Ixcoin TODO

[Vlad2Vlad]

Yes, burning is one way only. I've never been happy with the burn idea.

In general, I don't think it's good to have anything that is not reversible.  Does burning take iXcoin away from being used for iXcoin transactions?  If so, that's not good, especially if it can't be reversed. 

That's what I wanna know.

What is meant exactly when you say burning coins?  Are they gone forever?  If so then we can't do that cause we would be slowly destroying our own money supply and support hoarding.  In the short run some would make a lot of money but in the long run the coin would auto-destruct via forced inflation.  That's a recipe for the failures of Fiat 2.0.

[cinnamon_carter]

Counterparty wiki on github for anyone not familiar with it.....

https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/Counterparty

As others have said these are independent systems built on top of the coins blockchain itself.

For bitcoin there are several 'systems' under development since everyone wants to get a piece of the pie and they imagine themselves getting in on the ground floor like getting domains regisgered on the web in the early 90's .....

Obviously things need to have backward compatability ..... look how many people in America still use dial up modems even now !! Millions !!

I think that as long as no changes are made so we never see the day we cannot fire up our qt wallet and send /receive coins any of the extras add the possibility of more people getting on board. 

I wonder how many people are actually using these expanded features in bitcoin now......?   

[jamaer]

What is meant exactly when you say burning coins? 

One creates a valid IXC public address (e.g., xAnAddressF0rBurningA11YourM0ney11), which is obviously fake in the sense that nobody knows the private key (i.e. cannot recover funds). Then you burn your IXCs by sending IXCs to that address.

Are they gone forever? 

Yes.

[FrictionlessCoin]

The alternative is to send the coin to a fixed address with a known private key.

That's not the only alternative. I explained another one, but you seem to ignore my comments (which is kind of sad considering that I donated 5000 IXC to you to do this job).

Let me rephrase my proposal if my previous explenations were unclear. So the idea is to create the necessary metacoin similar to how the spin-offs are planned to be created: we would bootstrap the distribution of the new metacoin (IXCP) with IXC blockchain (of certain heigth). Implementation in CounterParty would be rather straightforward: you take the snapshot of the IXC, and in the protocol instead of the "burn" you would have something like "activate", which would first check if the IXCP address exists, and if not, credit the equal (or proportional) amount of the IXCP as the address was holding IXC in the snapshot.

This would assume that there is a master address that has all the counterpartycoins that will be ever created (and no more) and then allocates it to addresses.  The problem here economically is that it is inflationary,  now you have twice as many coins (IXC + meta IXC) as you started with.   Kind of like a stock split,  the value of IXC becomes split between IXC and meta IXC.

[jamaer]

I wonder how many people are actually using these expanded features in bitcoin now......?   

Very few. That's why I see it as an opportunity for Ixcoin. It would be a lot cheaper for people to "play" with
these things in the IXcoin network than within bitcoin network. Plus you don't need to download 16G (or whatever it is
nowadays) blockchain in order to try these out. But they still get almost the same security as with bitcoin.

Also if we launch the metacoin as a split/spin-off as I proposed, existing IXCoiners get metacoins for free. Maybe
someone tries these features just out of curiocity, and figures out something very useful. NXT launched an asset exchange
(similar thing is obtained from CounterParty) only a few days ago, and there seems to be quite a lot of activity:
https://nxtforum.org/asset-exchange-62/asset-exchange-ipos-launch-day-listings!/?all

[jamaer]

This would assume that there is a master address that has all the counterpartycoins that will be ever created (and no more) and then allocates it to addresses.  

You don't need any master address. As I outlined, "activate" would just prove (signing) that at the time of the snapshot it was in control of certain IXCs (i.e. unclaimed transactions). There are also other ways (I think) to implement that. Check the spin-offs chain I linked.

The problem here economically is that it is inflationary,  now you have twice as many coins (IXC + meta IXC) as you started with.   Kind of like a stock split,  the value of IXC becomes split between IXC and meta IXC.

No, that's not the case (although I myself misleadingly used the word "split"). The reason is that IXC and meta IXC would be independent and could not be used in place of each other. meta IXC can only increase value of IXC. Why would someone value IXC less after launch of meta IXC: no use/properties of IXC are removed and IXC and meta IXC are not competing with each other?

[Edit: there is an other way to think this. CounterParty (with the spin-off metacoin) does not need any permission to be launched (that's why some call these "parasite" coins). Anyone can do it on their will. If your premise that it would decrease the value of the original coin would hold, then it follows that you could destroy the value of bitcoin by simply launching infinite number of CounterParty implementations.]

