Ixcoin TODO

[jamaer]

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?
...
Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  

I don't know any other reason than that some people do not like things like Counterparty to be used in Bitcoin network. And that's exactly (as Friction has been saying several times) is the chance for IXCoin. We can offer almost the same crucial feature (security), and instead of obfuscating the use of of protocols like Counterparty, we welcome them!

For the second question, I think update is needed only for the OP_RETURN feature to be enabled. So I think originally the idea was to get the pools to update to the current version, but if I recall right, Friction said that OP_RETURN is not enabled in the current version (as it was supposed to be). So we need a new version of the client. When doing that, we could also increase the 80-byte limit (especially if it makes sense from the counterparty implementation point of view) as opposed to bitcoin decreasing(?) it!

[FrictionlessCoin]

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?
...
Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  

I don't know any other reason than that some people do not like things like Counterparty to be used in Bitcoin network. And that's exactly (as Friction has been saying several times) is the chance for IXCoin. We can offer almost the same crucial feature (security), and instead of obfuscating the use of of protocols like Counterparty, we welcome them!

For the second question, I think update is needed only for the OP_RETURN feature to be enabled. So I think originally the idea was to get the pools to update to the current version, but if I recall right, Friction said that OP_RETURN is not enabled in the current version (as it was supposed to be). So we need a new version of the client. When doing that, we could also increase the 80-byte limit (especially if it makes sense from the counterparty implementation point of view) as opposed to bitcoin decreasing(?) it!

correcto mundo!

[FrictionlessCoin]

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!

The only way to get IXC more liquidity is to get more activity on the block chain.   

I think what is needed from the IXC foundation is the vetting of:

(1) Assets
(2) Feeds - Is a feed legit?

[FrictionlessCoin]

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.

Bitcoin due to how much money that is involved, will be extremely conservative in adding new features.   In fact, the current thinking is that new capabilities are to be introduced using side-chains and secured by merge mining.

Innovation will happen at the edges and not at the core. 

[FrictionlessCoin]

Is this similar to your proposal of the distributed decentralized rating component? This does sound cool.


Really though, why not just let the reputation of the assets owner or feed speak for itself? ie: do nothing. If a feed is legit then it will have a good rap, maybe some street cred. hehe. You know people will be all over the web warning others to not use a crappy feed. Countersports would lose all of its clients instantly if they lost their "street" cred.
 

I don't know if you folks have noticed but right now is the perfect time to get into the counterparty game. Mastercoin has spent around a cool million and have very little to show for it, in fact they are running out of money and need more. Mastercoin price is tanking and counterparty is up up up. The mastercoin thread is full of some very unhappy and disenchanted people. So this could be a BIG advantage to Ix.

Yeah,  I'm curious why Mastercoin is tanking.  Is there news out there about them needing more money.  Indeed odd that Counterparty market valuation now exceeds Mastercoin.  I had thought Mastercoin had hired all this developer talent.

[FrictionlessCoin]

starts here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558012.msg7084122#msg7084122


"My calculation the foundation will be out of btc on April 20th 2015."

"The bottom line is, they have spent over a million dollars and we don't even have a reference client."

"Quote from: April board minutes
Proposal to Raise more BTC to the Foundation - if we ever decide we need to raise more BTC for the Foundation (e.g. solicit some institutional investors), some major MSC holders can promise to give some percentage of what they sell to them to the Foundation. This way an investor knows he’s not just making us richer, but also contributing to the health of the ecosystem and Foundation."

I think one of the big problems of MSC is that they failed to have their coin exchanged in other exchanges.  NXT and Counterparty are on several exchanges, but not MSC.   Somehow they believe themselves above the rest.  Well that attitude does not work for crypto-currencies.  What I've seen are that the scrappy guys seem to get all the buzz.

[Vlad2Vlad]

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?
...
Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  

I don't know any other reason than that some people do not like things like Counterparty to be used in Bitcoin network. And that's exactly (as Friction has been saying several times) is the chance for IXCoin. We can offer almost the same crucial feature (security), and instead of obfuscating the use of of protocols like Counterparty, we welcome them!

