New Ixcoin fork -> I0coin

[kano]

@Wisdomtool

GG is still vulnerable to 51%. If you weren't aware there were two versions of GG. GG1 and the current GG2.
Bitcoin and all of its descendents are vulnerable to 51%. No way around it.

ArtForz discovered a time stamp vulnerability in GG1 and posted it. I took it and enhanced it and was able to mine over 20,000 blocks of GG1 in less than 73 minutes with out a single orphan and without disturbing the original chain. I also discovered a vulnerability in NMC which is unique to NMC and still is. Unfortunately with myself and ArtForz discussing this in the forums other people were able to duplicate it. GG2 was relaunched and TTE was fixed. I tested it.

Rather than fix the problem the NMC Dev however concentrated on rushing out merged mining, which by the way provides no protection at all. The result of merged mining will be instead of requiring 11 Tera Hashes/sec to pull of a 51% attack on Bitcoin, it will now take less than 20% of the BTC/NMC combined chain or 2.2 TH/s, which is very doable.

The original Enhanced TTE NMC exploit is still there and merged mining will also invalidate lockins.

19201 in NMC will be the moment of truth for both BTC and NMC.

Ok. There may be a attack after 19201 due to very low hash required to do an attack.

I have some bitcoins & i am also mining bitcoins.
How i have to protect my mined coins & also the coins i am mining now & also i will be mining when nmc block hits 19201?
Bitcoin developers not going to do anything?
They just watch the attack & all innocent people who put money on bitcoin & mining loose all their money & go empty handed, bankrupt or even suicide?

Seriously, there is absolutely ZERO you can do about it.

Just keep mining as usual. I seriously doubt anyone will try and attack Bitcoin. NMC you can count on it due to it be a very soft target.

Um? How is NMC's lower hash rate possible to do a 51% attack on BTC based on anything below 51% of BTC?
The BTC hash-chain gets extra crap put in it for NMC when an NMC block is also a BTC block.
Otherwise, nothing happens to BTC
It doesn't suddenly change what's required to do a 51% on BTC nor does it lower in any manner or form what BTC will accept as a block.

[JoelKatz]

The withdraw function for IOC is locked up incidentally. And it might be nice to turn off the fees charged for people to withdraw their remaining funds.

Withdrawals seem to be working - what do you mean they are locked up? The exchange still has to pay a withdrawal fee, especially as the wallet gets low on funds and hits fragmented addresses, so it doesn't make sense for it to turn it off and to incur an even greater loss than it already has.

It does make sense to turn it off, since you are compelling people to withdraw. It's not really fair to tell people "you must withdraw all your coins" and at the same time charge them a fee for doing so. Consider a person who just deposited some funds, who now must withdraw them an incur a fee and who gets nothing for his funds.

This is the risk you assumed, and which you were paid for assuming, when you opened an exchange.

I guess a good analogy might be a whole life insurance policy. Such a policy might have a fee associated with cashing in the policy before a particular date. But if the company is going out of business and requires everyone to cash in their policy or lose it, they should clearly waive the fee.

[trippp]

I never bothered to get my own ixcoin and i0coin wallets. Are there any web wallets or other services that can hold my IXC and I0C for me while I wait for them to become worthless?

[coblee]

The withdraw function for IOC is locked up incidentally. And it might be nice to turn off the fees charged for people to withdraw their remaining funds.

Withdrawals seem to be working - what do you mean they are locked up? The exchange still has to pay a withdrawal fee, especially as the wallet gets low on funds and hits fragmented addresses, so it doesn't make sense for it to turn it off and to incur an even greater loss than it already has.

It does make sense to turn it off, since you are compelling people to withdraw. It's not really fair to tell people "you must withdraw all your coins" and at the same time charge them a fee for doing so. Consider a person who just deposited some funds, who now must withdraw them an incur a fee and who gets nothing for his funds.

This is the risk you assumed, and which you were paid for assuming, when you opened an exchange.

I guess a good analogy might be a whole life insurance policy. Such a policy might have a fee associated with cashing in the policy before a particular date. But if the company is going out of business and requires everyone to cash in their policy or lose it, they should clearly waive the fee.

We're talking about 0.01 btc and 0.01 i0c here. That's like 5 cents for bitcoin withdrawal and nearly nothing for i0c withdrawal. It's nothing for each user but adds up if doublec has to pay for it all. He's lost ~200 btc already trying to do this community a favor. Please give him a break.