[FrictionlessCoin]

This would assume that there is a master address that has all the counterpartycoins that will be ever created (and no more) and then allocates it to addresses.  

You don't need any master address. As I outlined, "activate" would just prove (signing) that at the time of the snapshot it was in control of certain IXCs (i.e. unclaimed transactions). There are also other ways (I think) to implement that. Check the spin-offs chain I linked.

The problem here economically is that it is inflationary,  now you have twice as many coins (IXC + meta IXC) as you started with.   Kind of like a stock split,  the value of IXC becomes split between IXC and meta IXC.

No, that's not the case (although I myself misleadingly used the word "split"). The reason is that IXC and meta IXC would be independent and could not be used in place of each other. meta IXC can only increase value of IXC. Why would someone value IXC less after launch of meta IXC: no use/properties of IXC are removed and IXC and meta IXC are not competing with each other?

[Edit: there is an other way to think this. CounterParty (with the spin-off metacoin) does not need any permission to be launched (that's why some call these "parasite" coins). Anyone can do it on their will. If your premise that it would decrease the value of the original coin would hold, then it follows that you could destroy the value of bitcoin by simply launching infinite number of CounterParty implementations.]

Okay,  how do you implement 'activate'.... that is 'at the time of the snapshot it was in control of certain IXCs'?

Interesting idea,  but not worth the cost of implementation.  If anyone can 'sign' into existence a meta-coin then the system needs to track the thousands of addresses that are 'allowed to sign' and their continuing balance.   

This is just a straight forward port of counterparty with a minor tweak.

We can either burn or send the coins to a well known address.  The alternative is to make meta-IXC coins free.  Of course,  I don't see the point in a free meta-IXC coin.   

[jamaer]

Okay,  how do you implement 'activate'.... that is 'at the time of the snapshot it was in control of certain IXCs'?

In your CounterParty client, you have have an equivalent of the IXC-qt's "state" of the IXC at certain block (="snaphot"), i.e. essentially what you would internally have in IXC-qt if you would loose the network connection at that block.  Then
creating the meta coins is just equivalent of creating the normal IXC transaction of sending all your coins to an address, i.e.,
you sign all your unspent transactions. Of course, in CounterParty protocol you would not sign the actual transactions (as it would allow someone
to spend your IXCs if their we still unspent) but something else (e.g., just the addresses). This would appear  to the IXC network, e.g., as a simple IXC transaction with all the info embedded into OP_RETURN.

Interesting idea,  but not worth the cost of implementation.

Cost? It just minor tweak of CounterParty with replacement of "burn" with "activate".

If anyone can 'sign' into existence a meta-coin then the system needs to track the thousands of addresses that are 'allowed to sign' and their continuing balance.

No need to do that. That's why you have the "activate". System is tracking the balance of metacoins as it is anyway doing. No need to track addresses which possibly had IXCs at the time of the snapshot but which are not "activated" (i.e. people are not interested to use the metacons or they lost the control of the corresponding IXC address).

Edit: I realized that IXC-qt is keeping track of only its own wallets, so I striked out the wrong statement. See my next message how to actually implement the snapshot.

[jamaer]

Friction, I found a tool by which you can easily create the required "snapshot" (i.e., balances of all addresses at a certain time):
https://github.com/znort987/blockparser
The size of the text file of all addresses with a balance for bitcoin  half a year ago was 2.7GB (text file), so the equivalent file for IXC organized to a database can't consume more space than a few tens of megs. And I remind you again that the database needs to be accessed only when a new "activate" transaction is parsed.

[Edit: It also occured me that we could require the "activate" transaction to have a fixed output IXC address with a required amount of fee (similar to all Mastercoin transactions) . This would be a way to get some money also to the IXC community (for bounties etc). ]

[FrictionlessCoin]

Friction, I found a tool by which you can easily create the required "snapshot" (i.e., balances of all addresses at a certain time):
https://github.com/znort987/blockparser
The size of the text file of all addresses with a balance for bitcoin  half a year ago was 2.7GB (text file), so the equivalent file for IXC organized to a database can't consume more space than a few tens of megs. And I remind you again that the database needs to be accessed only when a new "activate" transaction is parsed.

[Edit: It also occured me that we could require the "activate" transaction to have a fixed output IXC address with a required amount of fee (similar to all Mastercoin transactions) . This would be a way to get some money also to the IXC community (for bounties etc). ]

Okay... how about this,  just burn to an address that is owned by the foundation.

