Ixcoin TODO

[Vlad2Vlad]

 I'm sure we can find a win-win situation for everyone..

I'd like to know what is the problem with my spin-off IXCP idea?

Like I said, too complicated to implement.

Too complicated as in too many lines of code or we'll never find or implement the right solution?

We should find the best solution and if that solution requires too much work we have to try and find additional help.  We shouldn't dismiss the best idea cause it requires too much programming.  

We seem to have 3, maybe 4 experienced coders here now.  Let's figure out the best solution and how much labor exactly it would take to code and then we can figure out the best way to break it up and get it done.

The idea on an IXCP is completely not necessary.

Counterparty already has a mechanism to handle the native currency (see: BTCPay).

What I want to do is to tie the creation of new assets to the use of IXC.  So that if you wanted to create 1 million shares, you need to spend 100 IXC to do so.   Without this kind of 'conservation of money', then adding this new capability to perform exchanges and possibly perform better will not increase the value of IXC.

This is very similar to the ColoredCoin concept in that you can't create new coins without allocating native coins.

Well, it sounds only fair that if a coin piggy backs off our blockchain that some value is then added to IXC.  So I don't have a problem with that and it sounds like an equitable solution for all parties.

Jamaer, can you clearly explain why IXC shouldn't directly benefit from lending its security out to other protocols, like Counter Party?  Or is your issue something else altogether.

It's difficult to see who's right here if you're not a programmer.  Cause in some way both of you sound like you're making sound and fair arguments.

This is why we need a third, experienced programmer to chime in.

Thanks again to the both of you.  We'll find the right solution, I'm certain of it!

[Vlad2Vlad]

And to brighten the mood a bit, I'm waiting for confirmation and clarification regarding a matter but I expect to have some very good news for everyone in the coming days.


So hang in there and let's try to figure out the best way to implement CounterParty, Colored Coins, MasterCoin or maybe the best solution is 2 of those or all 3 and let everyone decide which one is the best.  

[FrictionlessCoin]

Listen this about CounterParty http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterparty

[Vlad2Vlad]

Listen this about CounterParty http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterparty

Man, I really like CounterParty after hearing more about it.

xnova was here last week, can't he give his opinion to help us figure out the best solution?

[kraizi]

I’m new to Counterparty so I may not have everything down, but let me throw out some ideas.

I also dislike the burn process as discussed so far because it destroys IXC, but I have a proposal which may solve the issue.  As background, we could allow burning of IXC into IXCP to be initiated by any holder of IXC at any time.  When the burn occurs X amount of IXC is transformed into Y amount of IXCP, the Counterparty metacoin.  The X amount of IXC is destroyed forever by burning to a non-existent iXcoin address.  Each burn of IXC to IXCP increases the supply of IXCP, which will trade independently from IXC with its own unique market price.  

However, this creates the problem that the 21 million IXC will eventually be exhausted.  To solve the problem, I propose we always increase the MAX_MONEY amount for iXcoin by the same X amount of IXC's which were destroyed during a burn.  By doing so we always maintain 21 million IXC maximum coins.  Since the new IXCP coins are independent from IXC they won't dilute IXC price regardless of how many IXCP are created over time.  (We don’t want a 1:1 price peg between IXC and IXCP because over years or decades there could be many more IXCP’s than IXC.  This could have the effect of diluting the value of IXC because the two coins become essentially one in the same, if price pegged, even though they are used in different ways.)

1.  iXcoin MAX_MONEY = [ (21 million IXC cap) + (total IXC destroyed (“burned”) by creating IXCP) ] * COIN.  MAX_MONEY will change over time, but we maintain the 21 million IXC cap.  (COIN is the number of satoshi's per IXC.)

2.  Block Reward.  When MAX_MONEY gets updated during a burn it automatically pushes forward the date when the block reward ends by the time it takes to replace the destroyed IXC.  In fact, the 96 coin block reward will return even years from now when a burn occurs even if only briefly.  This should be very welcome to miners who will benefit from additional block rewards without affecting the total 21 million IXC in circulation.  The person or persons who do the burn will be the only ones taking the risk of giving up IXC for a new asset.  It’s their choice, and it doesn’t place any risk on other IXC holders.

3.  IXC exchange value.  Long term the value of IXC should not get diluted by this process because the same 21 million cap remains in effect.  Short term there could be some deflationary affects if a very large burn occurs which removes a significant portion of IXC from circulation.  The entire conversion process to create IXCP can occur (I think) within ten minutes to an hour if it’s allowed to occur in a single transaction, but the “replacement” of IXC will only progress at a rate of 96 coins every ten minutes.    

