New Ixcoin fork -> I0coin

[Kumala]

Any I0Coin block explorer out there that work? 

[1714799527]

1714799527

[1714799527]

1714799527

[1714799527]

1714799527

[doublec]

Any I0Coin block explorer out there that work? 

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/ usually works. I've bumped the dev's thread.

[doublec]

One of the issues with low hash rate chains is dealing with having to add checkpoints regularly and getting users to upgrade to keep the network secure. Here's a work-in-progress proof of concept of 'dynamic checkpoints': https://github.com/doublec/i0coin/tree/dynamic_checkpoints

This provides the ability for a trusted entity with a key to send a checkpoint out to nodes. These 'checkpoint' messages are passed to all nodes. Nodes that are operating in 'trust' mode will check the signature on the message and if it is from the trusted entity it will install the checkpoint. No need to upgrade the software.

The patch provides:

- All nodes relay the "checkpoint" messages
- Only nodes with the "-trust" command line argument will check the signature and install the checkpoint
- Nodes can add "-trustkey=foo" arguments where "foo" is an address to override the default key and trust some other entity for checkpoints
- a JSON-RPC command to sign and send checkpoint messages
- Only checkpoints higher than existing checkpoints can be added so no chain rollback can be done.

At least the following should be added:

- a JSON-RPC command to return the latest checkpoint. Nodes like exchanges could use this to know for certain a chain won't rollback past a point. This could be used to feel confident to accept large deposits.
- Flood control to deal with "checkpoint" messages being sent around

Thoughts on this model? it centralizes the aspect of checkpoints but provides the ability for nodes to override. And isn't different to a trusted developer releasing versions with checkpoints. Maybe only have it enabled when the chain hash rate is low?

Note the patch is an experiment and shouldn't be used in production right now.

[kano]

If you are going to trust some 'random' key you can also trust some 'random' web site.
i.e. get the list from a 'trusted' URL instead.
No difference in trust, but easier to see what the checkpoints are by simply getting the URL.
Though, of course, it is really only the last checkpoint that matters since that will only be correct if all the previous ones are also correct.

[doublec]

If you are going to trust some 'random' key you can also trust some 'random' web site.
i.e. get the list from a 'trusted' URL instead.
No difference in trust, but easier to see what the checkpoints are by simply getting the URL.

Websites can go down or be DOS'd. I used the P2P messaging to avoid this, but if that isn't important then yes, a website URL is an option.

[Schwede65]

One of the issues with low hash rate chains is dealing with having to add checkpoints regularly and getting users to upgrade to keep the network secure. Here's a work-in-progress proof of concept of 'dynamic checkpoints': https://github.com/doublec/i0coin/tree/dynamic_checkpoints

This provides the ability for a trusted entity with a key to send a checkpoint out to nodes. These 'checkpoint' messages are passed to all nodes. Nodes that are operating in 'trust' mode will check the signature on the message and if it is from the trusted entity it will install the checkpoint. No need to upgrade the software.

The patch provides:

- All nodes relay the "checkpoint" messages
- Only nodes with the "-trust" command line argument will check the signature and install the checkpoint
- Nodes can add "-trustkey=foo" arguments where "foo" is an address to override the default key and trust some other entity for checkpoints
- a JSON-RPC command to sign and send checkpoint messages
- Only checkpoints higher than existing checkpoints can be added so no chain rollback can be done.

At least the following should be added:

- a JSON-RPC command to return the latest checkpoint. Nodes like exchanges could use this to know for certain a chain won't rollback past a point. This could be used to feel confident to accept large deposits.
- Flood control to deal with "checkpoint" messages being sent around

Thoughts on this model? it centralizes the aspect of checkpoints but provides the ability for nodes to override. And isn't different to a trusted developer releasing versions with checkpoints. Maybe only have it enabled when the chain hash rate is low?

Note the patch is an experiment and shouldn't be used in production right now.

Dynamic checkpoints

this is a really forward-looking idea and has to be tested on a testnet, because it gives more safety to all user and chains. This possible roll-back of all(?) chains is harmful+unproductive and destroys the trust in it.

i had a little idea in this direction, though i asked myself, why doublec has to do the setup so often manually of these checkpoints for the chain to be safe.

So an attacker could not destroy all the work that has been done right now.

When - captured - pools attack a chain, then only transactions could be stopped and when these attacking - captured - pools loose their hashrate, because the miners don't agree with that attack, then there is not much damage made to the chain and it could go on with it...

just a little time to rest for the chain

[kano]

Well looking at the difficulty and the hash rate shown on allchains, Luke's pool is still mining i0coins (and iXcoins and CLC)

There is a reasonably straight forward fix to that ...
Remove merged mining and get everyone to switch to a new version without it.
Set the block number for the change over about 1,000 or even 10,000 blocks in the future and with the rate he is generating blocks it will happen quite quickly
Then finally also add a difficulty reset with that block number to down to say 50 or there abouts.

Lastly, there is one other simple change to make: ever so slightly change the hash algorithm - even as simple as XOR 1 bit in the answer.

