Ixcoin TODO

[Vlad2Vlad]

It would appear the price of iXCoin is being [intentionally and slowly] walked up.

[Vlad2Vlad]

I am having serious personal issues where I have to come up with a lot of cash fast.

iXCoin has zero inflation and it is difficult to accumulate large amounts.

I am willing to sell half my ixCoin so 125,000 IXC but the price will have to be at least 15,000 Satoshi (I paid up to 19,888 sat for most of these].

Please PM me if you are interested [ the price is firm ].

And I have other alts I am also trying to sell so if I reach my funding goal then I will not sell these coins anymore.


Cheers!

[Vlad2Vlad]

how about pricing for 10-50k lumps?

Couldn't post an update cause Bitcointalk was down but the entire 125K lot sold for full asking price.


Cheers!

[Vlad2Vlad]

"Bitcoin Won’t be the dominant system for Moving Money," Says Bill Gates, adding, "other coins will be more efficient."

Oh, you mean like I was saying back in 2013?  lol

[zebedee]

Is IXcoin becoming an "over the counter" traded coin? LOL

125,000 IXC is the equivalent of 10 days of trading right now, and they paid you 50% more than its actual value?

 

Yeah, my BS detector was honking hard

[Vlad2Vlad]

I think he meant Ripple, which is supposed to be only an efficent way to move money, while coins like Bitcoin is money.

I've been saying all year they're gonna use multiple coins at first, including doge, ltc, ripple and other niche market coins.

But in the end it will be just one and [bill gates agrees] that it won't be Bitcoin.

[cinnamon_carter]

Remember before you bow down before the evil likes of Gates.................. ie is not the default web browser , i would be more concerned if Gates said something was a good thing if i agreed than felt differently, like all those in the 3rd world poisoned by his vaccinations.

Gates is the type of person who thinks he can buy his way into the world elite power structure , and they will use and manipulate him to let him think he has done so when in fact the real people who control things think of him as a pawn on the chessboard like they would any other person.

I almost feel sorry for him but not quite.

[Vlad2Vlad]

One month ago I wrote to Thomas about things needed to be done. One of the things is the lack of a real, clear and credible purpose for iXcoin. Many times it has been connected to this ideas like:
- "parallel" cheaper blockchain
- good for remittance
- advantages of being completely mined (?)

Thomas agreed on the need to define a mission statement and put it on ixcoin.org

Can we do it? In other words, if we don't have well defined the purpose of iXcoin, how can we expect people have it clear in mind?

How can we define a mission statement when we have no idea what IXC was and is intended for?

It's impossible.

My guess is remittances plus daily use [for obvious reasons] but a guess is not how you define the purpose of an asset/coin.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Remember before you bow down before the evil likes of Gates.................. ie is not the default web browser , i would be more concerned if Gates said something was a good thing if i agreed than felt differently, like all those in the 3rd world poisoned by his vaccinations.

Gates is the type of person who thinks he can buy his way into the world elite power structure , and they will use and manipulate him to let him think he has done so when in fact the real people who control things think of him as a pawn on the chessboard like they would any other person.

I almost feel sorry for him but not quite.

Bill Gates was turned into a puppet back in ~1998.

And if you know what "social" causes he supports, along with Buffet, they are both evil individuals.

But [to me] this is precisely why Gates' statement is important - because it is actually made by men much greater than him, his puppet masters, which is why I think it is very telling of what's to come.

[FrictionlessCoin]

One month ago I wrote to Thomas about things needed to be done. One of the things is the lack of a real, clear and credible purpose for iXcoin. Many times it has been connected to this ideas like:
- "parallel" cheaper blockchain
- good for remittance
- advantages of being completely mined (?)

Thomas agreed on the need to define a mission statement and put it on ixcoin.org

Can we do it? In other words, if we don't have well defined the purpose of iXcoin, how can we expect people have it clear in mind?

Bounties maybe?

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

An interesting topic i don't see discussed much, what if bitcoin forks with features the community doesn't want. Does ixcoin become more attractive or will ixc always be developed in lock step?

Maybe miners are waiting for blocks to fill so they can pump IXC. If they cared about Bitcoin transactions they wouldn't waste resources merge mining

Apparently IXC is trying to follow the Bitcoin 0.8.x release. That will have the same block-size limit unless they changed it (I have not checked the source-code). I also believe that any coin with a faster emission curve than Bitcoin should be considered a possible scamcoin.

Merged mining costs 400-1500MB of RAM (namecoin is 495MB on my node) and ~2-20GB of disk (namecoin uses 2.9GiB on my node) to run another *coin instance. Other than that, it does not really take any more resources. Some mining hardware does not like frequent restarts; which happen more often with merged-mining. Note: My node goes down tomorrow due to lack of funds. (I am firmly in "little people" territory.)


