Ixcoin TODO

[mrbodz]

whats luke's twitter?

[1715483393]

1715483393

[1715483393]

1715483393

[1715483393]

1715483393

[1715483393]

1715483393

[publicjud]

I looks like he made this website: http://lukeconnellau.wix.com/ixcoin-v3

And was paid $3,000.00 in IXC by Thomas.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Hi,

I didn't know till now about this:

https://www.cryptsy.ca/pages/about

and especially this:

https://www.cryptsy.ca/markets/view/IXC_CAD

Uhhh, why isn't this news?  I guess Cryptsy is anti free press.  lol

[mrbodz]

it was announced about 2 days ago at inside bitcoins in chicago

[Vlad2Vlad]

it was announced about 2 days ago at inside bitcoins in chicago

I read all crypto related headlines and I heard nothing which means they really kept it "inside".  lol

So is Cryptsy gonna launch a European exchange next?  Why is that even necessary - I mean, can't Canadians trade on the US exchange as well as anyone from any other country?  They could have just added CAD to the US exchange I think.

Speaking of fiat, we should see IXC added to Cryptsy's dollar fiat market soon. 

[Vlad2Vlad]

Great find Deadsea, this is much bigger than anyone realizes.

[Vlad2Vlad]

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?

[photon_coin]

it does not matter who owns/controls blockstream

what everything comes down to with ix coin and bitcoin is who has the hash power to mine the blocks

this is where the control is, and where it should always stay

to shorten the last post why build anything new ?

what mr Vlad is saying is that everything necessary is deployed, has been for years and running well too.

to bad for whoever wants to start a new alt coin to try and hop on bitcoins back lol

it will fall and roll off the back of bitcoin with zero friction and smash on the ground while bitcoin and the aux chains are hashing away faster than most people ever imagined a few years ago

[Vlad2Vlad]

it does not matter who owns/controls blockstream

what everything comes down to with ix coin and bitcoin is who has the hash power to mine the blocks

this is where the control is, and where it should always stay

to shorten the last post why build anything new ?

what mr Vlad is saying is that everything necessary is deployed, has been for years and running well too.

to bad for whoever wants to start a new alt coin to try and hop on bitcoins back lol

it will fall and roll off the back of bitcoin with zero friction and smash on the ground while bitcoin and the aux chains are hashing away faster than most people ever imagined a few years ago

Thanks for your input and summary.

I wanna add that ixCoin's 4+ years of ultra fair distribution and market testing is nearly impossible to beat.

Who out there can complain that they didn't have the time or money to buy and accumulate iXCoin when it sat at ~2 cents for over 4 years [and with a guy like me shouting from the rooftops, lol]?  Talk about massive fair distribution.  If Bitcoin insiders try to launch their own alt-chain, to be used with Bitcoin, they will fail miserably for this reason alone.

[Guitarr]

Ideas for crypto synergies are always interesting, especially for IXC which I think has a lot of dormant potential.Where did that write-up in the middle of your post come from, Vlad? Assuming it's not written by you.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Ideas for crypto synergies are always interesting, especially for IXC which I think has a lot of dormant potential.Where did that write-up in the middle of your post come from, Vlad? Assuming it's not written by you.

Why would you assume it's not me?  lol

It was actually from reddit.  There's been a lot of blocksize debating going on lately between the top Bitcoin core devs and today's was very interesting.  I don't remember who made that post but it wasn't a Bitcoin core dev, just some regional poster I presume.

Definitely an eye opener for me.  I had a basic understanding of how ixCoin would fit into the Eco system but this, this is HUGE and I honestly do not see a better solution.  I would dare say that ixCoin is a shoein, there is no better fit for the main job as a sidechain altcoin.  I'm sure Litecoin and dogecoin and a few other coins will get some play but after this latest research I feel strongly that ixCoin is gonna be the big one.

[kraizi]

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?

Are the Bitcoin devs actually mentioning iXcoin by name or just side chains in general?

