Ixcoin TODO

[Vlad2Vlad]

Me and zebedee are trying to help you out and see sense.  

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.


Nice try, though.

[cryptos]

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.

Nice try, though.

It's not fear its common sense.  You have a developer who expresses little interest in your coin, calls it insane thinking and you a mad man.

? Something is wrong with this picture haha.

Anyways I'll drop back from time to time. best of luck.

[Vlad2Vlad]

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.

Nice try, though.

It's not fear its common sense.  You have a developer who expresses little interest in your coin, calls it insane thinking and you a mad man.

? Something is wrong with this picture haha.

Anyways I'll drop back from time to time. best of luck.

Looking forward to your 5th alias.  lol.


Haha, don't make me post them all.  I try to be civil these days.

All mature and professional and shit.

Good luck to you, I'll do my best to serve the best interest of ALL.

[FrictionlessCoin]

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.

Nice try, though.

It's not fear its common sense.  You have a developer who expresses little interest in your coin, calls it insane thinking and you a mad man.

? Something is wrong with this picture haha.

Anyways I'll drop back from time to time. best of luck.

Correction... I said I had some stake... just not a lot of stake.  

Yes,  Vlad is a mad man, but all this crypto stuff is crazy stuff anyway.

IXC actually is a coin that is very well positioned relative to all the other alt-coins out there.

It has an incredible hash rate, plus it is extremely well distributed.  Probably Vlad is the largest stake holder with about 2-3% of the coin.  

The fact that IXC market cap hasn't plunged significantly tells you that there are a lot of crazy stuff going on behind the scenes.

[Vlad2Vlad]

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.

Nice try, though.

It's not fear its common sense.  You have a developer who expresses little interest in your coin, calls it insane thinking and you a mad man.

? Something is wrong with this picture haha.

Anyways I'll drop back from time to time. best of luck.

Correction... I said I had some stake... just not a lot of stake.  

Yes,  Vlad is a mad man, but all this crypto stuff is crazy stuff anyway.

IXC actually is a coin that is very well positioned relative to all the other alt-coins out there.

It has an incredible hash rate, plus it is extremely well distributed.  Probably Vlad is the largest stake holder with about 2-3% of the coin.  

The fact that IXC market cap hasn't plunged significantly tells you that there are a lot of crazy stuff going on behind the scenes.

Amin, brother.

I'm so glad someone else sees all this cause sometimes I do feel like just giving up, like this is all just some crazy idea I should have never entertained.

So thanks for validating my madness.  Haha!

[FrictionlessCoin]

I like the idea to be like Bitcoin. I only wonder what Bitcoin community will be forced to do after +/-2033.

It is completely unpredictable as to what the Bitcoin Foundation will do in 2033.   

To predict that they will support zero miner subsidy is pure speculation now.    Who knows what kind of technology will have evolved by 2033.  IXC simply does not have that luxury and likely any choice that will be made by 2014 will of course drastically be different from what they do in 2033.

In short, this notion about keeping identical with Bitcoin is completely false.

[Vlad2Vlad]

I really like when you friendly 'stab' each other: this community needs some fun sometimes.

I would like to see the board members have a complete evaluation and confrontation on this "1% inflation rate" before to emit a public verdict

You Friction mentioned "1 IXC coin created per block instead of the 96 coins".
If we consider a block every 10 minutes, it means 6*24= 144 new coins a day. Right?

If I am right it means 52560 new coins a year -> (52560/21000000)*100= 0,25% (first year, decreasing progressively while the total amount increase)
A 0,25% inflation probably will simply replace lost/dispersed coins.

Plus, the board as originally imagined made of 7 or 9 members is far from been completed. The decision should be taken by a complete board.

Last but not the least, the community should have a relevant part on this: a decentralised coin should collect a vast support on any decision. The foundation should simply find the way to accomplish what the users want, not the opposite. The board has the goal to coordinate the efforts, not to centralise decisions.

I agree we have to move fast. If any inflation will be added, it's simply fair to worn investors well in advance (not after oct 2014) and let them decide if it's the case to hold or get rid of iXcoins.

I like the idea to be like Bitcoin. I only wonder what Bitcoin community will be forced to do after +/-2033. Maybe iXcoin will have the role to prepare the road for Bitcoin. Well, it's quite normal to see twins helping each other.  

Very well said.

I made my case and placed my vote.

[kraizi]

I've already talked to Jeffery and he said they have no issue updating to iXcoin's newest code.  But we have to make it count; release the best update possible.  Native escrow and whatever else will give us an edge against most other alts.

