really important question of course is does it actually work as a secondary chain in merged mining?

I tried to ind in the code where it sets its aux chain ID as chain number three but could not find it, but then again going back to the old code and looking there I also could not find it. i cannot remember anymore where the merged mined coins set such things.

-MarkM-

The function GetOurChainID() in main.cpp (around line 2092) sets the id to 2. The blocks that I produced during testing (i stopped mining after two blocks) are still part of the main chain.

See 58e3b1de4853cc237a6af7f784a5fafe76c37210f280a8e06619ae59bb77eec9 and 01f017f6e86c5de539b0137677e6d096bbd2b05d9859c4c25c14c73579644dc8.

So it seems to work.

[markm]

TL;DR They *are* reversed; Ixcoin is 3, I0coin is 2. Weird. Maybe they moved to merged mining in a different order than they were originally created.

Old post:

No, that will not work, I think, as each secondary chain needs a different ID, I think the ID is used as an index into the list of secondary chain merkles or something in the coinbase transaction or the block header or something.

Here are the IDs and default ports of the merged mined coins:

# Chains:
#  0 geistgeld 8777
#  1 namecoin 8336
#  2 ixcoin 8339
#  3 i0coin 7332
#  4 devcoin 52332
#  5 groupcoin 51332
#  7 rucoin 8082
# 16 coiledcoin 9442

RUcoin is no longer a merged mined coin I think, but when it was its ID was 7.

Notice that GiestGeld failed to set a unique ID, it just used bitcoin's ID, so it probably only works due to bitcoin itself never being one of the secondary chains.

So have you actually merged-mined this alongside ixcoin and not found that the IDs clash?'

Or has my list reversed the IDs for Ixcoin and I0coin, like maybe actually Ixcoin is 3 and I0coin is 2 ?

Ixcoin came first though didn't it, so seems likely its number would be lower than I0coin's?

Coiledcoin's 16 reflects the fact they already way back then thought it likely by the time they released their coin several more clones would have popped up!

-MarkM-

TL;DR They *are* reversed; Ixcoin is 3, i0coin is 2. Weird. Maybe they moved to merged mining in a different order than they were originally created.

[rsnel]

I use ixcoin from https://github.com/ixcoin/ixcoin/ it has id 3 in src/main.cpp (master branch).

Greetings,

Rik.

[rsnel]

Edited:

• added a seednode from markm
• transform howto into draft announcement
• added reference to doublec's bitparking pool

---- DRAFT [ANN][I0C] resurrection
---- please comment below if you have suggestions on how to proceed
---- if nobody objects in a couple of days, I will post the announcement in a new thread
---- to attempt to get more people interested
----
---- vircurex has expressed interest in relisting I0C, but the difficulty should be a lot higher
---- making a 51% attack infeasible

I0C, our favourite non-premined, fully decentralised, merged minable altcoin is back. I0coin used to require a lot of memory, about 8.2GB. The updated version only uses about 250MB (fully synced). The problem was fixed by moving data from memory storage to disk storage (this data was almost never used, it just took up space). Technical details are in the git log.

Short instructions on how to join the network, and start merged mining with P2Pool:

The sourcecode is in a git repository on github. The recommended branch (currently i0coin-0.8.x) is automatically selected.

Code:

$ git clone http://github.com/rsnel/i0coin/
$ cd i0coin/src
$ make -f makefile.unix i0coind

create ~/.i0coin/i0coin.conf which contains

Code:

server=1
daemon=1
rpcport=7332
rpcuser=i0coinrpc
rpcpassword=SOME_PASSWORD_HERE
port=7333
addnode=85.17.248.211:7333
addnone=198.154.60.61:7333

Run the daemon and let it sync. Currently there are about 845000 blocks in the blockchain. Please open incoming port 7333 in your firewall, the network needs externally reachable nodes to grow.

Let's earn some coin with P2Pool. Miners that already are merged mining GG,NVC,IXC,DVC already know what to do.

For the rest of us:

Code:

$ git checkout https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/
$ cd p2pool
$ less README.md
$ # install required packages, you did read the README didn't you?
$ ./run_p2pool.py --give-author 1.0 \
        --merged http://i0coinrpc:SOME_PASSWORD_HERE@localhost:7333/ \
        BITCOINRPC_USERNAME BITCOINRPC_PASSWORD

If you point your miner to localhost:9332 you will earn BTC, it will be sent directly to your wallet. In addition, without extra cost, you will get free I0coins. If you want to earn yet more coins (like IXC,DVC,NMC), please see this excellent topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.0  After that you should be able to figure GG out yourself.