[LoupGaroux]

I feel badly for doublec, and have told him that personally, as well as offered the few crumbs that are left in my accounts to offset the losses. I was speaking more to a gesture, turning off the automatic fees would be a measure of courtesy to those who have to pull everything out, regardless of how trivial the amounts is to some, a courtesy that might offset some of the surprise at having the only legit exchange for alt/cryptos go under overnight.

And in faireness- how did doublec lose "200 btc" already? It was stolen from the exchange by double spending, so it was actually stolen from those traders who were on the other side of the transaction that was cancelled on the double spend, unless doublec has guaranteed their accounts and made good on the losses.

Sucks to be in the Wild West phase of growth for this thing, but this is the era that creates the barons, the robber barons, and the robbers. You want upside, you will see proportional downside.

[mizerydearia]

This is the risk you assumed, and which you were paid for assuming, when you opened an exchange.

We're not dealing with create-out-of-thin-air-fiat-currency-to-cover-losses-in-guise-of-insurance exchanges/banks.

In the case of mtgox losing money (several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoins, maybe a million or more, as of yet still kept secret/private by mtgox), mtgox was able to continue because of their transaction fees that generate us$20,000-us$100,000 profit in bitcoins per month and using those profits to cover their losses (which technically if everyone withdrew their money from mtgox, it would be clearly obvious mtgox had insufficient funds, but this didn't happen and mtgox has had (and still has) opportunity to account for losses in this way.

bitomat was unable to endure similar experiences since the exchange had free transactions.

bitparking seemingly has similar opportunity as mtgox has had (and continues to have) in which continued profit from transaction fees could be used to compensate users for their losses, however, in this particular case, the technological p2p cryptocurrency implementations are still vulnerable to provide a safe, reliable exchange market, whereas in case of mtgox, bitcoin did not noticeably suffer from such vulnerabilities as of yet.  Therefore, this added issue resulting in bitparking to continue offering services in the exact same exchange markets may prevent its opportunity to compensate users for their losses by using funding generated from continued transaction fees and instead would rely on using funding from other sources.

Right now all it would take to effectively kill Bitcoin would be for the US Government or any rouge agency to simply invest a few million in hardware and kiss Bitcoin goodbye. It really is that simple.  Bitcoin's huge hash rate is its security.

And then when that happens, all bitcoin exchanges will probably endure similar experiences, but more devastatingly in relation to fiat currency investments.

[PatrickHarnett]

Thanks for the service DoubleC.  We've traded BTC together and I've used his exchange.  The 5 cent transaction fee for withdrawals is trivial, and people could leave their coins there is they wanted.  No one promised they would be worth any thing.

I think I have his BTC address on my email somewhere to donate to.  Anyone want to buy some potentially worthless i0coins?  Possibly becoming a collectors item (lol)

[doublec]

And in faireness- how did doublec lose "200 btc" already? It was stolen from the exchange by double spending, so it was actually stolen from those traders who were on the other side of the transaction that was cancelled on the double spend, unless doublec has guaranteed their accounts and made good on the losses.

The balance of the accounts within the exchange are stored in a database, not the block chain. So when a double spend occurs, the other end of the trade still gets the BTC updated in the database. The exchange itself is short the money but the trader is not. I have made good on the losses. The exchange was structured to minimize any loss (compared to the entire BTC balance the exchange held) knowing that I'd be covering it.

[JoelKatz]

He's lost ~200 btc already trying to do this community a favor. Please give him a break.

I'm perfectly willing to give him a break. The issue is him compelling other people who might not feel so generous to also give him a break. It's perfectly fine to open a business to help the community, but you can't then turn around and insist that individual members of that community turn around and help you out. He can certainly *ask* the community to help him cover his losses. However, it is wrong for him to compel them to or to impose his losses on others.

[doublec]

I'm perfectly willing to give him a break. The issue is him compelling other people who might not feel so generous to also give him a break. It's perfectly fine to open a business to help the community, but you can't then turn around and insist that individual members of that community turn around and help you out. He can certainly *ask* the community to help him cover his losses. However, it is wrong for him to compel them to or to impose his losses on others.

I have not asked or imposed on anyone to cover my losses. The withdrawal fee has always been there. Users of the exchange were able to see the fee and choose to deposit or not knowing that there's a fee to withdraw. That fee is solely there to cover the network transaction fee for sending and receiving coins. Knowing a fee exists the risk is upon the user that if circumstances require them to withdraw they need to pay that fee.