Just a few ideas

[doublec]

Unfortunately removing MM results in the chain getting owned by someone else when the hash rate drops. Another fun idea is to make mining blocks cost coins, rather than gain them. Eventually the merge miners will run out of money and can't mine blocks anymore. Solving the problem of no one wanting to mine at that point is an exercise for the reader

[kano]

Unfortunately removing MM results in the chain getting owned by someone else when the hash rate drops. Another fun idea is to make mining blocks cost coins, rather than gain them. Eventually the merge miners will run out of money and can't mine blocks anymore. Solving the problem of no one wanting to mine at that point is an exercise for the reader

Well however, at the moment is anyone mining i0coin at all? (other than Luke?)

I don't see how having only one person mining something (i.e the chain is dead) is better than the chain being at risk of a 51% takeover and still working normally otherwise.

It is only recently that merged mining has been going - yet it's been OK up until then for the past months.

Current certainly of a dead chain or possible risk of a 51% takeover?
Possible risk seems way better than no chain at all like it is at the moment.

[doublec]

Well however, at the moment is anyone mining i0coin at all? (other than Luke?)

I don't see how having only one person mining something (i.e the chain is dead) is better than the chain being at risk of a 51% takeover and still working normally otherwise.

mmpool has 70 Ghash mining i0coin. Transactions are going through and blocks are being processed so the chain is not dead. This is different from CLC whereby Luke was not allowing any other blocks at all.

[btc-e.com]

https://btc-e.com/news/54

[kano]

https://btc-e.com/news/54

Hoвocти / Close of trading on the crypto-currencies of the GG, I0C, CLC, DVC, IXC

00:00 18.01.12 from support
Dear participants of the exchange BTC-e.com

In connection with zero turnovers in the crypto-currencies GG, I0C, DVC, CLC, IXC since January 30, trades for him will be closed.

Yours support btc-e.com

i0c gets shut down again ...

Meanwhile - it's not Jan 30 yet

[markm]

Not to worry, trading in this coin will continue at my Open Transactions server. A huge amount of work has been done on the Open Transactions engine but the results are mostly in so it is looking like it will be up and running robustly any time now. This extended testing revealed a lot of fixes to make but the bulk of them are now done and we should be mostly just shaking out any bugs put in during the latest set of changes today.

-MarkM-

[DeathAndTaxes]

https://btc-e.com/news/54

Hoвocти / Close of trading on the crypto-currencies of the GG, I0C, CLC, DVC, IXC

00:00 18.01.12 from support
Dear participants of the exchange BTC-e.com

In connection with zero turnovers in the crypto-currencies GG, I0C, DVC, CLC, IXC since January 30, trades for him will be closed.

Yours support btc-e.com

Nice.

Hopefully those junk-coins can die a peaceful death and just end up a footnote in the history of crypto-currency.

[Kumala]

and not to forget: https://vircurex.com is trading them (with the exception of CLC).

[3phase]

https://btc-e.com/news/54

Hoвocти / Close of trading on the crypto-currencies of the GG, I0C, CLC, DVC, IXC

00:00 18.01.12 from support
Dear participants of the exchange BTC-e.com

In connection with zero turnovers in the crypto-currencies GG, I0C, DVC, CLC, IXC since January 30, trades for him will be closed.

Yours support btc-e.com

Nice.

Hopefully those junk-coins can die a peaceful death and just end up a footnote in the history of crypto-currency.

Remember that i0coin has already died twice. It's a bulletproof zombie coin  . Maybe a year later someone will pick it up again 

[Sherkel]

What's with the sudden price crash? The one as of this morning?

[lightlord]

hmm, as the coin though that I designed been put into the client?
I guess no one is pushing i0coins anymore, now they aren't doing that great.

http://allchains.info/
106 gigahash

But its from merge mining, I think merge mining made everyone have a lot of it,
and now its not worth anything.

Namecoin used to be 0.03, after merged mining it became 0.004, so it seems merge mining
drops the value a lot.

The only value i read for i0coin atm is 0.00002 at
https://www.vircurex.com/main/index.

which is like 500K for 10btc, its not worth much.

[dree12]

hmm, as the coin though that I designed been put into the client?
I guess no one is pushing i0coins anymore, now they aren't doing that great.

http://allchains.info/
106 gigahash

But its from merge mining, I think merge mining made everyone have a lot of it,
and now its not worth anything.

Namecoin used to be 0.03, after merged mining it became 0.004, so it seems merge mining
drops the value a lot.

The only value i read for i0coin atm is 0.00002 at
https://www.vircurex.com/main/index.

which is like 500K for 10btc, its not worth much.

The current market cap for I0Coin is merely 150 BTC in that case. A question; has the I0Coin block reward halved yet? Apparently 50 blocks ago it was 210000.

[doublec]

hmm, as the coin though that I designed been put into the client?
I guess no one is pushing i0coins anymore, now they aren't doing that great.

http://allchains.info/
106 gigahash

The hash rate is less than that. Notice the block count for i0coin on allchains.info. It appears to be stuck. It looks like mmpool is the main chain miner at the moment. The generation amount for i0coin drops from 48 to 24 in less than 100 blocks btw.