Ixcoin TODO

[FrictionlessCoin]

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?

To make the point again,  the value of the IXC counterparty coin is not the major concern here.  Heck, the value can be zero for the meta-coin.   

Why would anyone use IXC counterparty instead of the original counterparty?  Because it works in IXC and does not work in Bitcoin!

What we are trying to do here is to create a port that will increase the utility of IXC.   I am not sure why you are objecting to pegging the value of meta-IXC with the value of IXC.  What is wrong with that?

[FrictionlessCoin]

 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.

[jamaer]

I've looked at your proposal and to be honest, it is complexity that is unecessary.

What complexity?

  How is creating a meta-coin that is not pegged to the price of IXC supposed to help IXC? 

It seems like it is not that you don't get it but you don't want to get it. Every Counterparty transaction creates miners fees in IXC. This gives reason for miners to keep mining after block reward goes zero. Metacoin (or the Counterparty it is allowing) gives an additional use for IXC, which gives a reason for people to buy IXCs.

Maintaining a snapshot of all the coins in the past for every client is a prohibitively expensive solution.

You only keep a snapshot of a one fixed time. A few tens of megs at most is not an expensive.

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

I'm glad you finally explicitly admit it.

 This I proposed as having a perpetual sell order where meta-coins can be exchanged back to IXC.

Which is not working as you don't have funds to back it up (unless you comit 100% of the "donated" coins to that which rather pointless). Let's see how long it takes you to admit that.

[jamaer]

 I am not sure why you are objecting to pegging the value of meta-IXC with the value of IXC.  What is wrong with that?

I'm not objecting per se, but you have not provided a working way to do it. Your "permanent sell order" is a dead idea that is not working.

[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?

Like I said, too complicated to implement.

Oh really, what makes it so complicated?

[FrictionlessCoin]

The more that I think about this,  there is no need for a meta-coin!  

Here are the following messages:

•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn

Not all CounterParty messages are implemented.  Particulary the Broadcast, Bet and Dividend functionality which requires further analysis.

There will be no "burn" message, only an "issue" message.   The primary difference between Counterparty and the IXC implementation is that the issue requires an equivalent IXC fee.   The fee is to be either "burned" or "donated" to the foundation.  The fee will be determined by the foundation.   Example,  .0001 IXC per asset.  So if a party requires 1 million shares created, then 100 IXC will be required to be burned or donated.  In short, it is up to the asset issuer to decide if they want to donate to the foundation or not.

What the "issue" message does is for anyone to create ones own asset.      The "order" message allows user to exchange assets.  

All transactions will of course require the standard IXC fee.

[jamaer]

The more that I think about this,  there is no need for a meta-coin!  

Here are the following messages:

•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn

Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ...

[FrictionlessCoin]

The more that I think about this,  there is no need for a meta-coin!  

Here are the following messages:

•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn

Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ...

Yes, as I originally thought (and got side tracked by this discussion of meta-coins) that there is no need for a "meta-coin".

All user defined coins are 'meta-coin', so there is no need for a 'special' one.

There is no need to maintain a balance with this 'special' coin with respect to IXC since there is no real value in this 'special' coin (unless of course we devise one).   

[FrictionlessCoin]

What is going to happen in 27 hours?
https://www.coinprism.com/
The colored show is gonna start?

To me Colored Coins makes more sense.

I don't think coinprism implementation is available to the public.

"Colored Coins" implementation is a bit convoluted and there is no built in exchange mechanism.

CounterParty implementation is extremely simple.

Mastercoin is probably the best implementation, however I have to verify if the distributed exchange capability is available.

[jamaer]

The primary difference between Counterparty and the IXC implementation is that the issue requires an equivalent IXC fee.   The fee is to be either "burned" or "donated" to the foundation.  

And why would anyone use such an implementation? If someone likes your version of "Counterparty" (actually, stripped dows such that it truely is equivalent to a poor man's ColoredCoins), they can simply fork you code and start their own "Counterparty" without any fees. Why do you keep proposing these dead ideas? To satisfy not-so-technically-advanced community members that donated to your bounty?

[jamaer]

The more that I think about this,  there is no need for a meta-coin!  

Here are the following messages:

•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn

Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ...

Yes, as I originally thought (and got side tracked by this discussion of meta-coins) that there is no need for a "meta-coin".
  

Oh really. Even it was said even this very same thread that the primary difference between Counterparty and ColoredCoins is that Counterparty requires a meta-coin and ColoredCoins does not, and the price being paid for the latter is that certain things like the ones you striked out above can not be implemented.

Anyhow, I'm now convinced that if anything useful on this front will be implemented for Ixcoin, it is not coming from you. I don't see any point on continuing discussions on these matters with you any longer. I wish the rest of the bounty payers are happy with whatever you will provide.