In a previous comment you raise an analogy of early termination charges on insurance policies. The withdrawal fee here is not an 'early termination' fee. It's a fee to cover what the bitcoin network charges for transferring money and has been charged always - whether 'terminating early' or not.

You are making it sound like I'm charging a fee to recoup losses. This is not the case.

[yetis]

I've invested over 5000 US$ in hardware and electricity for mining Bitcoins and some money buying Bitcoins. Then i've deposited all my hard mtgox-earned and mined Bitcoins plus my mined Ixcoins on http://ixchange.bitparking.com for trading.
Now, the exchange suddenly closed and i have some Bitcoins and many worthless Ixcoins.
What do you think how i'm feeling now?
No rollback, no real information about what's going on? No excuse, just shutting down, telling that someone has stolen money, bla bla...
This looks like a mafia... introducing Bitcoin forks, opening exchanges, collecting trading fees, making big profit, then shutting down, and bye...

Since the last three weeks the Ixcoin value was rapidly falling, because some people sold all their Ixcoins at any price... hmmm...

Think about it!

[doublec]

Now, the exchange was suddenly closed and i have some Bitcoins and many worthless Ixcoins.
What do you think how i'm feeling now?
No rollback, no real information about what's going on? No excuse, just shutting down, telling that someone has stolen money, bla bla...
This looks like a mafia... introducing Bitcoin forks, opening exchanges, collecting trading fees, making big profit, then shutting down, and bye...

I provided information on why it's closing down. I provided information about the double spend attempts on the i0coin block chain. The ixcoin chain has the same problems - it has a low hash rate and has no one maintaining the chain software to provide fixes. The risk is to great for the exchange to operate in this environment. If you want the chain to succeed and exchanges to open then you need to do something about encouraging more people mining and more usage of the coin.  

Others in the forum here have indicated that other exchanges may open to facilitate trade in these coins. You may not be holding worthless coins you may just have to wait for another exchange. You could even operate one yourself or do 'over the counter' trades in forums and IRC. If you're worried that your coins are worthless do something about it and make them worth something.

[mizerydearia]

Now, the exchange suddenly closed and i have some Bitcoins and many worthless Ixcoins.

I don't think one or more exchanges set the value (community members that use the exchange platforms do) and the disappearance of one or more (or all) of the exchanges has any affiliation with actual worth or valuation.  Instead the disappearance of one or more *coin-holding community members have affiliation with actual worth or valuation.  Putting pressure or blame towards those one or more exchanges (which are not the source for the items exchanged) seems like a misdirected effort.

[lightlord]

I have an idea; why not set the confirmation limit to a 1000, i know it would be insane, but i perfer to have to up running; with 10 days to deposit; then having it shutdown.

And if a double spending attack occurs; you can prevent it giving you enough time, please give some thought.

I don't want to see i0coin die completely.

If its not enough, put 2000; for everyone using it you still make money, from the fee.
So you shouldn't completely kill it.

Why not make the bitcoin withdraws all manual checks from you?
Some do that; and manually check, make it a 24 hour withdraw on bitcoins,
Make it take 24 hours.

Or something.

Just some ideas, please consider it. Thanks

If you do get it back up with these; i will donate 5BTC...

[doublec]

I have an idea; why not set the confirmation limit to a 1000, i know it would be insane, but i perfer to have to up running; with 10 days to deposit; then having it shutdown.

This won't work if someone has the majority of hash power. They can always rewrite the chain, they just need to wait. The higher confirmation just makes it harder for someone with less than 50% of the hash rate. i0/ixcoin make it even easier due to the time travel exploit not being fixed and the lack of an active developer/maintainer to set checkpoints regularly.

Why not make the bitcoin withdraws all manual checks from you?
Some do that; and manually check, make it a 24 hour withdraw on bitcoins,
Make it take 24 hours.

This would be a significant manual effort and not something I want to do. It'll also raise complaints if I refuse a withdraw due to suspicious activity and then get hammered for it on the forums.

I didn't want to close the exchange. But I had to given the existing situation. What i0/ixcoin needs for exchanges to safely operate are:

* More hash power
* An active maintainer of the software
* Fix the time travel exploit
* Regular checkpoints added to the software

[lightlord]

maybe increase the fee to like 1.5% on both sides; i would still use it.