Too much hassle? Check out http://mmpool.bitparking.com/pool (BTC 0% DGM, NMC/DVC/IXC/I0C?!?! PPS) to see if they have re-enabled I0C!

I hope that, once there is enough mining power, exchanges will relist this likable coin.

---- END DRAFT ANNOUNCEMENT---
--- rest of original post follows ----

Warning: the on-disk format of the database is not compatible with earlier versions. i0coind will need to rescan blk00??.dat or redownload the blockchain.

The gist of the fix is: fetch auxpow from LevelDB if it is needed.

My idea of caching mapBlockIndex completely is fruitless, because the pointers in it enable efficient traversal of the blocktree (also the bad parts of the blockchain). However, I split DB storage of mutable and immutable parts of C(Disk)BlockIndex, which allows caching of immutable parts.

Request:

The first node listed in the example i0coin.conf is my own server, it is currently syncing it's blockchain against the only other i0coin node that I know of.... (are you on this forum? thanks for keeping the coin alive!) Ideally there should be some more seednodes. Please post your IP address + port, if you want to contribute.

Greetings,

Rik.

[markm]

I updated earlier already to your repo and ran it on dvcstable01.dvcnode.org and dvcstable02.dvcnode.org

So maybe I don't have this latest update in place yet. I did get upgraded to the leveldb database though and was able to merged mine i0coin as a secondary chain.

One of them died, maybe from memory getting full so the system had to choose something to kill to make room. That was on dvcstable01 which actually has less RAM than dvcstable02.

i usually do not run i0coin and geistgeld on dvcstable01 anymore as they react too slow for the p2pool merged mining to like it, it complains when they take more than five seconds to reply. So I usually run them on dvcstable02, but sometimes I do have to run on both just so there will be a node to connect to since you cannot mine without being connected to at least one other node.

-MarkM-

[rsnel]

Thanks, I added dvcstable02 to the list of seednodes.

I see you are running the daemon from branch 'master', tot get the memory usage fix you need the one from branch i0coind-0.8.x. The on disk database format is incompatible between master and i0coind-0.8.x. Both are leveldb, but master uses 1 key for BlockIndex-data and i0coin-0.8.x uses two keys; one for mutable data (block status, undo information) and another for immutable data (block header etc). This makes it possible to update the mutable data in the database without knowing all immutable data (like auxpow).

Greetings,

Rik.

[markm]

Hmm well normally one just goes to someone's github picks the repo and clones it, so that is probably what i did.

I thought you had said the branch stuff was some dirty trick so i dod not go there i was contend to use RAM.

If you have something that is not some kind of dirsty trick that saves RAM without potentially screwing thigns up with some kludgy trick then maybe it should be made master so it is what people get when they do the normal go to repo and clone.

-MarkM-

[rsnel]

I agree, 'master' should be for general consumption. I will change it before the announcement. (a draft proposal of the announcement can be found in post #69 above).

The current situation is:
- 'master': meant for merging with bitcoin/master
- 'i0coin-0.8.x': the current recommended version with non-dirty memory fix
- 'dirty-trick' is the dirty trick, this branch is dead and wil not be recommended or updated
- the i0coin-0.y.x branches are for tests (if something doesn't work -> go back a major version and see if it works there)

My fix is clean and it should not screw things up. The three relevant changes are:
https://github.com/rsnel/i0coin/commit/e87d43d38bfb5b60151c575f3ba5f4b504d8c5ea
https://github.com/rsnel/i0coin/commit/c3b64e3c42ffec84c60cb005db04d037a31aedbe
https://github.com/rsnel/i0coin/commit/79ceee30d07ba53d75740ac687a62de9e1e5d32e

I have the illusion that, during porting, I learnt enough about the bitcoin codebase to make these changes. My failings during merging are richly documented in the git history.

[markm]

if I0Coin and GeistGeld massive use of RAM is because they are merged mined, why do not all the merged mined coins use that much RAM?

heck they all merge with Bitcoin so why doesn't bitcoin have the same problem since presumably each time a block of something is merged mined against bitcoin, the merkles of all the coins that got a block at the same time are all in the header of the bitcoin block aren't they?

-MarkM-

[rsnel]

if I0Coin and GeistGeld massive use of RAM is because they are merged mined, why do not all the merged mined coins use that much RAM?

I0coin en GeistGeld have a much shorter block period and they are mostly mined on P2Pool. (what's the GG difficulty?)

Let's look at blocks that only have the coinbase transaction.