The foundation decides how to disperse the received IXC.

Advantage:

a) maintenance fund for future development.
b) meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC at the same rate.

[jamaer]

b) meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC at the same rate.

How would you do that? Apart from that part your new proposition is equivalent to the charity/donation proposition you saw some problems with. I'm especially concerned with (2), as it essentially centralizes the metacoin. How could I be sure that the foundation does not dilute the metacoin at some stage? Also I do not understand why meta-coins should have a fixed rate as trading between IXC and the metacoin is built-in into the Counterparty protocol.

[FrictionlessCoin]

b) meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC at the same rate.

How would you do that? Apart from that part your new proposition is equivalent to the charity/donation proposition you saw some problems with. I'm especially concerned with (2), as it essentially centralizes the metacoin. How could I be sure that the foundation does not dilute the metacoin at some stage? Also I do not understand why meta-coins should have a fixed rate as trading between IXC and the metacoin is build-in into the Counterparty protocol.

A permanent order will be setup to sell IXC in exchange for metacoin. 

The reason why the metacoin is pegged at a fixed rate with IXC is that we want IXC value to increase as the counterparty network becomes more useful.

The problem with both counterparty and mastercoin is that it only takes a fraction of a coin to perform what it needs to do,  moving 100 assets as compared to 100,000,000,000 assets costs the same.  In short if 2X = Y = 500Z, then by simple algebra, X,Y and Z are all zero.

Having a fix rate of exchange creates a demand for IXC.

With the permanent order mechanism,  one can ensure that the IXC used to acquire meta-IXC is always available for exchange.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Okay... how about this,  just burn to an address that is owned by the foundation.

The foundation decides how to disperse the received IXC.

Advantage:

a) maintenance fund for future development.
b) meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC at the same rate.

Nice idea. It means the foundation must be 100% operative.
The use of the coins should be clearly stated and transparent.
I propose 50% to charities, 50% to development and advertise.

The more you use them, the more they grow in value (advertise and development), the more you help the World. Wow!!!!

What we could do is have the address be a multi-sig address so that possibly 3 members are needed for sign-off.

[jamaer]

A permanent order will be setup to sell IXC in exchange for metacoin.  

How is that funded if the foundation is using IXC for bounties and exchange rate is 1:1? How can I be sure that the foundation is committed
to the order, i.e., someone will actually sign the transaction (IXC -> me) when I want to exchange my metacoins?

The reason why the metacoin is pegged at a fixed rate with IXC is that we want IXC value to increase as the counterparty network becomes more useful.

How is that different from a free exchange? If the counterparty network becomes more useful, people will pay more IXCs for the metacoin => demand for IXCs increases.

The problem with both counterparty and mastercoin is that it only takes a fraction of a coin to perform what it needs to do,  moving 100 assets as compared to 100,000,000,000 assets costs the same.  

Why is that a problem and to whom? From IXC network point of view moving 100 assets is equivalent to moving 10^8 assets and it is paid the same.

In short if 2X = Y = 500Z, then by simple algebra, X,Y and Z are all zero.

I think you should go back to Math 101.

[FrictionlessCoin]

A permanent order will be setup to sell IXC in exchange for metacoin.  

How is that funded if the foundation is using IXC for bounties and exchange rate is 1:1? How can I be sure that the foundation is committed
to the order, i.e., someone will actually sign the transaction (IXC -> me) when I want to exchange my metacoins?

The reason why the metacoin is pegged at a fixed rate with IXC is that we want IXC value to increase as the counterparty network becomes more useful.

How is that different from a free exchange? If the counterparty network becomes more useful, people will pay more IXCs for the metacoin => demand for IXCs increases.

The problem with both counterparty and mastercoin is that it only takes a fraction of a coin to perform what it needs to do,  moving 100 assets as compared to 100,000,000,000 assets costs the same.  

Why is that a problem and to whom? From IXC network point of view moving 100 assets is equivalent to moving 10^8 assets and it is paid the same.

In short if 2X = Y = 500Z, then by simple algebra, X,Y and Z are all zero.

I think you should go back to Math 101.

Let's not try to muddle the goals here.  The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC.

We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation.   We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC.   

That is why, I am proposing mechanism that always ties the meta-coin to a fixed value of IXC.

Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons.   Email for example has next to no cost to send out,  that's why there is a spamming problem.   With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction.   Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem.  Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll.

Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network,  then they should also pay a similar 'toll'.  What I am proposing is that they pay a toll. 

