Bitcoin Forum
May 20, 2019, 08:30:33 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] INFINITECOIN - UPDATE TO 1.8.8 visit INFINITECOIN.COM  (Read 116595 times)
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 30, 2018, 03:12:39 PM
 #1521

No.33 Overview Weekly  07/30/18     
This week still adopts a circular reward mode while forming a tap to continue rewarding miners.
Each node is rewarded with 1000 IFC
Self-help registration system https://www.ifc123.net/peers/list.php

IFC (China) Foundation
address  (pay attention to only IFC donation)
i7AiysGcT5ZAYVY3Q8inBFVmkPe4Yn3FMy
The account manager: Haoyear
Blockchain Explorer
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ifc/
https://www.ifc123.net/exp/
Anyone can query the use of the foundation account by a block browser

IFC China Community was created from December 2017
There have been so many strange events after the creation of the community,
The Chinese community has encountered a lot of obstacles, and we believe that the obstacles are only temporary.

If you are a IFC fan, help IFC's Network Health
Deploying a IFC node server, the foundation will give you a weekly allowance for 3 years.





Have you ever been a fan of IFC? Do you have a forgotten wallet? Do you have an exchange at IFC?
I hope you can get back your assets as soon as possible, and community development needs the power of each chip holder!


1   https://www.cryptsy.com/ 
They were closed in 2014. They hold a lot of fans' IFC assets And can not find the owner of this exchange.


https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/
They suspended the IFC transaction on August 18, 2017, claiming to investigate 51% of the attacks but have not made any progress so far.


3   https://gate.io/ Original name  https://bter.com/
They were renamed in October 2017 and they no longer support IFC transactions.
Please contact them as soon as possible to get back your assets.
   

https://www.coinegg.im/ Original name http://www.jubi.com/
They will not allow customers to remove IFC on September 22, 2017, and they will still be able to trade.
Only the price was pressed to only about 30% of the normal price, and there is still no progress until today.
After they were exposed by the media in January 2018, they closed the deposit channel and soon the media removed the report.
Their attitude is very bad. The customer asked IFC to kick them out of their official QQ exchange group.

1558341033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558341033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558341033
Reply with quote  #2

1558341033
Report to moderator
BITDEER BTC/BCH ETH LTC ZEC DASH START MINING BTC NOW
WITH NEW GENERATION S17 ANTMINER!
Highly Reduced Electricity Fee $0.067/T/DAY! GET STARTED
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558341033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558341033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558341033
Reply with quote  #2

1558341033
Report to moderator
1558341033
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558341033

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558341033
Reply with quote  #2

1558341033
Report to moderator
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 08, 2018, 04:34:56 AM
 #1522

No.34 Overview Weekly  08/08/18     
This week still adopts a circular reward mode while forming a tap to continue rewarding miners.
Each node is rewarded with 1000 IFC
Self-help registration system https://www.ifc123.net/peers/list.php

IFC (China) Foundation
address  (pay attention to only IFC donation)
i7AiysGcT5ZAYVY3Q8inBFVmkPe4Yn3FMy
The account manager: Haoyear
Blockchain Explorer
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ifc/
https://www.ifc123.net/exp/
Anyone can query the use of the foundation account by a block browser

IFC POOL has made new breakthroughs through the continuous efforts of the Chinese community.

140.143.22.105:9391

ifcwk.vicp.io:17336


metallicelmo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 252



View Profile
August 13, 2018, 08:55:33 PM
 #1523

Does anyone know if IFC is still being managed by a dev team? If this coin would be on more exchanges we could breath some new life into it. What exchanges are available at this moment for IFC?
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 14, 2018, 01:53:57 AM
 #1524

Does anyone know if IFC is still being managed by a dev team? If this coin would be on more exchanges we could breath some new life into it. What exchanges are available at this moment for IFC?
At present, IFC does not have a team. Only the Chinese community maintains.

Known exchanges http://www.ifc123.top/

phamminhviet500
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 14, 2018, 01:55:49 AM
 #1525

I have made and succeeded, thank you for this project
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 14, 2018, 02:00:59 AM
Last edit: August 14, 2018, 03:35:32 AM by msy2008
 #1526

No.35 Overview Weekly  08/14/18     
This week still adopts a circular reward mode while forming a tap to continue rewarding miners.
Each node is rewarded with 1000 IFC
Self-help registration system https://www.ifc123.net/peers/list.php

IFC (China) Foundation
address  (pay attention to only IFC donation)
i7AiysGcT5ZAYVY3Q8inBFVmkPe4Yn3FMy
The account manager: Haoyear
Blockchain Explorer
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ifc/
https://www.ifc123.net/exp/
Anyone can query the use of the foundation account by a block browser

IFC POOL
ifcwk.vicp.io:17336
139.199.102.99:9391
140.143.56.162:9391
140.143.22.105:9391
101.132.162.224:9391





lontongacon541
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 14, 2018, 02:04:15 AM
 #1527

Thank you for giving me enough information on this issue, to help me gain more knowledge
paddyfield
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2018, 05:53:10 AM
 #1528

Does anyone know if IFC is still being managed by a dev team? If this coin would be on more exchanges we could breath some new life into it. What exchanges are available at this moment for IFC?

www.infinitecoin.in
Haoyear
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 14, 2018, 07:14:43 AM
 #1529

Infinitecoin (China) Community Organizations have solved the nodal problem. At present, the community has solved the mining problem. The problem we are facing now is how to increase the computational power. I think the long-term solution to the problem of improving the computational power is to start with changing the transfer fee, change the fee, so that each transfer will have a fee, so that the mine. Workers can benefit from every transfer.