Anyone talking 'native escrow' is dreaming.   How the hell is that going to be implemented?  If you are talking multi-sig,  then that's already in 0.8.6, otherwise,  I have no idea what you folks are talking about.

We've already agreed that we prefer Counterparty to use IXC instead of a metacoin, but without being able to excrow IXC then trading will be slower (taking mulitple confirmations) and betting won't be possible.   Plus, it would be very easy for one of the Counterparty assets to become the preferred metacoin over IXC, especially if a Counterparty asset can perform the functions faster.  So it's best for the native IXC escrow to be there from the start.

As I see it an escrow transaction must be added to iXcoin, let's call it ESCROW-START.  It would be similar to a regular transaction except instead of actually moving coins to a new owner it just locks the coins in place in the block chain.   They are later unlocked and either left with the original owner or sent to a new owner depending on triggers from Counterparty.  Of course, you would also need an expiration on escrows to prevent IXC from being permenantly locked, and you need a cancel escrow feature in case orders are cancelled.  I assume most of the logic for escrow is already in Counterparty if you need a reference. 

You may also need a second new escrow transaction, call it ESCROW-END, or you may just add some extra code in the normal IXC transaction logic.  Either way, you need to finalize a transaction begun with ESCROW-START.  Both ESCROW-START and ESCROW-END need to understand Counterparty triggers to integrate IXC correctly into Counterparty.

For example, for a Counterparty trade IXC logic would look for Counterparty orders where IXC was involved.  Any time an order is placed an ESCROW-START transaction is also created, locking the IXC coins.  Then Counterparty trade executions would trigger the ESCROW-END transaction to finalize, sending the coins to their new owner.

Similarly for bets, IXC logic would look for Counterparty bets.  Any time a bet is placed an ESCROW-START transaction is created.  Then a Counterparty bet winner would trigger an ESCROW-END to finalize the transaction.

All the triggers for escrowing and finalizing would be comming from Counterparty.  In the furture, similar logic could be added to look for triggers from any other financial platform that we want to support natively. 

It's more work to add this native IXC escrow, but IXC will benefit because it will be used much more intensively by these financial platforms, which means more IXC transactions, more fees and happier miners.

[Bernadette Desimone]

looks like you're keeping how you found [Suspicious link removed] a secret for some reason.

[Vlad2Vlad]

looks like you're keeping how you found [Suspicious link removed] a secret for some reason.

Come again?

[Bosa Mora]

has any one notice that IXC went up after a certain even in this thread.

[Vlad2Vlad]

has any one notice that IXC went up after a certain even in this thread.

Not really.

What event?

[Vlad2Vlad]

has any one notice that IXC went up after a certain even in this thread.

There's a football coin now?

How's that possible, I own most sports coin domains, including footballcoin?

Looks like I need to get pissed one day and just launch everything I intended to launch last year.

[jamaer]

We've already agreed that we prefer Counterparty to use IXC instead of a metacoin, but without being able to excrow IXC then trading will be slower (taking mulitple confirmations) and betting won't be possible.   Plus, it would be very easy for one of the Counterparty assets to become the preferred metacoin over IXC, especially if a Counterparty asset can perform the functions faster.

I still don't understand what's the problem with a metacoin (or an asset becoming the prefered metacoin). Those coins are not new altcoins in the sense that they are independent from IXC. Instead, they are are fully dependent on IXC, but IXC is independent on any Counterparty defined asset/coin. There is no way they can "dilute IXC", only (possibly) add value to IXC (through the increased use of IXC, i.e. transaction fees). Those coins are directly traded with IXC in the network, and since you can not even use those coins/assets without owning some IXC (for fees), it makes little sense even to set up a third party exchange (say for metacoin <-> bitcoin). In other words, those interested in Counterparty features will first need to get some IXC.

 They are later unlocked and either left with the original owner or sent to a new owner depending on triggers from Counterparty. 

And that's the problem. In oder the network to decide where the coins should go, the network has to understand the Counterparty protocol. That is, the implementation has to be native. Or can you explain a method for an escrow without the network understanding/parsing the protocol?

[kraizi]

We've already agreed that we prefer Counterparty to use IXC instead of a metacoin, but without being able to excrow IXC then trading will be slower (taking mulitple confirmations) and betting won't be possible.   Plus, it would be very easy for one of the Counterparty assets to become the preferred metacoin over IXC, especially if a Counterparty asset can perform the functions faster.

I still don't understand what's the problem with a metacoin (or an asset becoming the prefered metacoin). Those coins are not new altcoins in the sense that they are independent from IXC. Instead, they are are fully dependent on IXC, but IXC is independent on any Counterparty defined asset/coin. There is no way they can "dilute IXC", only (possibly) add value to IXC (through the increased use of IXC, i.e. transaction fees). Those coins are directly traded with IXC in the network, and since you can not even use those coins/assets without owning some IXC (for fees), it makes little sense even to set up a third party exchange (say for metacoin <-> bitcoin). In other words, those interested in Counterparty features will first need to get some IXC.

