Ixcoin TODO

[FrictionlessCoin]

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.

You need to clarify the difference between issuance and distribution.

With Bitcoin, technically the developers issued 21 million coins and provided sha-256 mining as a way to distribute said coins.

With Counterparty,  the developers issued counterparty coins based on a formula that was a function of burning coins.   The distribution was performed by the actual burning.

Some random dude can issue a coin and have it distributed by some random event occuring in the block chain.  

Issuance is always performed by a human who codes it in as a specification.

Distribution can be done by some formula ( proof of stake,  fixed market price, proof of burn etc).

The Fed issues USD money printing... but it is distributed via Open Market Operations (i.e. Treasury auctions).

[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.

You need to clarify the difference between issuance and distribution.

With Bitcoin, technically the developers issued 21 million coins and provided sha-256 mining as a way to distribute said coins.

WTF? Why are you playing silly word games? This has nothing to do with "the difference between issuance and distribution". It is simply than no one can issue more CP metacoins or cancel the metacoin as nobody can cancel bitcoin or make 50 million more bitcoins. Any CP user definied currency can be canceled at any time or more of the currency can be created at the will of the issuer. I guess you understood that already, but instead of being man enough to admit your (repeated) false statement, you chose to play childish "muddying the waters" games. I have no time for those, so have fun with yourself.

[FrictionlessCoin]

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.

You need to clarify the difference between issuance and distribution.

With Bitcoin, technically the developers issued 21 million coins and provided sha-256 mining as a way to distribute said coins.

WTF? Why are you playing silly word games? This has nothing to do with "the difference between issuance and distribution". It is simply than no one can issue more CP metacoins or cancel the metacoin as nobody can cancel bitcoin or make 50 million more bitcoins. Any CP user definied currency can be canceled at any time or more of the currency can be created at the will of the issuer. I guess you understood that already, but instead of being man enough to admit your (repeated) false statement, you chose to play childish "muddying the waters" games. I have no time for those, so have fun with yourself.

Here is the Issue definition:

Issue

Assets are issued with the issuance message type: the user picks a name and a quantity, and the protocol credits his address accordingly. The asset name must either be unique or be one previously issued by the same address. When re‐issuing an asset, that is, issuing more of an already‐issued asset, the divisibilities and the issuing address must match.

The rights to issue assets under a given name may be transferred to any other address.

Assets may be locked irreversibly against the issuance of further quantities and guaranteeing its holders against its inflation. To lock an asset, set the description to ‘LOCK’ (case‐insensitive).

Issuances of any non‐zero quantity, that is, issuances which do not merely change, e.g., the description of the asset, involve a debit (and destruction) of now 0.5 XCP

In other words, you can always create a new asset that is

(a)  can be locked... no other further issuance.

In short, you can (*if you like*) create your own meta-coin.   

[Vlad2Vlad]

I agree Bitcoin will go much much higher.  I expect easily over $10,000 next year and possibly as high as $50,000 if some countries use it as a reserve currency and of course how many funds jump on the ETF bandwagon which I think will be most.

But it's BS in that IXC can offer people more.  It's better technology in a sense.

Then again, Apple and Beta lost out to inferior tech.

[Vlad2Vlad]

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.

Ok, the meta coin is better from a legal and trustless point.  Which is a big sales point.

But can others then still add on their versions like they would if we used user defined assets instead.


I like the metacoin idea better but creating a free market which can grow and invite others to add their versions of "assets" has some very appealing benefits.

I hope I'm expressing this clearly.  I'd like to see anyone being able to add their own meta coins as well and let markets decide which is best.  If that's possible.

[FrictionlessCoin]

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.

Ok, the meta coin is better from a legal and trustless point.  Which is a big sales point.

But can others then still add on their versions like they would if we used user defined assets instead.


I like the metacoin idea better but creating a free market which can grow and invite others to add their versions of "assets" has some very appealing benefits.

I hope I'm expressing this clearly.  I'd like to see anyone being able to add their own meta coins as well and let markets decide which is best.  If that's possible.

I don't think you get it.

meta-coin is the same as user assets.  NO DIFFERENCE

if you want to create your own TESLA asset/coin then you can do it.  Heck, you can do it now with CounterParty.

I however need to make a point here.  It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.

So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.

If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.

So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Then why does the "asset" require trust and the meta-coin is trustless?

I think they're the same in principle but with different functions.

This may be where the confusion is.

Answer this:

Doing it the way Jamaer suggests, would that allow 1,000 other people to also tag their assets onto iXcoin's blockchain for security, or not?

Cause that's what I'm sensing. Jamaer's solution sounds more secure in that there's some hard coded guarantee of say 21 million coins where with the asset solution some scammer can decide to print more "assets".

So then if this is the case, it's a choice between trustless security and free markets flexibility.  And I would choose free market flexibility - and basically become the ebay of crypto assets:  selling security space on the iXC BlockChain and letting the buyer buy the user "assets" which they choose to trust.