无限币(中国)社区组织解决了节点问题,目前社区已经解决了矿池挖矿问题,目前面临的问题,是如何增加算力,我认为长期解决提升算力问题,还是要从更改转账手续费着手,更改了手续费,让每一笔转账都产生手续费,让矿工在每一笔转账中都能得到收益。
Haoyear
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 14, 2018, 08:07:56 AM
 #1530

No.30 Overview Weekly  07/09/18     
This week still adopts a circular reward mode while forming a tap to continue rewarding miners.
Each node is rewarded with 1000 IFC
Self-help registration system https://www.ifc123.net/peers/list.php

IFC (China) Foundation
address  (pay attention to only IFC donation)
i7AiysGcT5ZAYVY3Q8inBFVmkPe4Yn3FMy
The account manager: Haoyear
Blockchain Explorer
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ifc/
https://www.ifc123.net/exp/
Anyone can query the use of the foundation account by a block browser

IFC China Community was created from December 2017
There have been so many strange events after the creation of the community,
The Chinese community has encountered a lot of obstacles, and we believe that the obstacles are only temporary.

If you are a IFC fan, help IFC's Network Health
Deploying a IFC node server, the foundation will give you a weekly allowance for 3 years.





Have you ever been a fan of IFC? Do you have a forgotten wallet? Do you have an exchange at IFC?
I hope you can get back your assets as soon as possible, and community development needs the power of each chip holder!


1   https://www.cryptsy.com/ 
They were closed in 2014. They hold a lot of fans' IFC assets And can not find the owner of this exchange.


https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/
They suspended the IFC transaction on August 18, 2017, claiming to investigate 51% of the attacks but have not made any progress so far.


3   https://gate.io/ Original name  https://bter.com/
They were renamed in October 2017 and they no longer support IFC transactions.
Please contact them as soon as possible to get back your assets.
   

https://www.coinegg.im/ Original name http://www.jubi.com/
They will not allow customers to remove IFC on September 22, 2017, and they will still be able to trade.
Only the price was pressed to only about 30% of the normal price, and there is still no progress until today.
After they were exposed by the media in January 2018, they closed the deposit channel and soon the media removed the report.
Their attitude is very bad. The customer asked IFC to kick them out of their official QQ exchange group.

Why are you investing in a coin that has been repeatedly scammed /manipulated by it's developers and their exchanges ?

muddafudda ? techshare ? Is that you ? Roll Eyes

He is a IFC China Community fans。
kurko2017
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 14, 2018, 08:13:17 AM
 #1531

What happened to the project, why such a small popularity? IFC needs more power abroad.
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 14, 2018, 01:20:25 PM
Last edit: August 15, 2018, 01:28:30 AM by msy2008
 #1532

2018-08-14
community official version 1.9.0 :
1. Change the transfer fee, from the original block size kb to the actual transfer amount, the rules:  fee is charged at 2% (0.2%) of the transfer amount, the minimum is 0.01, the maximum is 10,000, and the block size is no longer judged.
2. change qt wallet, the maximum number of input words in the debug window changed from 65535 to 6553500
3. the version number is raised to 1.9

github:
https://github.com/withu2018/infinitecoin

Software developers from the IFC community:yiluyouni

Thank him for his continuous contribution to the development of IFC

almightyruler
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1031


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 07:28:05 AM
 #1533

2018-08-14
community official version 1.9.0 :
1. Change the transfer fee, from the original block size kb to the actual transfer amount, the rules:  fee is charged at 2% (0.2%) of the transfer amount, the minimum is 0.01, the maximum is 10,000, and the block size is no longer judged.

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.
OlEl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 07:31:03 AM
 #1534

Wow, great work!

Hope everything will be good!! Grin
paddyfield
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2018, 08:57:00 AM
 #1535

2018-08-14
community official version 1.9.0 :
1. Change the transfer fee, from the original block size kb to the actual transfer amount, the rules:  fee is charged at 2% (0.2%) of the transfer amount, the minimum is 0.01, the maximum is 10,000, and the block size is no longer judged.

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.


That's not true!
The new wallet can accept the old wallet pieces, the old wallet can also accept the new wallet pieces, will not lead to bifurcation.
For the transfer of the old wallet, it will be packaged by the mine where the old wallet is deployed. Until few people use old wallets.
The dust problem is not very big, the bank will not accept our 10, 000 coins into notes?
msy2008
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 450
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 16, 2018, 09:44:36 AM
 #1536

2018-08-14
community official version 1.9.0 :
1. Change the transfer fee, from the original block size kb to the actual transfer amount, the rules:  fee is charged at 2% (0.2%) of the transfer amount, the minimum is 0.01, the maximum is 10,000, and the block size is no longer judged.

