Topic: [ANN] IXCoin [IXC] The Original Bitcoin Sidechain - page 59. (Read 42310 times)

ok - I'll bite.

IXC was started in May 2011 - third crypto. Early days, well before bitcoin was successful and well before almost anyone thought it would be successful.

IXC tried out a couple of concepts - 1) a small number of coins were set aside for bounties - less than 3% -  and 2) the block rewards were larger but the total number of coins the same - to test out what happens when a coin must rely on fees and not miner rewards. For good measure merge mining was added.

Neither worked out very well - newer coins had premines of 10%, 20%, 80% (looking at you Ripple) which gave any coin with a premine - even a miniscule one -  a bad name. Also we confirmed fees on 1MB blocks are woefully inadequate - this may have driven some of the urgency (panic) to increase bitcoin block size.

Now here we are - the premine has been donated back and sequestered - a fork at 450K blocks will give IXC a larger block size 64MB - 2X what Satoshi had set bitcoin to originally - pretty reasonable since 2018 computers are more than order of magnitude faster than 2009 computers. Enough to provide a significant block reward with small fees. Also just enough with current optimization techniques to match average visa transaction volume.

Will this be the right update for The Original Bitcoin Sidechain?



 

Firstly the fact that this community doesn't respond to bots...

Oops!

What makes this coin different between other similar coins?

The thirst for profit out of envy of bitcoin pioneers, nothing more. Why don't society have a bunch of identical systems? Bitcoin therefore stood out, which differed from the existing and closed some of their disadvantages for end users.

Testing eh?...Is it moon time?

The mining pattern seems strange to me - a large burst of hashing followed by it turning off - then on again after an hour or several hours. Anyone have a theory as to why?

Didn't notice there was a new thread - thought things were a bit quiet lately

Noticed this note on the closed thread - does anyone have a handle on the number of IXC in lost wallets?

some movement lately - a few more transactions, mining up, some miners have upgraded. Not much action on the exchanges though....

I don't like blood, I'm only from Transylvania by birth... I meant Sangria the delicious drink : )

Certified in c++

had to be a reason, he cant be running out of space

Is that big column maybe the total of all the others? Like maybe it is the real total, the exchange's account, and the others show how it is divided up among users?

-MarkM-

Why the new thread?

I will not argue, the project looks very promising. The main thing is that developers would not throw it and put their ideas into reality.

I will update the release notes for the Windows version affected - thanks for your help!

I have tested both 32 and 64 bit wallets and they are working fine if listen=0 

It is a bug we picked up from bitcoin core 0.13.x. taking off the listen=1 by itself will probably work.

That is configuration I am using with IXC now and have been using it for many years with other coins, with different port values. I will change it to listen=0 and sync wallet from scratch again.

Found the issue - not my original thought but can reproduce now. Will be fixed in next version - out in a couple weeks or so.

For now let me know if this works -

Turn off incoming connections if you have that checked

and put in a
maxconnections=12
line in ixcoin.conf which can be found in Windows   directory %APPDATA%\ixcoin\ which is usually C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\ixcoin\ixcoin.conf

Any IXCoin miners out there? Why are you using the two oldest clients?

Info and source on updates here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651819.new#new

If you are using the binaries or need help with update - reply or pm me.