[cinnamon_carter]

Just in case Vlad has now on his github a build of ixcoind to run in linux (was built on 64 bit ubuntu)  normally I think 98% of linux users would compile this on their own but in case anyone wants it............ it is available ..............


https://github.com/vladroberto/IXCoin/releases/tag/0.9.3.0a

built with source from here

https://github.com/vladroberto/IXCoin

for windows users ix coin 9.3 still same stable release

https://github.com/vladroberto/IXCoin/releases/tag/0.9.3.0

Your addnodes for conf file here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230141.msg11699116#msg11699116


Hopefully this will 'inspire' more people to run nodes for ix coin, thanks Vlad

[RoscoGordon]

ixcoin.org  ?



This domain name expired on Jul 13 2015 05:38PM
Click here to renew it.

[Vlad2Vlad]

ixcoin.org  ?



This domain name expired on Jul 13 2015 05:38PM
Click here to renew it.

Not again.

Come on, Thomas.  Send me the domain and I'll keep it paid and up to date.  This looks really Mickey Mouse when we can't even pay $9 per year to keep a domain going.

[zebedee]

Not again.

Come on, Thomas.  Send me the domain and I'll keep it paid and up to date.  This looks really Mickey Mouse when we can't even pay $9 per year to keep a domain going.

That's 50% of his stash.  Simple economic decision making.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Announcement:


Cinnamon Carter has resigned from the IXC Board 'to focus on other projects'.

I wanna thank cinnamon for all the help and contributions she has made to ixCoin.

That said:  I fully expect a massive ambush against me in the next 30-60 days.

That should be a lot of fun...   

[Vlad2Vlad]

Thank you Cin, for all your free and passionate work.
Just to get that, what is this ambush exactly?
Cin leaving, it sounds like there is nothing left to do till iXcoin doesn't decide to take off. Let's be sincere on this: there is not much to do with a value of 2 cent and coins in the hands of more than 100k miners.
Still, I am sorry you leave. Hope it wasn't something we (or I) said or done.
Take care Cin.

I'm rarely wrong about these things so let's wait and see.  I hope in this case I am wrong.

As for Cinnamon, I specifically asked her for more information as to why she's quitting and she repeatedly said it was due to her other projects.  This is unexpected and we're gonna miss having her as part of the team.

Regarding iXCoin, it does seem hopefully stuck at sub 2 pennies but we are working to make things happen.  Marshall and Terpin should prove very effective in that regard, in my opinion.

Nothing is gonna happen until Bitcoin gets this blocksize deal over with.  That's when we will see major new players emerge as [parallel currencies] sidechains to Bitcoin and I believe iXCoin will be one of the major ones, or perhaps THE major one.

There's obviously the real risk that Bitcoin will find a way to do it alone but I don't think that's gonna happen.  Nonetheless, investors should be prepared to see iXCoin completely fail if Bitcoin does find a way to scale without any help from other alt-coins.

[Vlad2Vlad]

One thing about the planned mutiny and ambush.

I saw it coming weeks/months ago and I can clearly see the angle of attack.

Trust me when I say it's gonna backfire [again] so don't waste time upsetting me.  Just do things right as I have worked long and hard to do what is right for ixCoin and its community, often at a heavy personal cost to myself.  I have kept a lot of screenshots and emails to make my case - it's not gonna be as simple as the mutineers may think. 

Cheers!

[cinnamon_carter]

fyi , I still plan to be around any resigning from Vlad's foundation should be no negative reflection on him or others or taken personally.

my area of skill (if any) is not in promotion or marketing but in code , details, ect....

in fact for those reading the 'big news' in the world of bitcoin today https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ewhli/bitcoindev_disclosure_consensus_bug_indirectly/ 

most will not be aware that I brought this issue up to a few people in private including Ahmed a while ago based on this old post of Maxwell's I had read early this year http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33221963/ which while not cited anywhere here is an obvious extension of the same issue / i won't attempt to describe consensus forks here if you do not know what Maxwell is discussing here don't worry about it.


It is true my primary reason in moving on is to focus on other projects i am working on. I plan to still be around here and on github for technical items and
anything else that may come up. Everyone should continue to support Vlad 100% --- He has done more work than anyone I am aware of for ix and has the ability and 'bravado' to get big players to the table. This is certainly not a strength of mine.

If others attempt to kick Vlad out as president of the ix foundation, then I would likely decide to no longer contribute to the future of this project.