Last remark,  IXC is so cheap that even a 1:1 to the metacoin isn't a significant burden to anyone.

[Vlad2Vlad]

I agree with friction on his last post.

The goal here is increasing value for IXC.  I'm sure we can find a win-win situation for everyone.

And I also like his multi-sig idea for the burned coins where the foundation redistributes them.  50% charity and 50% for promoting IXC also sounds fair and good.

[jamaer]

Let's not try to muddle the goals here.  The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC.

Exactly.

We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation.   We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC. 

Yes, that is why the metacoin is valuated through the exchange with IXC. That's done through the trade within the Counterparty protocol. What is the relative exchange rate between IXC and the metacoin makes no difference to the value of IXC which is valuated externaly.

Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons.   Email for example has next to no cost to send out,  that's why there is a spamming problem.   With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction.   Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem.  Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll.

Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network,  then they should also pay a similar 'toll'.  What I am proposing is that they pay a toll. 

Not true on many counts. First, they are paying exactly the same 'toll' as everyone else, the miners fee. Second, I don't think you can speak for "bitcoin". Third, you have not proposed anything about a 'toll' (i.e. a cost for Counterparty transactions themselves). What you are proposing now, after it turned out that you original plan (IXC as native coin) was impossible and your second plan (burning) was disliked by many, a (non-workable =1:1 exchange) centralized metacoin.

It begins to look to me that you are not really interested in making the best possible solution for IXCoin  but instead you seem to want to simply minimize your work in order to just collect your bounty. For those with less technical/coding understanding: implementing Counterparty with "burn" (or "donate") functionality requires only very minor changes to existing Counterparty code.

[jamaer]

 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?

[jamaer]

And I also like his multi-sig idea for the burned coins where the foundation redistributes them.  50% charity and 50% for promoting IXC also sounds fair and good.

This will dilute the value of metacoin as there is no limit on number of metacoins. The same IXCs can be used again and again to create new metacoins. Why would anyone then want to use IXC counterparty  when you could get the same functionality from the original Counterparty or Mastercoin (riding on a top of bitcoin network) without such a problem?

[FrictionlessCoin]

Let's not try to muddle the goals here.  The goal is to increase the usage and as a consequence the value of IXC.

Exactly.

We aren't interested in some other meta-coin that has its own valuation.   We want the valuation of the meta-coin to correspond to the value of IXC. 

Yes, that is why the metacoin is valuated through the exchange with IXC. That's done through the trade within the Counterparty protocol. What is the relative exchange rate between IXC and the metacoin makes no difference to the value of IXC which is valuated externaly.

Understand that the value of cryptocurrencies is that there is a cost for moving electrons.   Email for example has next to no cost to send out,  that's why there is a spamming problem.   With crypto-currencies, there is always a cost for any transaction.   Bitcoin in fact banned the small transactions like satoshidice because they regard spamming as a problem.  Bitcoin also dislikes the use of Mastercoin and Counterparty because they ride on the Bitcoin block chain without paying the appropriate toll.

Well if Counterparty or equivalent want to ride on the IXC network,  then they should also pay a similar 'toll'.  What I am proposing is that they pay a toll. 

Not true on many counts. First, they are paying exactly the same 'toll' as everyone else, the miners fee. Second, I don't think you can speak for "bitcoin". Third, you have not proposed anything about a 'toll' (i.e. a cost for Counterparty transactions themselves). What you are proposing now, after it turned out that you original plan (IXC as native coin) was impossible and your second plan (burning) was disliked by many, a (non-workable =1:1 exchange) centralized metacoin.

It begins to look to me that you are not really interested in making the best possible solution for IXCoin  but instead you seem to want to simply minimize your work in order to just collect your bounty. For those with less technical/coding understanding: implementing Counterparty with "burn" (or "donate") functionality requires only very minor changes to existing Counterparty code.

I've looked at your proposal and to be honest, it is complexity that is unecessary.  How is creating a meta-coin that is not pegged to the price of IXC supposed to help IXC?  Maintaining a snapshot of all the coins in the past for every client is a prohibitively expensive solution.     

The IXC native coin is a complete different implementation that will require a hard fork.

The Counterparty implementation is an easy implementation that only requires the latest client.   This was the original proposal and I think people do seem to like the 'donate' functionality over the 'burn' functionality.   It is almost identical in implementation,  the only major difference is figuring out how best to re-distribute donations.   This I proposed as having a perpetual sell order where meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC.