Ixcoin TODO

[FrictionlessCoin]

Ok I lied,

One more question. Do you have any plans to and or would you consider adding coinjoin to ix?
 

-On mastercoin vs Counterparty, end result to users is same functionality right? So does it really matter then? I think mastercoin has 1 additional method of encoding their data so as to be extra extra hard to kick from a blockchain.

coinjoin... no

it will depend really on which group has a more robust and stable implementation. 

[kraizi]

Ok I lied,

One more question. Do you have any plans to and or would you consider adding coinjoin to ix?
 

-On mastercoin vs Counterparty, end result to users is same functionality right? So does it really matter then? I think mastercoin has 1 additional method of encoding their data so as to be extra extra hard to kick from a blockchain.

coinjoin... no

it will depend really on which group has a more robust and stable implementation. 

I wouldn't mind seeing coinjoin added, but definitely not this update.

[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?

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.

Good info but you didn't answer my specific question.  As I think about it more I think we can implement Counterparty without their metacoin, and still allow orders without formal escrowing.

My guess is that Counterparty knew they couldn't rely on the Bitcoin developers to add the required transaction validations natively so they had to create their own metacoin to give them the control they needed. 

So for my question about orders it could work something like this.

Let's say a sell order for 5 IXC is placed to buy a CP asset.  The order gets recorded in the blockchain with the address of the 5 IXC for everyone to see.  Then the owner tries to send the 5 IXC to a new address.  Well, the miners need to confirm it first.  By adding checks for open orders before performing a send, the miners can cancel the open order if the address balance drops below 5 IXC.  Only then would they confirm the send.  Or they could just disallow the send all together.  Regardless, it's all enforceable natively. 

The problem Counterparty has doing this using Bitcoin is they can't add the order cancellation to Bitcoin transactions since they are not the Bitcoin devs.  They need the metacoin as an intermediary to give them the control they need.  They control the metacoin and its transaction rules, but not Bitcoin.

In our case our devs control both the IXC blockchain and the Counterparty implimentation.  So we can streamline Counterparty and remove the metacoin by moving any new transaction logic to the native blockchain validations.  It should work.

[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.

Good info but you didn't answer my specific question.  As I think about it more I think we can implement Counterparty without their metacoin, and still allow orders without formal escrowing.

My guess is that Counterparty knew they couldn't rely on the Bitcoin developers to add the required transaction validations natively so they had to create their own metacoin to give them the control they needed. 

So for my question about orders it could work something like this.

Let's say a sell order for 5 IXC is placed to buy a CP asset.  The order gets recorded in the blockchain with the address of the 5 IXC for everyone to see.  Then the owner tries to send the 5 IXC to a new address.  Well, the miners need to confirm it first.  By adding checks for open orders before performing a send, the miners can cancel the open order if the address balance drops below 5 IXC.  Only then would they confirm the send.  Or they could just disallow the send all together.  Regardless, it's all enforceable natively. 

The problem Counterparty has doing this using Bitcoin is they can't add the order cancellation to Bitcoin transactions since they are not the Bitcoin devs.  They need the metacoin as an intermediary to give them the control they need.  They control the metacoin and its transaction rules, but not Bitcoin.

In our case our devs control both the IXC blockchain and the Counterparty implimentation.  So we can streamline Counterparty and remove the metacoin by moving any new transaction logic to the native blockchain validations.  It should work.

Yes, they control the metacoin,  but any CP asset can act in place of the metacoin.   

Well in the short term we aren't including transaction logic in the native blockchain validations.  That would be a native (hard fork) implementation.

So IXC order cancellations are not available just as BTC cancellations are not allowed for CounterParty.

But you are right, long term, these validations can be included natively thus making IXC a first class citizen in the Order and Betting protocols.

[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?

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.

Good info but you didn't answer my specific question.  As I think about it more I think we can implement Counterparty without their metacoin, and still allow orders without formal escrowing.

My guess is that Counterparty knew they couldn't rely on the Bitcoin developers to add the required transaction validations natively so they had to create their own metacoin to give them the control they needed.  

So for my question about orders it could work something like this.

Let's say a sell order for 5 IXC is placed to buy a CP asset.  The order gets recorded in the blockchain with the address of the 5 IXC for everyone to see.  Then the owner tries to send the 5 IXC to a new address.  Well, the miners need to confirm it first.  By adding checks for open orders before performing a send, the miners can cancel the open order if the address balance drops below 5 IXC.  Only then would they confirm the send.  Or they could just disallow the send all together.  Regardless, it's all enforceable natively.  

The problem Counterparty has doing this using Bitcoin is they can't add the order cancellation to Bitcoin transactions since they are not the Bitcoin devs.  They need the metacoin as an intermediary to give them the control they need.  They control the metacoin and its transaction rules, but not Bitcoin.

In our case our devs control both the IXC blockchain and the Counterparty implimentation.  So we can streamline Counterparty and remove the metacoin by moving any new transaction logic to the native blockchain validations.  It should work.

Yes, they control the metacoin,  but any CP asset can act in place of the metacoin.    

Well in the short term we aren't including transaction logic in the native blockchain validations.  That would be a native (hard fork) implementation.

So IXC order cancellations are not available just as BTC cancellations are not allowed for CounterParty.

But you are right, long term, these validations can be included natively thus making IXC a first class citizen in the Order and Betting protocols.

Yes, I see.  The metacoin does seem superfluous.  You don't need a metacoin intermediary to trade one CP asset for another CP asset.  Counterparty logic controls both assets directly, and can escrow both assets directly.  It doesn't need the metacoin to prevent someone from backing out of a trade.

Even with the IXC to CP asset trade you don't need the metacoin intermediary.  CP enforces the CP asset transaction and a future change to the IXC transaction logic could enforce the IXC transaction so no one can back out on a trade.

So why was the metacoin added to Counterparty?  Well you could conceivably "burn" the native coin to CP assets directly every time you need to (does CP allow direct burns to assets?), but the metacoin allows you to do a single burn then trade it for any other CP asset.  I guess it was more for convenience to provide a common currency so you don't need to keep burning.  The other obvious reason is that you can make a killing if you get in on the ground floor of a new crypto currency, so Counterparty created one just like everyone else.

[JReag]

Grah! I'm having trouble registering an account on Cryptsy.

I had wanted to purchase more IXC but I can't even begin to move my coins to that place!! >:c
Anyone else having similar issues?


On another note. Holy crap you guys are doing a lot around here. Now this is the type of activity that breathes life into a project. Looks like Vlad's hard work of pushing through being treated like a clown for over a year is paying off.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Grah! I'm having trouble registering an account on Cryptsy.

I had wanted to purchase more IXC but I can't even begin to move my coins to that place!! >:c
Anyone else having similar issues?


On another note. Holy crap you guys are doing a lot around here. Now this is the type of activity that breathes life into a project. Looks like Vlad's hard work of pushing through being treated like a clown for over a year is paying off.

An insane clown.

Hahaaa!

And the insane part has NOT been disproven yet.

I'll give you until noon Sunday to buy your coins.

[JReag]

An insane clown.

Hahaaa!

And the insane part has NOT been disproven yet.

I'll give you until noon Sunday to buy your coins.

Always fun to spice up speculation with adventurous notions.

But when you say you'll give me until noon on Sunday - what do you mean?

You give me that long to purchase it from where?

Sunday, noon?

So, let me present it properly. 

C'mon, smile! Smile to life, and life will smile to you.

Ohhhh - was it a reference to something? I only saw this after I wrote my initial post.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Sunday at noon I'll announce a new Board Member.


Speculation can be fun so let's see how crazy people get.


FYI:  I don't expect a big rally on the news but it's definitely a great long term addition.


P.S.  - Never been called Roby before.  I do use fake aliases on various sites, like on my FaceBook page [and such].

[Vlad2Vlad]

What happened to mintpal, I thought we got on mintpal a while ago.

[Vlad2Vlad]

not yet, ixc is always in the top 5 when they vote, but never got added.

Too bad, mintpal is a good one.

[mmm01]

not yet, ixc is always in the top 5 when they vote, but never got added.

ixc was in first at one point but they skipped over it. I don't know why

[Vlad2Vlad]

not yet, ixc is always in the top 5 when they vote, but never got added.

ixc was in first at one point but they skipped over it. I don't know why

Are you serious?

Well, I'm gonna have to start some shit on twitter [with Mintpal] then.

[mmm01]

not yet, ixc is always in the top 5 when they vote, but never got added.

ixc was in first at one point but they skipped over it. I don't know why

Are you serious?

Well, I'm gonna have to start some shit on twitter [with Mintpal] then.

I could have been high but like a week and a half before water coin or whatever it was pulled ahead of us for the number one spot it was between ixc and for the life of me I can't remember which coin. They were implementing a fork or something but it was going to be the next coin accepted. I believe it was under us for a good while don't quote me on that. Didn't say anything because I don't know how the mintpal voting system works or if they always take the number one coin or pick from the top couple of the ones they like the best, but we were 1 for a couple of days. I saw someone ask if ixcoin was the next coin to go to the exchange on mintpals twitter. They said it was another coin though. You'd have to dig deep for that. I'll start looking actually just to confirm im not totally full of it.

[mmm01]

not yet, ixc is always in the top 5 when they vote, but never got added.

ixc was in first at one point but they skipped over it. I don't know why

Are you serious?

Well, I'm gonna have to start some shit on twitter [with Mintpal] then.

I could have been high but like a week and a half before water coin or whatever it was pulled ahead of us for the number one spot it was between ixc and for the life of me I can't remember which coin. They were implementing a fork or something but it was going to be the next coin accepted. I believe it was under us for a good while don't quote me on that. Didn't say anything because I don't know how the mintpal voting system works or if they always take the number one coin or pick from the top couple of the ones they like the best, but we were 1 for a couple of days. I saw someone ask if ixcoin was the next coin to go to the exchange on mintpals twitter. They said it was another coin though. You'd have to dig deep for that. I'll start looking actually just to confirm im not totally full of it.

https://twitter.com/MintPalExchange/status/451798390012379136

It was this post. It was between Grump and Ixcoin and Ixcoin was 2nd at the time if not first. They said excluding grump so it should have been ixcoin, but I guess they were waiting on a fork or some code implementation for grump, got it in a day, and chose grump.

[Vlad2Vlad]

What I notice it's a distorted activity on Mintpal. Some new coins are heavily treaded as soon as they go on Mintpal. And only Mintpal gets such high volumes for them. It's at least unusual.
And yes, ixcoin was first if I am right three times, in one of them for three consecutive days.

That's cause the pumpers moved from Cryptsy to mintpal.  And they tend to pump new scams, err, coins.

[kraizi]

@Friction

So with your planned implementation of Counterparty does it need modifications for us to use it, or is it pretty much going to be bolted on as is?  Maybe a few features disabled?

[jamaer]

 You don't need a metacoin intermediary to trade one CP asset for another CP asset.  Counterparty logic controls both assets directly, and can escrow both assets directly.  It doesn't need the metacoin to prevent someone from backing out of a trade.

Even with the IXC to CP asset trade you don't need the metacoin intermediary.  CP enforces the CP asset transaction and a future change to the IXC transaction logic could enforce the IXC transaction so no one can back out on a trade.

So why was the metacoin added to Counterparty?  

It's not only convenience why a specific metacoin was added to CP. There are other pressing issues.

First about the convenience. If I'm making a bet in ordinary CP (using XCP), I need to find a partner who valuates
the bet differently and  trusts the feed provider. In this Friction's modified version, the partner needs additionally
to trust (and use) the same user definied currency. Too complicated at least in the short term, and therefore I don't
see many people using bet-functionality without a "specific" metacoin (hence fewer use for Ixcoin). In the long run,
this might actually be working once markets would have sieved out the de-facto standard for the metecoin out of user issued
assets/currencies.

The more crucial issue is that there is an important difference between the "specific" metacoin (IXCP) and user definied
currencies. The specific currency is a decentralized currency accepted by everyone accepting the protocol whereas any
user definied currency is issued, i.e. it is centralized and requires trust to the issuer. Users are taking the role of central banks.
Although this might work in a long run, how in the short run we are going to find entities a) whose guarantees for their currency
are trustable, and b) are willing to do it? Is the Foundation (Vlad?) ready to launch their metacoin (backed up by the idea
that they will buy the metacoin back to 1:1 rate to IXC) and possibly challenge the US authorities that this isn't really like issuing an own
real currency?

Having said that, I think this latest (unlike the previous ones) proposal by Friction is actually working idea (although I don't
see many people actually using the advance features like bets), and I think we should go for it. It is better to have something
(at least somehow working) implemented than endlessly "debate" on the matter (I believe it's in vain to expect Friction
to do more than just minor modifications to CP code). It's good for marketing, and other people will then have
at least something to work on.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Friction,

I'm not sure what you were planning in regards to the special METAcoin, but I think it would be best if the Foundation did not issue its own coin:  We allow free markets [Laissez faire] to
decide which user defined coin will turn out to be the "special metacoin".

I think from a legal standpoint this is also the best option, for obvious reasons.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Friction,

I'm not sure what you were planning in regards to the special METAcoin, but I think it would be best if the Foundation did not issue its own coin:  We allow free markets [Laissez faire] to
decide which user defined coin will turn out to be the "special metacoin".

I think from a legal standpoint this is also the best option, for obvious reasons.

As I keep repeating.... there is no need for a special metacoin.

All that is needed is the technology be ported over for IXC and then we let people do whatever they want to do.