Before answering, does anyone know if each Counterparty order, trade or bet is contained in its own separate IXC transaction.  Or are multiple Counterparty events crammed into a single IXC transaction?  I assume only one event per IXC transaction since we only have 80 bytes in the OP_RETURN. 

[FrictionlessCoin]

We've already agreed that we prefer Counterparty to use IXC instead of a metacoin, but without being able to excrow IXC then trading will be slower (taking mulitple confirmations) and betting won't be possible.   Plus, it would be very easy for one of the Counterparty assets to become the preferred metacoin over IXC, especially if a Counterparty asset can perform the functions faster.

I still don't understand what's the problem with a metacoin (or an asset becoming the prefered metacoin). Those coins are not new altcoins in the sense that they are independent from IXC. Instead, they are are fully dependent on IXC, but IXC is independent on any Counterparty defined asset/coin. There is no way they can "dilute IXC", only (possibly) add value to IXC (through the increased use of IXC, i.e. transaction fees). Those coins are directly traded with IXC in the network, and since you can not even use those coins/assets without owning some IXC (for fees), it makes little sense even to set up a third party exchange (say for metacoin <-> bitcoin). In other words, those interested in Counterparty features will first need to get some IXC.

Before answering, does anyone know if each Counterparty order, trade or bet is contained in its own separate IXC transaction.  Or are multiple Counterparty events crammed into a single IXC transaction?  I assume only one event per IXC transaction since we only have 80 bytes in the OP_RETURN. 

Each operation is on a separate Transaction output.  I don't think Counterparty is aware of Bitcoin transaction boundaries. 

[Vlad2Vlad]

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?

The Bitcoin protocol was designed to engulf the whole world, to be a planetary coin, and iXcoin is identical.

Things [like transaction size/block size limits] can be easily raised so we should do that as well with this new update and not wait on bitcoin.  The hardware will be there, this technology is not a simple accident, it has come at the right time and it was designed to handle anything.

Whatever makes iXcoin faster, easier to use and more flexible on a mass scale.



@Jamaer,

Now I see (better) your proposal.  IXC is independent of the meta coin, it is the meta coin which will need IXC to function.  Therefore, IXC will be the value which is what we're after.

The meta coin then simply acts like an enabler.  Enabling special features to be used by iXcoin holders.  Like a bolt-on feature.  Interesting.

Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  Cause when we were discussing this before we were looking for the best way to not include the pools.

I am for this proposal unless someone comes up with a better one.


Thanks!

[Vlad2Vlad]

What were those 2 newbie sock puppets talking about last night?

It was the same guy.  Both aliases were created 2 minutes apart and both support footbal coin which right now has about 3 community members.

Maybe it was just random stuff but I'm curious.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Ghash.io (CEX.io) just mined the last 6 consecutive blocks and 42% of the Blocks over the past 24 hours.

Yeah, these guys are our partner and sit on our board and we're at 7 cents.

Hahaaaa, buy iXcoin all day long.  Someone has to see what's going on here soon enough.


Edit:  iXcoin right now at 63 Peta Hashes.

3 month old DarkCoin selling at $14, bragging about their security.  Their dev screamed at me saying I couldn't compare sha256 to X11 cause X11 was newer and a ton more hashes meant nothing.

That's our problem.  People simply don't understand.

[jamaer]

Each operation is on a separate Transaction output.  

Yes, and that's an important thing to undertand: every Counterparty action (issuing, buying assets, betting whatever) means a IXC transaction. Which means a IXC fee to miners. So the more Counterparty is used (for whatever purpose), the more interesting IXC becomes from the miners' point of view.

I'd like to give a reason why I think full Counterparty (with betting) might be a "killer app" for IXCoin (Johnny actually already linked to a testing implementation of this idea http://testnet.xbet.io/start ): it allows an easy set up for a sports betting exchange (ala Betfair). Anyone (the trusted party) can act as a result provider (the feed), say Vlad is covering NHL final games. Then everything else works in a trustless manner: people are offering/accepting odds (depneding on results offered by Vlad) and the protocol takes care of the rest (and Vlad takes his cut for the use of his service). And again: every single one of those actions means an IXC fee for our miners!

Also take a look how NXT Asset Exchange is doing! We could have the same with Counterparty (Vlad could start selling stocks for his "betfair service" ) but with the security provided by the IXC network!