For the second question, I think update is needed only for the OP_RETURN feature to be enabled. So I think originally the idea was to get the pools to update to the current version, but if I recall right, Friction said that OP_RETURN is not enabled in the current version (as it was supposed to be). So we need a new version of the client. When doing that, we could also increase the 80-byte limit (especially if it makes sense from the counterparty implementation point of view) as opposed to bitcoin decreasing(?) it!

This update is still in progress, so why are we gonna wait for the nex update?  What's the point?  Why waste a few more months?

How many more lines of code to add the OP_Return and to raise the limit?

Why don't we do this right the first time, I don't understand?

And if needed let's also raise the trasansaction size limit since that will quickly become an issue if this feature becomes popular.

[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.

Bitcoin due to how much money that is involved, will be extremely conservative in adding new features.   In fact, the current thinking is that new capabilities are to be introduced using side-chains and secured by merge mining.

Innovation will happen at the edges and not at the core.  

Wow, what bullshit.

This gives IXC a MASSIVE window of opportunity to literally supass bitcoin in features and security.

Instinct tells me security "on the edges" (side chains) will not be the same as at the core.

Why mess with that, it could pose seriou unkown threats.  IXC can do it the right way and if we can do it properly with counterparty then the rest will come to us.

[FrictionlessCoin]

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?
...
Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  

I don't know any other reason than that some people do not like things like Counterparty to be used in Bitcoin network. And that's exactly (as Friction has been saying several times) is the chance for IXCoin. We can offer almost the same crucial feature (security), and instead of obfuscating the use of of protocols like Counterparty, we welcome them!

For the second question, I think update is needed only for the OP_RETURN feature to be enabled. So I think originally the idea was to get the pools to update to the current version, but if I recall right, Friction said that OP_RETURN is not enabled in the current version (as it was supposed to be). So we need a new version of the client. When doing that, we could also increase the 80-byte limit (especially if it makes sense from the counterparty implementation point of view) as opposed to bitcoin decreasing(?) it!

This update is still in progress, so why are we gonna wait for the nex update?  What's the point?  Why waste a few more months?

How many more lines of code to add the OP_Return and to raise the limit?

Why don't we do this right the first time, I don't understand?

And if needed let's also raise the trasansaction size limit since that will quickly become an issue if this feature becomes popular.

OP_RETURN with data does not exist in the 0.8.6 version of IXcoin.   A new version needs to be created to support this.

Without this feature,  Counterparty for IXC will not work.

Furthermore, without this new version going into the pool... Counterparty for IXC will not work.

Also, if it is not already apparent,  Counterparty for IXC is a separate client from the IXC client.  

There are certain real dependencies to get everything working right.  

[Vlad2Vlad]

Is this similar to your proposal of the distributed decentralized rating component? This does sound cool.


Really though, why not just let the reputation of the assets owner or feed speak for itself? ie: do nothing. If a feed is legit then it will have a good rap, maybe some street cred. hehe. You know people will be all over the web warning others to not use a crappy feed. Countersports would lose all of its clients instantly if they lost their "street" cred.
 

I don't know if you folks have noticed but right now is the perfect time to get into the counterparty game. Mastercoin has spent around a cool million and have very little to show for it, in fact they are running out of money and need more. Mastercoin price is tanking and counterparty is up up up. The mastercoin thread is full of some very unhappy and disenchanted people. So this could be a BIG advantage to Ix.

Yeah,  I'm curious why Mastercoin is tanking.  Is there news out there about them needing more money.  Indeed odd that Counterparty market valuation now exceeds Mastercoin.  I had thought Mastercoin had hired all this developer talent.

Copy and paste brother, Copy and Paste.

Features are worthless if everyone has yours for free.

I told Brock this 2 weeks ago when trying to sell him on IXC and his response was: Very Interesting.

Brock would do much better pumping that money into IXC and pasting MasterCoin on top of it.