I am torn whether we should simply ignore  Mircea Popescu (and his supporters), or try to continue to teach them the error in their ways on this issue.

I think I read somewhere that he is still on one of the 0.4.x clients. He distrusts a lot of the new features introduced since then. He believes that Bitcoin core should not have a wallet built-in at all. (0.9.x does let you disable the wallet).

I don't think he trusts the Obelisk effort either. Without a detailed spec, forks are likely if alternate Bitcoin node software is not bug-for-bug compatible. This was recently illustrated with recent versions of OpenSSL not being bug-for bug compatible (and causing a fork).

[StoraGottes]

Hey Vlad, can you get the Winklevosses to list Bitcoin's twin, IxCoin, on their twin-themed, Gemini exchange? It would seem that the coin prophets have spoken.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Hey Vlad, can you get the Winklevosses to list Bitcoin's twin, IxCoin, on their twin-themed, Gemini exchange? It would seem that the coin prophets have spoken.

I have tried to talk to the winklvii twins several times about IXC but no go.  If IXC takes off in price and volume and/or other unique developments happen then I would try talking to them again.

IXC doesn't have to follow Bitcoin in lockstep.  IXC can add features Bitcoin lacks and it can omit features the community doesn't like.

[mmpool]

Results of testing merge mining on master branch ofhttps://github.com/IXCoin-Dev/IXCoin.

Merge mining seems to mostly work. Here's a log:

Code:

DevcoinMiner:
AUX proof-of-work found
     our hash: b72193091ca424631504a4dff2e652a15298a4825b63120e45370b924ea973ce
  parent hash: 00000000607dfd6d48926fd22b7ea40c9ce7b8717f7bbaa5f7f77aaa13a87e2d
       target: 00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
CBlock(hash=b72193091ca424631504a4dff2e652a15298a4825b63120e45370b924ea973ce, ver=196865, hashPrevBlock=f813300fa3652082b4e7fe2743c2205fd106e3f6e1ad95758a3be0affa93b36f, hashMerkleRoot=6a1183bd9f3bfc4f5d43118af3ad2fcda14dc4173143745bf1db3815ed351a8c, nTime=1422241719, nBits=1d00ffff, nNonce=0, vtx=1)
  CTransaction(hash=6a1183bd9f, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 0000)
    CTxOut(nValue=96.00000000, scriptPubKey=)
  vMerkleTree: 6a1183bd9f3bfc4f5d43118af3ad2fcda14dc4173143745bf1db3815ed351a8c
generated 96.00
keypool keep 3
UpdateTip: new best=b72193091ca424631504a4dff2e652a15298a4825b63120e45370b924ea973ce  height=1679  log2_work=42.714268  tx=1682  date=2015-01-26 03:08:39 progress=0.000702
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
keypool reserve 4
CreateNewBlock(): total size 1000
ERROR: ConnectBlock() : tried to overwrite transaction
CreateNewBlock(): total size 1000
ERROR: ConnectBlock() : tried to overwrite transaction
CreateNewBlock(): total size 1000
ERROR: ConnectBlock() : tried to overwrite transaction
CreateNewBlock(): total size 1000

Yes, it says DevcoinMiner but it's the ixcoin client. Note the 'tried to overwrite transaction' error. This appears to be BIP30 related. If I turn off BIP30 this error goes away. Was BIP30 ever enabled on ixcoin anyway? The block does seem to get mined though. With it disabled here's a log:

Code:

DevcoinMiner:
AUX proof-of-work found
     our hash: 4a5b82ea1a8f84020fe4f415c979deabd740eb11f68e1eca321d8489c10b98ac
  parent hash: 00000000bd60b1606894562187a0459223d70a37663a8dd1d66ba8b0fd70f893
       target: 00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
CBlock(hash=4a5b82ea1a8f84020fe4f415c979deabd740eb11f68e1eca321d8489c10b98ac, ver=196865, hashPrevBlock=f85b2a65441f7e2fc1abeb6a1be526b4d36a7f2ed95d1efca64acdee92736f3c, hashMerkleRoot=6a1183bd9f3bfc4f5d43118af3ad2fcda14dc4173143745bf1db3815ed351a8c, nTime=1422242259, nBits=1d00ffff, nNonce=0, vtx=1)
  CTransaction(hash=6a1183bd9f, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 0000)
    CTxOut(nValue=96.00000000, scriptPubKey=)
  vMerkleTree: 6a1183bd9f3bfc4f5d43118af3ad2fcda14dc4173143745bf1db3815ed351a8c
generated 96.00
keypool keep 5
UpdateTip: new best=4a5b82ea1a8f84020fe4f415c979deabd740eb11f68e1eca321d8489c10b98ac  height=1681  log2_work=42.715984  tx=1684  date=2015-01-26 03:17:39 progress=0.000703
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
keypool added key 106, size=101

That looks promising. The blocks don't appear if I do a 'listtransactions' though. They do seem to be working as subsequent blocks increment the height. Is 'listtransactions' broken for generated blocks?

