[ANN] INFINITECOIN - UPDATE TO 1.8.8 visit INFINITECOIN.COM

[msy2008]

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/

[1714782096]

1714782096

[1714782096]

1714782096

[phamminhviet500]

I have made and succeeded, thank you for this project

[msy2008]

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]

Thank you for giving me enough information on this issue, to help me gain more knowledge

[paddyfield]

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]

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]

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.


2  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.
   

4  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 ?

He is a IFC China Community fans。

[kurko2017]

What happened to the project, why such a small popularity? IFC needs more power abroad.

[msy2008]

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]

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]

Wow, great work!

Hope everything will be good!! Grin

[paddyfield]

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]

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]

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

[almightyruler]

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]

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]

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.

[yiluyouni]

infinitecoin 1.9.1

New installation
Block data
Link: https://pan.baidu.com/s/19R2yivQZrSRmB1H62hEFMw Password: wp5v

Without block data
Download infinitecoin1.9.1.0-20180816-nodata.zip
https://www.ifc123.net/usr/uploads/2018/08/2195626512.zip

Source code compilation
http://Https://github.com/withu2018/infinitecoin
Please configure your own dependent environment
Boost_1_55_0
db-4.8.30.NC
Openssl-1.0.1g
Qrencode-3.4.3
Qt_4.8.7_static
Miniupnpc
MinGW-W64-builds-4.2.0
Gcc version 4.8.2

Update
Update package download infinitecoin-community.zip
https://www.ifc123.net/usr/uploads/2018/08/4209842559.zip

After the old wallet is downloaded as a new wallet file for 1.8.8.4, copy infinitecoin-community.exe to overwrite your original wallet file.

After the old wallet is downloaded as a new wallet file of 1.8.8.0, copy infinitecoin-community.exe and paste it into the folder where infinitecoin-qt.exe is located, and delete the -qt.exe file.
Release Notes


2018-8-16 1.9.1.0
----
Beautify the startup page, more concise, more contemporary
The modification fee is changed from the original package size to 0.2% according to the transfer amount, up to 10,000 IFC, and the minimum 0.01 IFC charge.
Wallet home page to increase navigation station, block browser, mine pool list, source code download address
Add the version number in the lower right corner, click to link to the wallet download page
Chinese translation is more accurate
Add a fee calculation tool on the transfer page, and calculate the commission required for the transfer based on the input amount.
Change all address "tags" to "account name"
When adding or modifying the wallet password, the input password behavior is changed to: it is visible in the plain text when input, and the mask is added after the input is completed, effectively preventing the password input error.
Add a fee collection rule prompt on the transaction page
"Send currency" is changed to "Transfer"; "Receive currency" is changed to "My address"; "Transaction" is changed to "Transaction record"
The maximum number of input words in the debug window has been changed from 65535 to 6553500, which is convenient for sending a large amount of transaction raw data.
Each block of data can reach about 10,000 transfer transactions


----
全新安装
带区块数据
链接：https://pan.baidu.com/s/19R2yivQZrSRmB1H62hEFMw 密码：wp5v

不带区块数据
下载infinitecoin1.9.1.0-20180816-nodata.zip
https://www.ifc123.net/usr/uploads/2018/08/2195626512.zip


源码编译
https://github.com/withu2018/infinitecoin
请自行配置依赖环境
boost_1_55_0
db-4.8.30.NC
openssl-1.0.1g
qrencode-3.4.3
qt_4.8.7_static
miniupnpc
MinGW-W64-builds-4.2.0
gcc version 4.8.2

更新
更新包下载 infinitecoin-community.zip
https://www.ifc123.net/usr/uploads/2018/08/4209842559.zip

旧钱包为1.8.8.4的 新钱包文件下载后，复制infinitecoin-community.exe 覆盖您原来的钱包文件即可

旧钱包为1.8.8.0的 新钱包文件下载后，复制infinitecoin-community.exe后粘贴到原来infinitecoin-qt.exe所在文件夹，并删除-qt.exe文件即可
更新说明
2018-8-16 1.9.1.0

美化启动页面，更加简洁，更加富有时代感
修改手续费，由原来的根据打包大小收取更改为按照转账金额的0.2%，最大1万IFC，最小0.01 IFC收取
钱包首页增加导航站、区块浏览器、矿池列表、源码下载地址
右下角增加版本号，点击可链接到钱包下载网页
中文翻译更加准确
在转账页面增加手续费计算工具，可以根据输入金额计算出转账所需的手续费
将所有的地址“标签”更改为“账户名”
添加或修改钱包密码时，输入密码行为更改为：在输入时为明文可见，输入完毕后再加上掩码，有效防止密码输入错误
在交易页面添加手续费收取规则提示
“发送货币”改为“转账”；“接收货币”改为“我的地址”；“交易”改为“交易记录”
调试窗口最大输入字数从65535更改为6553500，方便发送大量交易原始数据
每一个区块数据包能达到约10000笔转账交易

[ifcxuerui]

I used 3 wallets for testing, respectively, A, B, C, C wallet is 1.8.8 version, the final test result is that the Chinese community update 1.9.1 version of the small payment will not be forked, you can rest assured to use.
http://m.qpic.cn/psb?/V10sEdf12QRnSe/dUg*Mu7m.mVO7*Oz0Y5HFvpbft7XJwDHv9D1DezOyDs!/b/dC4BAAAAAAAA&bo=rgNeAgAAAAARF9E!&rf=viewer_4
http://m.qpic.cn/psb?/V10sEdf12QRnSe/M5zFd4yeQoHcuy0hr9oLmsbvvrc1VFqCqHGsM6tFIZk!/b/dDUBAAAAAAAA&bo=mQSkAgAAAAARFxs!&rf=viewer_4
http://m.qpic.cn/psb?/V10sEdf12QRnSe/CwVZU.vx2uUP2PQfe3Uzu4G9hx6FjN7QimtUCT4upvI!/b/dDABAAAAAAAA&bo=wQPlAgAAAAARFwU!&rf=viewer_4
http://m.qpic.cn/psb?/V10sEdf12QRnSe/pHC0twpl4jrv3lVLJYG7UoQteekAKLsMn3xL6KVtDDQ!/b/dDUBAAAAAAAA&bo=NgReAgAAAAARF04!&rf=viewer_4

[almightyruler]

I had a closer look at the source, and I think this is what will happen:

1. Older version clients will ignore (not accept into the mempool) transactions made by new clients because the fees are too low.

2. BUT, they do not ban the peer for misbehaving when they ignore the transaction, as I had previously thought.

So:

1. Miners running older clients will not incorporate "new" transactions into a block. Only miners running the newer version will.
2. Once the transaction is incorporated into a block it should be usable by both the old and new client software.

So if I am understanding the source correctly, the new client with different tx fee structure will not cause a hard fork or network split, but it does mean that miners will need to upgrade (and only if they want to, remember miners are free to ignore transactions, so they may choose to ignore the 2% fee ones)