Edit:  Now I'm beginning to understand the meaning behind:  Internet eXchange Coin.

A crypto ASSET exchange market.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Then why does the "asset" require trust and the meta-coin is trustless?

--> An asset requires trust because it has to represent something of value.  So let's say you bake in the requirement that you need the meta-coin to be able to make an exchange.  Then it automatically has a utility and is valuable.   But why the hell will you do that when you can just require IXC fees are required to perform a transaction.   Why create yet another coin?



I think they're the same in principle but with different functions.

This may be where the confusion is.

Answer this:

Doing it the way Jamaer suggests, would that allow 1,000 other people to also tag their assets onto iXcoin's blockchain for security, or not?

--> Don't know what you mean.  This is all happening in the IXC block chain, so all the assets are equivalently secure.   Every asset here is *more* secure than almost every alt-coin in existence.  More secure than LTC, DarkCoin, BlackCoin, DogeCoin etc.   


Cause that's what I'm sensing. Jamaer's solution sounds more secure in that there's some hard coded guarantee of say 21 million coins where with the asset solution some scammer can decide to print more "assets".

--> Print more assets?  If you lock your asset, you can't print more than what was issued.


So then of this is the case, it's a choice between trustless security and free markets flexibility.  And I would choose free market flexibility - and basically become the ebay of crypto assets:  selling security space on the iXC BlockChain and letting the buyer buy the user "assets" which they choose to trust.

--> Why the hell do you want to create yet another coin inside IXC that does nothing?  Unlike CounterParty... we are going to set it up so that different fees are required per operation.  So if you issue assets, you pay IXC proportional to the asset.  If you make a bet, you pay IXC to make a bet.  If anything... there would be a pegged metacoin to IXC (This will allow refunds).   Maybe that is version 2, or allow anyone to *burn* IXC. 



Edit:  Now I'm beginning to understand the meaning behind:  Internet eXchange Coin.

A crypto ASSET exchange market.

[jamaer]

In other words, you can always create a new asset that is

(a)  can be locked... no other further issuance.

In short, you can (*if you like*) create your own meta-coin.   

Ok, you are right, and now I understand your previous comment about distribution. Sorry about my previous answer (and its tone). My bad.

So you can set the protocol rules so that a user definied coin can be made techinically the same as the metacoin after the coin has been set up. So the problems are more practical: how the coins will be distributed (requires the trust to the issuer), and more importantly, it will take (too) long time for the markets to sort out the defacto asset to be used in bets.

But like I said earlier, I'm happy with 2c) (which I prefer over burning the specific metacoin) althoug I still think the (specific) metacoin (2b) would be better. Since I think there seems to a general agreement that we should get something soon (in order not to miss the opportunity), I really think you should proceed with your plan. What do you think should be done with the OP_RETURN issue?

[jamaer]

I however need to make a point here.  It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.

So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.

If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.

So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.

Yes, exactly. And now think about average-Joe who wants to make some bets. First he buys IXC. So far so good. Then he starts looking betting markets. He finds three games with nice odds. Game A is definied in terms of user-definied-currency-A (UDCA). So he tries to buy UDCA with decent price. Game B is definied in UDCB, So he buys some UDCB. Game C is definied in UDCC, ... you get the picture. So maybe it might be better just to have metacoin he could buy with IXC and make his bets in all games?

[jamaer]

 Unlike CounterParty... we are going to set it up so that different fees are required per operation.  So if you issue assets, you pay IXC proportional to the asset.  If you make a bet, you pay IXC to make a bet.

Is this something that has been agreed upon? I don't think these additional fees encourage the use of IXC CP ... why to use it if it costs more than bitcoin CP (ot NXT asset exchange)? How are fees decided?  

[Vlad2Vlad]

I however need to make a point here.  It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.

So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.

If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.

So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.

Yes, exactly. And now think about average-Joe who wants to make some bets. First he buys IXC. So far so good. Then he starts looking betting markets. He finds three games with nice odds. Game A is definied in terms of user-definied-currency-A (UDCA). So he tries to buy UDCA with decent price. Game B is definied in UDCB, So he buys some UDCB. Game C is definied in UDCC, ... you get the picture. So maybe it might be better just to have metacoin he could buy with IXC and make his bets in all games?

I agree, at this stage we have to be very competitive.  The time for making money will come with mass adoption.  Like facebook, they refused ads for years and now they're making billions.

[JReag]

You know, when it comes to the whole blocks mining out...

Wasn't the point of IXcoin to see what happens when a coin similar to bitcoin mines out faster? Partly as an experiment.

I know it carries risk, but anyone who got in on the crypto-currency realm at this early stage in its life should have understood the incredible risk that comes with it.

That having been said, I've not seen anyone disagree with (including myself) the realization that we must do what it takes to keep CEX on board.

[SuperZeus]

To those still Tuning in....

regarding code updates and stuff to get done.



Any new progress on finding a currency symbol? Vlad maybe you can use basic paint program and crudely sketch out something that you were envisioning?