Testing without merge mining and listtransactions does show generated blocks. I'll do more testing to track down.

[GroundRod]

Super feedback mmpool, thanks much!   

....Reviewing it here now too

I've wanted to remove that BIP30 related code, also think it's ok, but needed to do more research. 
Please do, your know how on that history, is better than mine.

Obviously,,, we also need to update the miner description strings...

On-> The blocks don't appear if I do a 'listtransactions' though.

That definitely  needs to be fixed. 

On-> Is 'listtransactions' broken for generated blocks?

Sure looks like it is, will start now to look closely into that code, try to find answers.

On->Was BIP30 ever enabled on ixcoin anyway

If I could have answered that, with a for sure no, would have deleted that source in a heartbeat.

Really hope we can crack those final errors....this is a big start!

GR

[GroundRod]

For those interested, work done by me last Nov to upgrade Ixcoin, is now finally posted, mostly build system stuff, that needed allot of attention.  What is now up on GitHub, also includes up-to the minute recent activity, as we get these remaining software problems figured out and resolved, changes could come from several differnet directions.

so...atm 6 commits from me

Allot of new work on the table, added the latest v10 core build system, customized and working well with our back ported source at the v9 level.  Allot of tests are now passing too.  From source, anyone can now build Ixcoin, just ./configure the tests enabled (default), and see the pass/fail results.  Week before last, we could not build any without considerable pain.

Combined with what mmpool has given us here, important new clues and fixes will hopefully become apparent.

My goal is to start build #1 of the Ixcoin v0.9.4 test series.   It will primarily be updates to repair the problems found so far, so don't hold us hostage to a date, I have no idea if this will go on for days or weeks, but we'll keep producing test builds until the problems are resolved and we can agree it's ready to be released.  Once all the primary & QT tests pass, I will produce build #1, for at least several target host types.  Can say with certainty, that using the new builder tools to build Ixcoin binaries for the various 32 or 64 bit linux & windows systems, or on a mac, will be pretty straightforward & easier to do.  An important asset for our coin to have, plus operational in a number of places, and working well for users too.  Onward to Ixcoin v0.9.4-rc1

Merge pull request #13 Ahmed, time to hit the trenches...
https://github.com/IXCoin-Dev/IXCoin/pull/13

GR

[kraizi]

Super feedback mmpool, thanks much!   

....Reviewing it here now too

I've wanted to remove that BIP30 related code, also think it's ok, but needed to do more research. 
Please do, your know how on that history, is better than mine.

Obviously,,, we also need to update the miner description strings...

On->Was BIP30 ever enabled on ixcoin anyway

If I could have answered that, with a for sure no, would have deleted that source in a heartbeat.

Really hope we can crack those final errors....this is a big start!

GR

I remember reading about BIP30 a while ago so I did a search.   Lots of talk about forking.  Not sure if it's true but we should probably pick a direction (BIP30 or no BIP30) and stick with it to prevent problems.  I'd probably go with whatever Bitcoin does to be consistent and make updates easier.  Frictionless should know if it was enabled in v0.8.6.  He did the update.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230141.msg5582659#msg5582659

[mmpool]

I remember reading about BIP30 a while ago so I did a search.   Lots of talk about forking.  Not sure if it's true but we should probably pick a direction (BIP30 or no BIP30) and stick with it to prevent problems.  I'd probably go with whatever Bitcoin does to be consistent and make updates easier.  Frictionless should know if it was enabled in v0.8.6.  He did the update.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230141.msg5582659#msg5582659

Looking at the 0.8.6 source, BIP 16 and 30 was enabled for 02 Jan 2014 01:07:11 GMT. So we'll have to keep them enabled:

Code:

+    // BIP30 for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP30SwitchTime = 1388624831;

+    // BIP16 will be enabled for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP16SwitchTime = 1388624831;

I plugged the epoch into http://www.epochconverter.com/ and got the different time to the comments.

Doing some more testing I'm getting blocks rejected due to block times being in the past and future. Not sure what's happening there. This is the patch I used for diff 1 mining on a new chain: http://pastebin.com/QGM4CZWr

Run this with two ixcoin nodes connected to each other, and only each other. An ixcoin.conf like the following:

Code:

rpcuser=abcd
rpcpassword=defg
daemon=0
upnp=0
port=10333
rpcport=10332
irc=0
noirc=1
dnsseed=0
nodnsseed=1
printtoconsole=1

Make sure you use different ports/rpcports for the two. And in the 2nd node add a "addnode=127.0.0.1:10333" or whatever you set the port too, so node 2 connects to node1.