4.  IXC burn cap.  If a potential IXC supply problem is anticipated by item 3, then a cap can be placed on the percentage of IXC which can be in replacement status at any given time.  Perhaps a cap of 1-5% of IXC in replacement status can be set to guarantee at least 95-99% of the 21 million IXC are always in circulation.  Once the 1-5% cap is reached, future burns must wait until IXC is replaced by the normal mining process.

[kraizi]

How can we use Counterparty to increase the value of IXC if IXCP is not pegged to it?  Well for reasons mentioned above, I think pegging the two could actually have the opposite effect on IXC.  But, the true value of Counterparty to iXcoin is it essentially turns the iXcoin blockchain into a peer-to-peer exchange.  That in itself will increase the value of IXC for several reasons.  First, when someone wants to start a new Counterparty asset they must use IXC to do it.  There are not an infinite number of CP assets that can be created because there aren't an infinite number of IXC, so there will be competition for IXC to create new assets.  Second, all those people who have CP assets in the iXcoin blockchain will have a vested interest in ensuring iXcoin prospers.  I believe they will also have an inclination to buy iXcoin.  Third, the number of transactions in the IXC blockchain will increase tremendously as more new CP assets are created.  As transactions go up, so does miner interest.  More miners (or at least the retention of miners) mean a more secure blockchain and therefore more customers wanting to start new CP assets.  Other cryptos which are only cryptos and nothing else won’t be able to compete with iXcoin and all its other assets and functionality.  I know this is hard to quantify, but if you look at a crypto with a market cap of $1 million, and iXcoin with the same $1 million market cap plus $100 million in total CP assets which would you be more likely to invest in?  Which is undervalued?  Which is more likely to have the support to survive longer into the future?

[mmm01]

And to brighten the mood a bit, I'm waiting for confirmation and clarification regarding a matter but I expect to have some very good news for everyone in the coming days.


So hang in there and let's try to figure out the best way to implement CounterParty, Colored Coins, MasterCoin or maybe the best solution is 2 of those or all 3 and let everyone decide which one is the best.  

Ohh that sounds soo secretive and important. Can't wait to hear/read about it. Not joking btw in case you take this post as a joke. Looking forward to good news.

[FrictionlessCoin]

How can we use Counterparty to increase the value of IXC if IXCP is not pegged to it?  Well for reasons mentioned above, I think pegging the two could actually have the opposite effect on IXC.  But, the true value of Counterparty to iXcoin is it essentially turns the iXcoin blockchain into a peer-to-peer exchange.  That in itself will increase the value of IXC for several reasons.  First, when someone wants to start a new Counterparty asset they must use IXC to do it.  There are not an infinite number of CP assets that can be created because there aren't an infinite number of IXC, so there will be competition for IXC to create new assets.  Second, all those people who have CP assets in the iXcoin blockchain will have a vested interest in ensuring iXcoin prospers.  I believe they will also have an inclination to buy iXcoin.  Third, the number of transactions in the IXC blockchain will increase tremendously as more new CP assets are created.  As transactions go up, so does miner interest.  More miners (or at least the retention of miners) mean a more secure blockchain and therefore more customers wanting to start new CP assets.  Other cryptos which are only cryptos and nothing else won’t be able to compete with iXcoin and all its other assets and functionality.  I know this is hard to quantify, but if you look at a crypto with a market cap of $1 million, and iXcoin with the same $1 million market cap plus $100 million in total CP assets which would you be more likely to invest in?  Which is undervalued?  Which is more likely to have the support to survive longer into the future?

If you listened to the audio broadcast that I posted, it should be clear that an IXCP is only needed for the betting functionality.   IXCP is essentially what they call a 'proxy coin'.   To implement this,  the foundation can just create a asset that buys and sells IXC at a 1:1 rate.  That is all that is needed,   no complicated burning process is needed.

The reason I propose that a proportional number of IXC is spent when you issue a new currency (similar to how it is done with colored coin and not counterparty/mastercoin) is that is ties demand to IXC.   In addition, I think it is more secure,  you can't create billions of assets with zero-cost.

[kraizi]

@Friction

So no meta-coins?  Well if you can get it to work I suppose that would be fine. 

jamaer brought up a good point about orders.  How do you do orders without a meta-coin?  There is implied escrowing with orders to keep both sides honest.  What if someone submits an order with 5 IXC in their wallet, then moves the 5 IXC to another wallet before the order is filled?  Does the order just not occur?  Does it get canceled immediately when the 5 IXC gets moved?

Let me give an example: how do you plan to implement escrow for IXC (in orders, bets etc.)? XCP is simply a protocol currency, so in the original Counterparty it's simple to do, but IXC is a blockchain currency so the same does not work (as miners need to accept each transaction). So if I want to give 5 IXC for a particular asset, what happens to my IXC while a match is looked for? If a match is found, how those 5 IXC is moved to the previous asset owner?