Then taking IXC to Wall Street and making a cool billion off an IXC ETF.

That was my suggestion, anyway.

[FrictionlessCoin]

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.

Bitcoin due to how much money that is involved, will be extremely conservative in adding new features.   In fact, the current thinking is that new capabilities are to be introduced using side-chains and secured by merge mining.

Innovation will happen at the edges and not at the core. 

Wow, what bullshit.

This gives IXC a MASSIVE window of opportunity to literally supass bitcoin in features and security.

Instinct tells me security "on the edges" (side chains) will not be the same as at the core.

Why mess with that, it could pose seriou unkown threats.  IXC can do it the right way and if we can't do it properly with counterparty then the rest will come to us.

It is not bullshit... it is reality... the bigger you get the more conservative you become. 

Bitcoin will be at the core of the main use case... money transfer.

Then at the periphery you got all kinds of other stuff:

(1) Namecoins - i.e. registries.
(2) Distributed exchanges -
(3) Custom assets

etc.

So I doubt you'll ever see major upgrades to the Bitcoin core.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Friction,

I totally understand.  It's bullshit for the tech world.  It's bullshit for those paying $700 per coin.

And this window of opportunity will only last 6-12 months before someone else fills it.

Maybe CEX realizes this and that's why they're behind IXC.

What a HUGE, MASSIVE advantage we have right now.

[jamaer]

Ok, let me try to recap tens of pages of discussion about IXCoin & Counterparty etc  for the benefit of all the casual readers. And this is only my understanding of the situation, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I understand, there are only two basic options for the "counterparty features" to be added to IXCoin:

1) Native implementation
2) OP_RETURN based (or similar) implementation (using IXCoin as a transport layer), i.e., Counterparty/Metacoin/ColoredCoins type implementation

I think 1) is out of question simply due to resources available (it would be a huge project with a lot of coding and testing). So we are left with 2), which only needs a small change to the current IXCoin client, and we can utilize existing code for the "features" (feature clients/apps etc). AFAIK there has been four porposed working variations of 2):

2a) Counterparty with a metacoin ("native" coin in the bitcoin Counterparty (XCP)/Mastercoin (MSC)) created by burning (i.e. destroying) IXCs
2b) Counterparty with a metecoin "distributed" to all IXCoin owners according to their IXCoin ownership at a certain block heigth (launch)
2c) Counterparty with no metacoin. Betting etc. implemented by allowing bets to be offered in any user definied asset/currency (instead of using a metacoin).
2d) Counterparty with no metacoin. All features requiring escrow (betting etc.) stripped off. This is pretty much equivalent to ColoredCoins.

Did I miss something?

[FrictionlessCoin]

Friction,

I totally understand.  It's bullshit for the tech world.  It's bullshit for those paying $700 per coin.

And this window of opportunity will only last 6-12 months before someone else fills it.

Maybe CEX realizes this and that's why they're behind IXC.

What a HUGE, MASSIVE advantage we have right now.

You are wrong about BTC being $700 as being bullshit.  It is going to be much more.

The rise in value of BTC is due to networking effects.  The more users the higher it goes in value.  The higher it is in value, the more valuable it becomes.   BTC will be very difficult to displace.

The key investments however in the alt-coin space is to undertand all of this as being part of an entire eco-system with BTC at the core.

The alt-coins that survive will alt-coins that provided a synergistic value to Bitcoin.

Namecoin will survive because registries are essential.  See: www.onename.io

Litecoin may be problematic right now because with the introduction of ASICs for Litecoin, the differentiation of decentralized mining was thrown away.   I am uncertain what the replacement for this would be.  However right now Scrypt coins are really taking a hit.