[kraizi]

I remember reading about BIP30 a while ago so I did a search.   Lots of talk about forking.  Not sure if it's true but we should probably pick a direction (BIP30 or no BIP30) and stick with it to prevent problems.  I'd probably go with whatever Bitcoin does to be consistent and make updates easier.  Frictionless should know if it was enabled in v0.8.6.  He did the update.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230141.msg5582659#msg5582659

Looking at the 0.8.6 source, BIP 16 and 30 was enabled for 02 Jan 2014 01:07:11 GMT. So we'll have to keep them enabled:

Code:

+    // BIP30 for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP30SwitchTime = 1388624831;

+    // BIP16 will be enabled for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP16SwitchTime = 1388624831;

I plugged the epoch into http://www.epochconverter.com/ and got the different time to the comments.

Doing some more testing I'm getting blocks rejected due to block times being in the past and future. Not sure what's happening there. This is the patch I used for diff 1 mining on a new chain: http://pastebin.com/QGM4CZWr

Run this with two ixcoin nodes connected to each other, and only each other. An ixcoin.conf like the following:

Code:

rpcuser=abcd
rpcpassword=defg
daemon=0
upnp=0
port=10333
rpcport=10332
irc=0
noirc=1
dnsseed=0
nodnsseed=1
printtoconsole=1

Make sure you use different ports/rpcports for the two. And in the 2nd node add a "addnode=127.0.0.1:10333" or whatever you set the port too, so node 2 connects to node1.

@mmpool:

I'm curious did you see this same issue when you upgraded your pool from v0.3.24 to v0.8.6?  It should have occurred then too, right? 

BIP30 is for preventing duplicate transactions so I assume it wouldn't be an issue with every single block generated.  Are you seeing 'tried to overwrite transaction' errors on every block?

Also, I believe the majority of pool hasing power for iXcoin is still using v0.3.24.  How do we get the rest of the pools migrated to v0.8.6 or v0.9.x without causing a fork?  The start date in v0.8.6 is already in the past.  Or is this even a fork issue?

[FrictionlessCoin]

I remember reading about BIP30 a while ago so I did a search.   Lots of talk about forking.  Not sure if it's true but we should probably pick a direction (BIP30 or no BIP30) and stick with it to prevent problems.  I'd probably go with whatever Bitcoin does to be consistent and make updates easier.  Frictionless should know if it was enabled in v0.8.6.  He did the update.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230141.msg5582659#msg5582659

Looking at the 0.8.6 source, BIP 16 and 30 was enabled for 02 Jan 2014 01:07:11 GMT. So we'll have to keep them enabled:

Code:

+    // BIP30 for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP30SwitchTime = 1388624831;

+    // BIP16 will be enabled for Ixcoin will go into effect on 2014-01-01 0:00 UTC
+    // date -j -f "%b %d %Y" "Jan 01 2014" "+%s"
+    int64 nBIP16SwitchTime = 1388624831;

I plugged the epoch into http://www.epochconverter.com/ and got the different time to the comments.

Doing some more testing I'm getting blocks rejected due to block times being in the past and future. Not sure what's happening there. This is the patch I used for diff 1 mining on a new chain: http://pastebin.com/QGM4CZWr

Run this with two ixcoin nodes connected to each other, and only each other. An ixcoin.conf like the following:

Code:

rpcuser=abcd
rpcpassword=defg
daemon=0
upnp=0
port=10333
rpcport=10332
irc=0
noirc=1
dnsseed=0
nodnsseed=1
printtoconsole=1

Make sure you use different ports/rpcports for the two. And in the 2nd node add a "addnode=127.0.0.1:10333" or whatever you set the port too, so node 2 connects to node1.

@mmpool:

I'm curious did you see this same issue when you upgraded your pool from v0.3.24 to v0.8.6?  It should have occurred then too, right? 

BIP30 is for preventing duplicate transactions so I assume it wouldn't be an issue with every single block generated.  Are you seeing 'tried to overwrite transaction' errors on every block?

Also, I believe the majority of pool hasing power for iXcoin is still using v0.3.24.  How do we get the rest of the pools migrated to v0.8.6 or v0.9.x without causing a fork?  The start date in v0.8.6 is already in the past.  Or is this even a fork issue?

Because the 0.8.6 client was NEVER deployed,  the effective dates don't apply.

For a 0.9.x client that will be deployed,  use a data that is in the future.