[FrictionlessCoin]

@Friction

So no meta-coins?  Well if you can get it to work I suppose that would be fine.  

jamaer brought up a good point about orders.  How do you do orders without a meta-coin?  There is implied escrowing with orders to keep both sides honest.  What if someone submits an order with 5 IXC in their wallet, then moves the 5 IXC to another wallet before the order is filled?  Does the order just not occur?  Does it get canceled immediately when the 5 IXC gets moved?

Let me give an example: how do you plan to implement escrow for IXC (in orders, bets etc.)? XCP is simply a protocol currency, so in the original Counterparty it's simple to do, but IXC is a blockchain currency so the same does not work (as miners need to accept each transaction). So if I want to give 5 IXC for a particular asset, what happens to my IXC while a match is looked for? If a match is found, how those 5 IXC is moved to the previous asset owner?

No need for *a* meta-coin.  Anyone can create their own asset.  So the foundation can create its own asset that has a 1:1 backing with IXC.

You can create an order with IXC.  There is just an additional step to pay the IXC.  It is just like making an order with BTC using Counterparty.

If you want to exchange other alt-coins (i.e. BTC, LTC etc)  then you use what is called a 'proxy coin'.  Essentially a party provides a 'vending' capability where you exchange say BTC for proxy BTC coins ( let's call those IX-BTC).  The IXBTC can then be held in escrow using the order or bet functionality.  The equivalent of a counterparty coin would be an IX-IXC.

So someone can essentially setup a vending service for alt coins that converts  say LTC to IX-LTC for trading.  Essentially it is a distributed decentralized exchange.   So really what happens now is the creation of trusted parties that vouch for the specific asset.  However the actual trading is done in a decentralized manner.

So, here is the scenario,  you want to buy Gold with BTC.

You have a gold bullion vendor that exchanges one ounce of gold for 1 IX-GLD.   
You have another vendor that exchanges 1 BTC for 1 IX-BTC. 
A party that want to buy gold makes an buy order for say 3 IX-BTC in exchange for IX-GLD.
The buyer gets a match from an existing sell order.  The quantities are exchange.

The seller redeems his IX-BTC at the BTC vendor.
The buyer redeems his IX-GLD at the gold bullion vendor.

In no event does the exchange have posession of the BTC or Gold.  Only trusted vendors have real ownership.

[FrictionlessCoin]

I want to mention that native colored coins require a hard fork.  The advantage of a native colored coin is the security and that you don't need to download the entire block chain (you can have a SPV client).

The Counterparty approach gets you the exchange capabilities, plus the 'colored coin' functionality (aka Assets).  It does not require a hard fork, only an upgrade to the latest client.   There is still the issue of the pools accepting this client.

We can always migrate the Counterparty assets to the native colored coins in the future.

So it really is not a choice of one over the other.

Also the concept of a 'meta coin' is really arbitrary.  You can define one with its own distribution mechanism.  You can define as many as you want.  The creation of the Counterparty port in fact does not even require one to be defined up front!   A 'meta coin' is just another asset.

As far as pegging or floating a value,  it is just like any currency,  you can choose to peg it to another or you can have it float in an exchange.   None of this is really built into the protocol.

[FrictionlessCoin]

I'm getting a little confused as to your exact proposal Friction.. Maybe a little clarity.?

So what is the road map that you are proposing?

1. Port Counterparty with x features.
-requires a small update
 (which features, 1 more time please, and how will they work on a mechanical level? ie: class a, class b, class c)

2. Native colored coins

3. Altcoin exchange?

Port Counterparty with two changes:

(1) No burning of a meta-coin.
(2) Issuance of assets have a fee.  Fee is donated or burned.


Native colored coins in some future date. 

The exchange already comes with Counterparty!

[FrictionlessCoin]

I'd also like to recognize that ixcoin is one your babies friction, and we in no way wish to harm it.

however, are we doing what friction wants

or what the

ixcoin community wants?

cause we should make this distinction.

edit( I like the road map, I have no problems with it)

Listen to this interview:   http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterparty

The CounterParty port is the cheapest and least intrusive way to get a lot of new functionality into iXcoin.

In fact, it elevates iXcoin into not just a Bitcoin clone, but one that is a second generation crypto-currency.

[FrictionlessCoin]

I'd also like to recognize that ixcoin is one your babies friction, and we in no way wish to harm it.

however, are we doing what friction wants

or what the

ixcoin community wants?

cause we should make this distinction.

edit( I like the road map, I have no problems with it)

Listen to this interview:   http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb109-the-ideal-counterparty

The CounterParty port is the cheapest and least intrusive way to get a lot of new functionality into iXcoin.