But yeah you do have good points on that.
And manual check ups with denying of btc for suspicious activity
would lead to been hammered on fourms.

You do have to note; that a lot of people are trolls.
I would just ignore it and get it back up.

Things i would put in
-------------------
-1.5% fee both sides
-72 hour manual check up(less work then 24)
-500 confirmation blocks
-Ban any IP for suspicious activity; the ones who stole 192BTC permanently ban them, If you do
this to all of the small amount of people who does this, then they will be eliminated.


You do have the power to ban anyone; you are the host of it; you are in complete control; just put
stricter harsher rules. And ignore the trolls on the fourm


My 5btc offer is still up.


You do have to note, that this is a very few amount of people, with these fees, i am sure you can pull a profit
And stricter rules; and perhaps my 5btc will help you get there a little faster.
As soon as i see it up; i will donate to you.

I have 3 giga hash, so once this is back up i can throw my rigs on to i0coins, making the hashing network even more powerful.
Should help a bit.



 

[RandyFolds]

maybe increase the fee to like 1.5% on both sides; i would still use it.

But yeah you do have good points on that.
And manual check ups with denying of btc for suspicious activity
would lead to been hammered on fourms.

You do have to note; that a lot of people are trolls.
I would just ignore it and get it back up.

Things i would put in
-------------------
-1.5% fee both sides
-72 hour manual check up(less work then 24)
-500 confirmation blocks
-Ban any IP for suspicious activity; the ones who stole 192BTC permanently ban them, If you do
this to all of the small amount of people who does this, then they will be eliminated.


You do have the power to ban anyone; you are the host of it; you are in complete control; just put
stricter harsher rules. And ignore the trolls on the fourm


My 5btc offer is still up.

 

Read up on TOR, brother.

[doublec]

Read up on TOR, brother.

Yes, this is the issue with IP banning. I used to IP ban people with suspicious activity but they just moved to TOR. The people who did the double spend used TOR.

[lightlord]

Then put a 10% fee or something, make it really high.

hmm, well i guess i0coin is dead.
I don't think there is a way around this

[JoelKatz]

I have not asked or imposed on anyone to cover my losses.

I agree. But you could if you wanted to. If you were helping the community, it's entirely possible the community would be willing to help you in return. But you can't make your customers cover your losses -- I hope you agree with that.

The withdrawal fee has always been there. Users of the exchange were able to see the fee and choose to deposit or not knowing that there's a fee to withdraw. That fee is solely there to cover the network transaction fee for sending and receiving coins. Knowing a fee exists the risk is upon the user that if circumstances require them to withdraw they need to pay that fee.

Except their circumstances don't require them to withdraw, *yours* do. My argument is since it's your circumstances that are compelling them to withdraw, you should cover the fee.

In a previous comment you raise an analogy of early termination charges on insurance policies. The withdrawal fee here is not an 'early termination' fee. It's a fee to cover what the bitcoin network charges for transferring money and has been charged always - whether 'terminating early' or not.

Right, but you are forcing them to terminate early. Otherwise, for example, they may have changed the Bitcoins to Ixcoins and avoided the withdrawal fee. It is your action that is making them incur the fee.

You are making it sound like I'm charging a fee to recoup losses. This is not the case.

I agree. I'm not sure what I said that implied that you were charging a fee to recoup losses. (I think it may have been places where I was refuting arguments that you did not make, and likely would not agree with, for example when someone suggested that you opened the exchange to help the community and therefore it's okay to compel individuals to help you in return.)

Let me try another analogy. Say you and I had made a deal to exchange a $100 cashier's check for a bicycle. I get the cashier's check, costing myself $5. When I go to buy the bicycle, you say you changed your mind and are no longer willing to sell it. Should you reimburse me the $5?

I grant that the $5 is not a fee you are charging, it's a fee my bank charged for the cashier's check. But your promise induced me to incur that fee, and it is you who are defaulting on that promise.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying this is a big deal and you are a cheater or scammer if you don't make withdrawals free. It's a very small deal, and I realize that reasonable people can differ. But my opinion is that those fees are part of your losses, and you should not pass them on to your customers. You forced the customers to incur those charges by compelling them to withdraw when otherwise they may not have done so. It is equivalent to a fee for terminating an agreement early where you are compelling them to terminate early.

That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.