My suggestion is to cross an 'i' over a bar to produce a character that is both an i and an X.  
I made a few plain drafts myself but then found this good enough example of the basic concept .

[Vlad2Vlad]

You know, when it comes to the whole blocks mining out...

Wasn't the point of IXcoin to see what happens when a coin similar to bitcoin mines out faster? Partly as an experiment.

I know it carries risk, but anyone who got in on the crypto-currency realm at this early stage in its life should have understood the incredible risk that comes with it.

That having been said, I've not seen anyone disagree with (including myself) the realization that we must do what it takes to keep CEX on board.

That's another great point.  We need to push it as close to the deadline as possible.  It could end up being a good thing which will get us a lot of free press.

Who in this world doesn't wanna know what will happen to Bitcoin in 20-30 years?

So imagine if IXC surprises everyone!  A lot of programmers, engineers and Bitcoin experts will take notice cause right now, most have no idea iXcoin even exists.

So let's hang in there and not be hasty with printing more coins and changing the protocol prematurely.

As crazy as that may sound to some.

[Vlad2Vlad]

To those still Tuning in....

regarding code updates and stuff to get done.



Any new progress on finding a currency symbol? Vlad maybe you can use basic paint program and crudely sketch out something that you were envisioning?

My suggestion is to cross an 'i' over a bar to produce a character that is both an i and an X.  
I made a few plain drafts myself but then found this good enough example of the basic concept .

I got a hold of one of our last photoshop guys who did such a great job on the last logo and he's working on it.

And I did show him that exact logo.

What's interesting:  That crazy religious guy a few months back was saying exactly the same thing, to cross the I to form an X but I told him it was a stupid idea.  The reason I didn't see it then I think is cause he made it all about Jesus on a cross.

Now that I see we need a one letter currency symbol, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Pretty interesting...I can't wait to see which design wins out:  i, X or i crossed to form an X.

[cinnamon_carter]

if anyone is trying to 'wrap their mind' around what frictionless detailed a few posts back read these basics as it may help

counterparty

https://www.counterparty.co/about/

distributed markets (earlier concept)

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Distributed_markets

Jeff Garzik stating this is a 'free ride' (he has some valid points)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5815887#msg5815887

-- I certainly would agree that any changes that involve a hard fork are not recommended at all costs ----

Also adding a lot of code /and work , (bloating iX with features that are hardly used now in bitcoin) is not necessarly going to 'guarantee' anything about it's future.... if these changes can be done with reasonable effort, cost , time , testing, and safety to what is currently one of the most secure blockchains running .... well it seems like a safe play.

As iX grows in popularity and an actual demand for these items presents itself they could always be added later.

Consider how many people are actually using these new features in bitcion right now ? 

I am not saying to 'not' update things and add some features but suggesting this be done carefully and as demand for these things presents itself.

Here is a list of  "The Most Popular Transaction Types in the Block Chain" of bitcoin.

http://www.quantabytes.com/articles/a-survey-of-bitcoin-transaction-types

Let's be realistic, most of the people posting here are fairly advanced in knowledge of how bitcion works.

How many of even the 'hip' crowd understand these ...??

Finally  many features are added if iX goes to 9.x just by making the leap....

Here is a short write up by the developer of Riecoin on one item involving the 'experts only' coin control features that the 9.x platform has built in.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=446703.msg7045166#msg7045166 

 

[Vlad2Vlad]

Thank you cinnamon.

Great points.  I was pushing for the biggest update possible but what you say makes sense.

Let's add as much functionality as possible without a hard fork and with as little bloat as possible. 


Thanks!

[kraizi]

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?

Yes, I'm starting to agree that going fully native using IXC as the metacoin, in effect, is probably a bit too ambitious and risky at this time.  But just so everyone understands, I'm not saying Counterparty needs to be fully translated into the IXC client code.  The exchange logic, betting logic, issuing logic still stays in CP.  Probably 99% of the code stays in CP.  But yes, IXC must be able to read the CP protocol (orders, bets, cancels, etc.) to know when an IXC escrow or transaction must occur.   IXC would be parsing the CP protocol in OP_RETURN.  I don't know how else you would do it.  I guess that's best for a later time.

[FrictionlessCoin]

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?

Yes, I'm starting to agree that going fully native using IXC as the metacoin, in effect, is probably a bit too ambitious and risky at this time.  But just so everyone understands, I'm not saying Counterparty needs to be fully translated into the IXC client code.  The exchange logic, betting logic, issuing logic still stays in CP.  Probably 99% of the code stays in CP.  But yes, IXC must be able to read the CP protocol (orders, bets, cancels, etc.) to know when an IXC escrow or transaction must occur.   IXC would be parsing the CP protocol in OP_RETURN.  I don't know how else you would do it.  I guess that's best for a later time.

Yes, that is correct, for CP to go native, the OP_RETURN needs to parsed and validated in the ixcoind logic.   

This is a possibility for IXC, but not very likely to happen with BTC.   However, this is further away in the future.