In fact, it elevates iXcoin into not just a Bitcoin clone, but one that is a second generation crypto-currency.

Correct. and I'm listening to it now to determine if I've missed something. You know I was an exodus investor in mastercoin as well remember when Robby proposed his mastercoind in python that later became counterpartyd. I also called him out on the original but now gone talk.mastercoin by providing the means, motive and opportunity for him being phantomphreak. I was wrong, he was xnova.


My question to you. Will you be allowing an 80 byte op_return in the ix code? And will you be fine if someone else also builds their own version of counterparty on ix to compete with your version? This was how counterparty came about after all, with its competition with mastercoin.

It does not matter if someone else comes along to build another counterparty to ix.   Unlike counterparty and mastercoin, this port doesn't have its own coins.  It actually doesn't even make sense why counterparty and mastercoin should have their own *special* coins.   That's because any body can make their own coin, and any of these coin function the same way as any other coin.  The only thing that makes a user defined coin valuable is if it is backed by something (i.e. IXC, BTC, gold, shares, etc)

We will keep the original 80 byte op return.

I don't know what counterparty is going to do to circumvent the 40 byte limit of Bitcoin. 

[FrictionlessCoin]

As per my summary post above they will use multi sig


also as per above as well, they have debated moving to another chain.

Oh, I didn't read that:

The second method puts the data in the second public key in multiple one-of-two multisig outputs.

This could be also banned by Bitcoin in the future since the usecase for one-of-two is almost identical to one-of-one!  In fact the plans have been talked about:  http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/30705609/

Well, this apparently the method that Mastercoin currently uses.  It is also the method of the CoinPrism colored coin approach.  

This indeed interesting.   Oh... one massive advantage of IXC for user define assets vs. BTC.   IXC blockchain is so much smaller!  The entire block chain can download in a few hours, unlike BTC which can take several days.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Can you explain your mechanism that allows ix to do counterparty without the use of metacoins

Let me quailify... we out the use of *a special* metacoin.    All user defined assets are all metacoins.

Ask yourself a question:  "What can a CounterParty or MasterCoin do that a User defined asset can't do?"

[FrictionlessCoin]

Can you explain your mechanism that allows ix to do counterparty without the use of metacoins

Let me quailify... we out the use of *a special* metacoin.    All user defined assets are all metacoins.

Ask yourself a question:  "What can a CounterParty or MasterCoin do that a User defined asset can't do?"

decentralized escrow?

Of course this will work with any meta-coin.    

It is not clear why this is not obvious.  Can you explain to me why *a special* metacoin is needed at all?  All that is needed is *any* metacoin.  

In fact, xnova alluded to that in the end of his interview.  

I think the main intellectual stumbling block is the realization that the counterpartycoin and the mastercoin does not serve any purpose different than any other user defined asset.  It is the mechanism that is valuable and not the coin.   This is very different from bitcoin where the coin carries value. 

[FrictionlessCoin]

so because user defined assets can be thought of as a metacoin,

they can therefore also perform counterparty features (which require the use of a metacoin).


thus no need for a counterparty style metacoin as ix has a user defined asset that performs as the metacoin

Yes,  all you need are two user defined assets.  Say you define A and B,  then you can create an order for A and B.

Say you did not have a user defined asset?  You can't do anything because you can't create an order.

Why is there only one metacoin for counterparty or mastercoin and not two?   Because the other one is not a metacoin (i.e. btc).   You can create an order for counterparty and BTC,  but BTC is handled differently in that it is not escrowed.

You want full escrow?  You need two metacoins.

You want to send someone something?  You need at least one metacoin.  

The only way to require a metacoin is to demand a fee for every counterparty or mastercoin transaction.  However, that is not part of these protocols.  This is different from Ripple and Bitcoin that requires that fees be present.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Would you say that this is a cross of colored coins and counterparty? Or more similar to one then the other?

No.... it is a subset of Counterparty. No burning.

Counterparty is a superset of colored coins.

I'm actually incorrect about Mastercoin,  you can't issue new coins in Mastercoin without declaring their exchange rate with some other coin.  So therefore,  the first coins issued by Mastercoin require mastercoins.  That is why Safecoin required mastercoins where donated to safecoin so they could acquire their own coin!

[FrictionlessCoin]

Thanks for all of the clarity. My feeble mind was having a hard time grasping at what you were talking about. 

I'm looking forward to seeing this, so will stop bugging you with questions for a while.   

anyone else want to weigh in on this?

Cinnamon?

Not a problem.  These discussions help be solidify my understanding of these.

The one big question I have is,  why Counterparty and not Mastercoin?  It think this boils down to what is available in open source and what is not.