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.
yiluyouni Is an excellent software developer, although his technology is not first-class, but his character is recognized by the entire Chinese community. We all trust him very much.

Wallet details, I don't know too much. I need to wait for yiluyouni to have time to answer. He is busy with the official version of the wallet and will edit the Linux version later.

Kurrie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 10:46:18 AM
 #1537

It seems to me that at present, crypto-currency is very beneficial if it is used as an investment.
almightyruler
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1031


View Profile
August 16, 2018, 06:20:14 PM
 #1538

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.


That's not true!
The new wallet can accept the old wallet pieces, the old wallet can also accept the new wallet pieces, will not lead to bifurcation.
For the transfer of the old wallet, it will be packaged by the mine where the old wallet is deployed. Until few people use old wallets.
The dust problem is not very big, the bank will not accept our 10, 000 coins into notes?

If you send 100 IFC with 2 IFC fee (new) to a node that expects a minimum 100 IFC fee (old) then that node will ignore the transaction, and may end up banning the source node for misbehaving. That will split the network.

Consensus code ensures the security of the network by verifying that all nodes, transactions etc are following the exact same rules. If that consensus code is changed, everyone needs to upgrade: client users, and service providers. It's a hard fork, because the new client release will not communicate properly with older clients.

Dust is definitely a problem, because the blockchain is forever. The bank can change coins into notes and recirculate the coins for reuse, but an IFC transaction stays fixed forever in the blockchain. That's why cryptocurrency fees are usually based on transaction size/complexity rather than the amount, so spamming becomes too expensive. With a fixed percentage, someone can spam the blockchain with (say) 100kbyte transactions at very low cost.
paddyfield
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2018, 01:58:17 AM
 #1539

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.


That's not true!
The new wallet can accept the old wallet pieces, the old wallet can also accept the new wallet pieces, will not lead to bifurcation.
For the transfer of the old wallet, it will be packaged by the mine where the old wallet is deployed. Until few people use old wallets.
The dust problem is not very big, the bank will not accept our 10, 000 coins into notes?

If you send 100 IFC with 2 IFC fee (new) to a node that expects a minimum 100 IFC fee (old) then that node will ignore the transaction, and may end up banning the source node for misbehaving. That will split the network.

Consensus code ensures the security of the network by verifying that all nodes, transactions etc are following the exact same rules. If that consensus code is changed, everyone needs to upgrade: client users, and service providers. It's a hard fork, because the new client release will not communicate properly with older clients.

Dust is definitely a problem, because the blockchain is forever. The bank can change coins into notes and recirculate the coins for reuse, but an IFC transaction stays fixed forever in the blockchain. That's why cryptocurrency fees are usually based on transaction size/complexity rather than the amount, so spamming becomes too expensive. With a fixed percentage, someone can spam the blockchain with (say) 100kbyte transactions at very low cost.



Can this be the case, the 1.9.1 version of the wallet is open source, you determine the 1.9.1 version of the wallet security, use the 1.8.8 version of the wallet and the 1.9.1 version of the wallet for mutual transfer, and feedback the test results.
Thank you for your attention!
paddyfield
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2018, 02:07:07 AM
 #1540

This would be a hard fork, right? Everyone is required to upgrade, because otherwise nodes and clients will disagree about fees and will start banning each other.

I think it's risky to remove transaction size from the fee equation, because it enables DoS by dust spamming. For example, someone can create a transaction of  200 IFC by using 200 x 1 IFC inputs. With the old system the fee for a complex transaction with hundreds of inputs would be high, probably thousands of IFC, but in my example they only pay 4 IFC.


That's not true!
The new wallet can accept the old wallet pieces, the old wallet can also accept the new wallet pieces, will not lead to bifurcation.
For the transfer of the old wallet, it will be packaged by the mine where the old wallet is deployed. Until few people use old wallets.
The dust problem is not very big, the bank will not accept our 10, 000 coins into notes?

If you send 100 IFC with 2 IFC fee (new) to a node that expects a minimum 100 IFC fee (old) then that node will ignore the transaction, and may end up banning the source node for misbehaving. That will split the network.

Consensus code ensures the security of the network by verifying that all nodes, transactions etc are following the exact same rules. If that consensus code is changed, everyone needs to upgrade: client users, and service providers. It's a hard fork, because the new client release will not communicate properly with older clients.

Dust is definitely a problem, because the blockchain is forever. The bank can change coins into notes and recirculate the coins for reuse, but an IFC transaction stays fixed forever in the blockchain. That's why cryptocurrency fees are usually based on transaction size/complexity rather than the amount, so spamming becomes too expensive. With a fixed percentage, someone can spam the blockchain with (say) 100kbyte transactions at very low cost.



Or leave your IFC transfer address, I use the 1.9.1 version of the wallet to transfer money to you, to conduct a test from China. Smiley
Pages: « 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!