IXC still needs to find its purpose in life.  If this is user defined assets then it is in good position.  However due to legacies, all of this will take time.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Ok, let me try to recap tens of pages of discussion about IXCoin & Counterparty etc  for the benefit of all the casual readers. And this is only my understanding of the situation, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I understand, there are only two basic options for the "counterparty features" to be added to IXCoin:

1) Native implementation
2) OP_RETURN based (or similar) implementation (using IXCoin as a transport layer), i.e., Counterparty/Metacoin/ColoredCoins type implementation

I think 1) is out of question simply due to resources available (it would be a huge project with a lot of coding and testing). So we are left with 2), which only needs a small change to the current IXCoin client, and we can utilize existing code for the "features" (feature clients/apps etc). AFAIK there has been four porposed working variations of 2):

2a) Counterparty with a metacoin ("native" coin in the bitcoin Counterparty (XCP)/Mastercoin (MSC)) created by burning (i.e. destroying) IXCs
2b) Counterparty with a metecoin "distributed" to all IXCoin owners according to their IXCoin ownership at a certain block heigth (launch)
2c) Counterparty with no metacoin. Betting etc. implemented by allowing bets to be offered in any user definied asset/currency (instead of using a metacoin).
2d) Counterparty with no metacoin. All features requiring escrow (betting etc.) stripped off. This is pretty much equivalent to ColoredCoins.

Did I miss something?

yes.

2c is the current option.   2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.   

any native work requires a hard fork.  however something we can aspire to do in the future after we've validated the non-native implementation.

[jamaer]

2c is the current option.   2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.   

2b (and 2a) is not a subset. There is a crucial difference between a metacoin and a user definied currency (as explained earlier): a metacoin is not issued (by any entity) and it is trusted by everyone accepting/trusting the protocol itself.

[FrictionlessCoin]

2c is the current option.   2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.   

2b (and 2a) is not a subset. There is a crucial difference between a metacoin and a user definied currency (as explained earlier): a metacoin is not issued (by any entity) and it is trusted by everyone accepting/trusting the protocol itself.

In terms of implementation, it is a subset. 

[jamaer]

2c is the current option.   2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.   

2b (and 2a) is not a subset. There is a crucial difference between a metacoin and a user definied currency (as explained earlier): a metacoin is not issued (by any entity) and it is trusted by everyone accepting/trusting the protocol itself.

In terms of implementation, it is a subset. 

Nope. In 2c) there is no coin/asset (apart from IXC) with a special status, i.e., there are more things in 2b (and 2a) than in 2c. If you really want to see this as a "subset" thing, you can argue that 2c) is a subset of 2b) (or 2a) (with an additional freedom that any asset can be used for bets).

[FrictionlessCoin]

2c is the current option.   2b and 2d are subsets of 2c.  

2b (and 2a) is not a subset. There is a crucial difference between a metacoin and a user definied currency (as explained earlier): a metacoin is not issued (by any entity) and it is trusted by everyone accepting/trusting the protocol itself.

In terms of implementation, it is a subset.  

Nope. In 2c) there is no coin/asset (apart from IXC) with a special status, i.e., there are more things in 2b (and 2a) than in 2c. If you really want to see this as a "subset" thing, you can argue that 2c) is a subset of 2b) (or 2a) (with an additional freedom that any asset can be used for bets).

A metacoin is the same as a user defined coin.  There is no difference.  You can bet with a user asset versus another user asset.  

Anyone (IXC foundation included) can chose to distribute a new asset in any way it pleases.  Via burning IXC, by paying a fee, etc.  

You seem to believe that a meta coin has magical powers... it does not... it just has the same capabilities as any user defined asset.

[jamaer]

A metacoin is the same as a user defined coin.  There is no difference.  You can bet with a user asset versus another user asset. 

Anyone (IXC foundation included) can chose to distribute a new asset in any way it pleases.  Via burning IXC, by paying a fee, etc.   

No, it is not. How many times we need to go through this?

A metacoin is not issued by anyone, it is created within the implementation. Therefore it is not controlled by anyone, and it will exists as long as the protocol exists. Any user definied asset is issued by someone, and requires trust to the issuer (additionally with some legal implications). I could issue a coin mimicin my proposed metacoin 2b), but I can also cancel the coin at any time. I'm sure you can imagine reasons (mob/feds, my family) for doing that.