[FrictionlessCoin]

The more that I think about this,  there is no need for a meta-coin!  

Here are the following messages:

•Send
•Order
•IXCPay
•Issue
•Broadcast
•Bet
•Dividend
Burn

Oh, and now you "suddenly invented" that there is no need for meta-coin in ColoredCoins ...

Yes, as I originally thought (and got side tracked by this discussion of meta-coins) that there is no need for a "meta-coin".
  

Oh really. Even it was said even this very same thread that the primary difference between Counterparty and ColoredCoins is that Counterparty requires a meta-coin and ColoredCoins does not, and the price being paid for the latter is that certain things like the ones you striked out above can not be implemented.

Anyhow, I'm now convinced that if anything useful on this front will be implemented for Ixcoin, it is not coming from you. I don't see any point on continuing discussions on these matters with you any longer. I wish the rest of the bounty payers are happy with whatever you will provide.

I think you are making a lot of accusations that have no merit.

Broadcast and Bet are removed from now since they have too many issues.  The dividend feature may however be implemented.

I think you are just muddy the waters with the idea that a 'meta coin' is even necessary.   

Explain to the audience in this thread why a 'meta coin' is necessary?  Why does a new coin need to be implemented?   

[FrictionlessCoin]

The primary difference between Counterparty and the IXC implementation is that the issue requires an equivalent IXC fee.   The fee is to be either "burned" or "donated" to the foundation.  

And why would anyone use such an implementation? If someone likes your version of "Counterparty" (actually, stripped dows such that it truely is equivalent to a poor man's ColoredCoins), they can simply fork you code and start their own "Counterparty" without any fees. Why do you keep proposing these dead ideas? To satisfy not-so-technically-advanced community members that donated to your bounty?

How many times does it need mentioning that Counterparty has issues if Bitcoin wants to squash it.  Bitcoin has reduced the OP_RETURN opcode to accept 40 bytes instead of the original 80 bytes. They did this to precisely squash counterparty.

Anyone certainly can fork their own "Counterparty", but what benefit is that for them?   For 1 million shares of an asset it costs only 100 IXC.   Do you think they would go through all the trouble of creating a fork and distributing this fork to people who want to buy their asset? 

The whole idea of this is to create additional value for IXC.  Maybe you don't get it at all!

[jamaer]

 
Explain to the audience in this thread why a 'meta coin' is necessary?  Why does a new coin need to be implemented?  

It was already explained when this whole discussion started: you need to escrow funds for the bets etc. The very same reason why your original "native IXC" porposal is not working.

[FrictionlessCoin]

 
Explain to the audience in this thread why a 'meta coin' is necessary?  Why does a new coin need to be implemented?  

It was already explained when this whole discussion started: you need to escrow funds for the bets etc. The very same reason why your original "native IXC" porposal is not working.

any user defined asset can be escrowed!

the bet functionality does not make sense because what determines a winning bet?

it only make sense with regards to "orders".   If "orders" is what you are refering to as "escrow" funds,  then it works perfectly fine with a native currency.

I can create two user defined currencies A and B, and both can be exchanged with A, B and IXC.   There is no need to create an extra MIXC.  

In fact, the foundation can issue assets that are redeemable into IXC.   This is done very simply by creating a sell order of the asset every time a buy order is fulfilled.   

[jamaer]

the bet functionality does not make sense because what determines a winning bet?

Oh dear, have you even read the protocol specification? What do you think "broadcast" is for?

Anyhow, that comment probably tells everyone your level of expertise.

[FrictionlessCoin]

the bet functionality does not make sense because what determines a winning bet?

Oh dear, have you even read the protocol specification? What do you think "broadcast" is for?

Anyhow, that comment probably tells everyone your level of expertise.

but what and who determines the value of the broadcast?

in short, how can anyone trust a broadcast?

you still have not explained why we need a 'meta-coin'.   You keep claiming its necessary,  but from my analysis,  there's absolutely no need.   Like I said,  Counterparty as a coin is absolutely worthless,  the implementation is valuable but you don't need the coin.  The math don't lie.

Essentially, the implementation just gets rids of the absurdity and uses a blockchain that is not hostile to it.

[Vlad2Vlad]

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?

I wasn't aware of this.

I went to school for economics.  I took one intro to programming class.

I'm trying to be helpful but i understand maybe 10% of what you guys are talking about.

I have asked Medusa13 to pitch in but he may still be trying to catch up with the various white papers.  He is qualified to help give direction in this matter.

I only want what's best for iX and its holders - short term but also long term.  This exchange is good but I think we do need one more expert in here so I hope medusa chimes in.

Thanks for not giving up!

[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.

[FrictionlessCoin]

 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.