- normally mined blocks are about 200 bytes in size (eg block 160099)
- merge mined blocks on a centralized pool are about 700 bytes in size (eg block 160093)
- merge mined blocks op P2Pool (recently) are about  8600 bytes (eg block 840000)

The size of merge mined blocks differs so greatly because they must include the coinbase (generate) transaction of the parent blockchain. The coinbase transactions of P2Pool are generally very big, because every pool member gets paid out individually in that transaction.

Example calculation with IXC.

Difficulty 1775893. Approximate hashrate 2^32*1775893/600 = 12712 GH/s. P2Ppool has at most (if everyone merged mined ixc) 3000GH/s (which is probably a lot less, I don't know, it can be researched)

Average size of block 2000kB (25% P2Pool, 75% other pools). Annual growth 2000*6*24*365 = 100MB.

In my first post, I showed that I0C grows 2.7GB/yr.

Please ask for more clarification if some part of the calculation is not clear.

heck they all merge with Bitcoin so why doesn't bitcoin have the same problem since presumably each time a block of something is merged mined against bitcoin, the merkles of all the coins that got a block at the same time are all in the header of the bitcoin block aren't they?

Bitcoin (the parent chain) blocks only have the root merkle hash of all merge mined blockchains. The size is fixed. It's part of the coinbase txin script, in which miners can place whatever data they please. (size is limited by Satoshi client; it will not build on blocks with too much data in txin).

[doublec]

Or has my list reversed the IDs for Ixcoin and I0coin, like maybe actually Ixcoin is 3 and I0coin is 2 ?

Ixcoin came first though didn't it, so seems likely its number would be lower than I0coin's?

i0coin had merge mining added first. Then ixcoin added it once it was proved to work for i0coin.

[rsnel]

Hi doublec,

Nice to see that you are aware of this thread.

Since I based my work on your's; I'd like to get your opinion on my changes to your code and the draft annoucement.

Also, it it likely that Bitparking will pickup I0C again in the near future?

Greetings,

Rik.

[doublec]

Since I based my work on your's; I'd like to get your opinion on my changes to your code and the draft annoucement.

Also, it it likely that Bitparking will pickup I0C again in the near future?

Yes, I'll likely add it it. I'll start with putting some hash rate towards it and see if it's stable before opening it up for registration. Bitcoin 0.8.2+ has been fairly unstable for me when used on the pool. What did you do about about the block forking features added in bitcoin that weren't in i0coin originally? I assume this client can cause block forks due to p2sh support, level db vs bdb differences, etc. This would make it a requirement for your client to be used by everyone pretty quickly. Probably not a big deal since i0coin isn't getting much mining power or exchange presence.

[markm]

Open for registration?

I already have an I0Coin address registered from when it was on bitparking before, will that one still apply?


-MarkM-

[rsnel]

@doublec

Thats great!

I value compatibility with the old client, otherwise I would undermine trust in I0C (I run the old version on my home machine to watch for inconsistencies). These are the forks I prevented:

• BIP16 (P2SH): I postponed that indefinately, until there is community consensus to enable it at some point(commit)
• BIP30 (duplicate transactions): Also postponed. Probably worth enabling (commit)
• There is a possible issue with 'version 2' blocks, if there are too much of then, 'version 1' blocks will be ignored. This is no issue, because getauxblock still produces 'version 1' blocks.
• BDB incompatibility, postponed (commit)

I think these are all the causes for splits.

Greetings,

Rik.

[purelithium]

Really watching this. I've got a few thousand i0coins that are inaccessible to me due to the memory issues running the client. Hopefully someone can compile some windows binaries once the code is more widely released.

[worldinacoin]

I am also using Windows, hopefully they get some binaries out, I guess quite a number of Windows users out here.

[doublec]

The bitparking pool has now enabled i0coin (and groupcoin) for testing. Let me know if you have any issues. It's currently applying only a percentage of the pool towards i0coin to prevent pool performance issues due to large numbers of block submissions.

[kelsey]

i have a really old client, any current nodes to connect too?

[bitpop]

Why the hell is the blockchain so ducking big?

[doublec]

Why the hell is the blockchain so ducking big?

It's a pretty old coin with a 1.5 minute or so block time. It's a good example of what bitcoin will be like when it gets this many blocks.

[markm]

Why the hell is the blockchain so ducking big?

Merged mined coins include the primary chain's coinbase as proof of the merged mining, and a lot of merged mining happens using p2pool which distributes to its miners in the coinbase so making some pretty huge coinbase transactions...

-MarkM-

[FinShaggy]

Are there ways to earn this coin without mining, maybe by writing?

[Kumala]

I0coin back on Vircurex.com  (incl. your old balances).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=294490.new#new

[dreamwatcher]

I will be placing i0coin on cryptocoinexplorer.com as one of the coins testing CCE3. This means it is a permanent part of CCE (as long as it stays active), but to be introduced under the CCE3 test program.

i0coin has a couple year old block chain, so it will take some time for for the initial database to be built, more than likely overnight and even into tomorrow.

Address will follow the normal CCE address scheme:

i0c.cryptocoinexplorer.com



I will probably turn on the web server before the database is complete, but I will post in the CCE3 project thread when complete.

CCE3 project thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262539

Main CCE thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124303.360

[dreamwatcher]

It looks like it will be at least a day or two before before the entire i0coin chain (over 900K blocks!!) is fully analyzed and CCE3 has made a complete database.It might be quicker as it hits the range where the coin lost popularity and there is only coinbase transactions.

I will open up the web server later today, though I doubt the database will complete.

[bitpop]

Yeah i0 coin is a bitch

[bitpop]

It's Halloween, the dead rise

[No_2]

Gliss has said he will add I0C to his tracker at http://coinmarketcap.com/ if somone can point him at a block explorer for it:

...

Do you have any plans to add IOC which had recently been revived and is also back on Vircurex, see here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268228.0

I will add if there's a block explorer with quantity info...

Can anyone point him at a suitable blockchain explorer?

[dreamwatcher]

Gliss has said he will add I0C to his tracker at http://coinmarketcap.com/ if somone can point him at a block explorer for it:

...

Do you have any plans to add IOC which had recently been revived and is also back on Vircurex, see here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268228.0

I will add if there's a block explorer with quantity info...

Can anyone point him at a suitable blockchain explorer?

I should have one up in a couple of days. The i0c chain is quite the beast and I did alot work this weekend on the test server. Today I will continue to build the initial database.

Added: However CCE3 API is not ready for testing yet, so the explorer will not have a API immediately.

See this thread for information and updates.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262539.msg2804427

[Hysteria]

Can anyone tell by what date will generate all the coins?

[ahmed_bodi]

altexplorer.net i got joeyjones to add i0c

[m00x!]

Can anyone tell by what date will generate all the coins?

There is a table on the i0coin wiki with this information.
 
https://izerocoin.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#I0coin_Generation_and_Inflation_Schedule

[COMKORT]

Good News

I0coin (I0C) was added COMKORT EXCHANGE


https://comkort.com/market/trade/i0c_btc

https://comkort.com/market/trade/i0c_ltc

https://comkort.com/market/trade/i0c_doge

GOOD LUCK & HAPPY TRADING

[indiguy]

I0C is now on http://coinwik.org

[MrBlockchainovich]

http://geti0coin.com/

[mafia]

i have 0.37812308 i0coin - who wants it (minus fee)

[crazyearner]

Is this going dead again just seen market picking up for this coin and  re downloading blockchain taking its time.

[bitpop]

Is this going dead again just seen market picking up for this coin and  re downloading blockchain taking its time.

There's a new iocoin

[cinnamon_carter]

i noticed that new coin launched basically robbed the name,

anyone who has been around knows what the real i0 coin is and the new one will probably be gone in 6 months .... although you never can tell

seems quiet on this network not many coins moving around.....

Is this going dead again just seen market picking up for this coin and  re downloading blockchain taking its time.

There's a new iocoin

[brooksby]

http://geti0coin.com/

The new I0coin website url is izerocoin.org


Official website:    izerocoin.org
Forum:                izerocoin.org/forum
Wiki:                   izerocoin.org/wiki


I've been working on moving the I0coin website to the new url.  I'll be taking over management of the site from Klazzik.  All content on the website, wiki and forum has been copied.  We're just putting on the final touches.  All the accounts on the forum have been moved to the new site as well, so feel free to use your old accounts.

The old site geti0coin.com won't be updated anymore.  Go to the new site for news, links, wiki and forum posts.

[altcoin hitler]

Is this going dead again just seen market picking up for this coin and  re downloading blockchain taking its time.

There's a new iocoin

not for long. This one will outlive the name-thief

[cinnamon_carter]

on vircurex in the past few weeks the exchange rate vs. btc has gone up 3x,  out of nowhere, looks like in past 24 hours there is almost 2 btc trade volume alone, for months on and off i watched this , hardly any volume ever since early 2014 really..... strange to see..... i wonder whats up

[tinderbox]

on vircurex in the past few weeks the exchange rate vs. btc has gone up 3x,  out of nowhere, looks like in past 24 hours there is almost 2 btc trade volume alone, for months on and off i watched this , hardly any volume ever since early 2014 really..... strange to see..... i wonder whats up

I'm not sure the exact reasons for i0coin's recent price rise, but here are a few guesses.

i0coin has been under priced for most of this year.

i0coin is under advertised so its existence is not widely known.

Volume and interest have been picking up since we got our faucets going recently.

People are starting to realize all the crap coins are not worth investing in, and they're moving to established coins.

[runpaint]

Is this the same coin, symbol I0C, that ispace.uk is basically giving me free with merge-mining without me even knowing about it?

I mined Curecoin and Unobtanium and suddenly I also have a balance in iocoin.

[m00x!]

Is this the same coin, symbol I0C, that ispace.uk is basically giving me free with merge-mining without me even knowing about it?

I mined Curecoin and Unobtanium and suddenly I also have a balance in iocoin.

Yes, it's most likely I0coin since that site merge mines it according to their coin list.

http://ispace.co.uk/coindetails/?coin=i0c

[sorryforthat]

I cant find this coin on ispace. Is there somewhere I can mine it? Is it just Merge mined?

[runpaint]

I had a small balance at ispace, I think it was less than .01 iocoin.  Anyway now it's gone with no trace, I'm not showing a balance and I never even added a withdrawal address.  Maybe it was a mistake, or maybe they changed their minds.

[sorryforthat]

the only way to obtain i0 coin is to purchase it on vircurex or mine it on mmpools merged pool unless you build a custom merge mining set up .... some use p2pool but i0 is mostly mined  out

Well thats useful information, Ill move on from it then. I dont really like the size of mmpool. Not much hash to really make anything.

@Cinnamon_Carter - This isn't the place, but I used your guide to compile wallets on windows and boy was it a process but I wouldnt have been able to do it without that guide, its much appreciated.

[worldinacoin]

I have been mining i0coin when it was resurrected again and again, I guess this time I will give it a miss

[no141]

F2Pool is now paying out i0coin (I0C), I'm guessing this is the right one. What exchanges it is on?

Cryptsy lists I/OCoin, but that has an i at the beginning of adresses, I think I need one with a j.

[cinnamon_carter]

vircurex

F2Pool is now paying out i0coin (I0C), I'm guessing this is the right one. What exchanges it is on?

Cryptsy lists I/OCoin, but that has an i at the beginning of adresses, I think I need one with a j.

[m00x!]

vircurex

F2Pool is now paying out i0coin (I0C), I'm guessing this is the right one. What exchanges it is on?

Cryptsy lists I/OCoin, but that has an i at the beginning of adresses, I think I need one with a j.

Also comkort.com

[cinnamon_carter]

i think i heard comkort is closing

vircurex

F2Pool is now paying out i0coin (I0C), I'm guessing this is the right one. What exchanges it is on?

Cryptsy lists I/OCoin, but that has an i at the beginning of adresses, I think I need one with a j.

Also comkort.com

[moug]

for anyone that reading this tread as to to I0Coin (I0C) (This threads coin) $ 0.009347

and

another coin with the same name I/O Coin (IOC) $ 0.012487

they are not the same... Just go to coinmarketcap.com

why they would do that boggles the mind.

[Laamadeus]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624935.0 More talking in this thread.

[tinderbox]

for anyone that reading this tread as to to I0Coin (I0C) (This threads coin) $ 0.009347

and

another coin with the same name I/O Coin (IOC) $ 0.012487

they are not the same... Just go to coinmarketcap.com

why they would do that boggles the mind.

I0coin, with a zero, came years before I/O coin so you need to ask them.

[cryptoVoodoo]

i think i heard comkort is closing

vircurex

F2Pool is now paying out i0coin (I0C), I'm guessing this is the right one. What exchanges it is on?

Cryptsy lists I/OCoin, but that has an i at the beginning of adresses, I think I need one with a j.

Also comkort.com

yeh it closed

[cinnamon_carter]

to my knowledge vircurex (a crooked place to do business with anyway) was the last exchange to have the real i0 coin (the one this thread is about and merged mined with btc) listed.

if any exchanges add it please post here ----  honestly with all the junk floating out there hard to believe this coin is not traded somewhere along with all the merged coins with btc including groupcoin

[scatha]

There IS an exchange that trades i0coin.

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=I0C_BTC