Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Ixcoin - a new Bitcoin fork - page 22. (Read 128457 times)
If I wasn't mining this scam currency, I'd be busy mining the other scam currencies.
What's up with the high rate of Rejected blocks? In the beginning it wasn't that big of a deal, but now at current difficulty, it's frustrating finding a block only to have it rejected. 
I hope you aren't getting scammed out of your scamcoins. That would be such a scam.
What's up with the high rate of Rejected blocks? In the beginning it wasn't that big of a deal, but now at current difficulty, it's frustrating finding a block only to have it rejected.
Well sending ixcoins to a bitcoin address = fail. There goes 116 ixc into the ether.
You should be able to claim the ixcoins so long as you still have the private key that corresponds to that bitcoin address.It worked. I copied my wallet.dat for the bitcoin address i sent ix coin to over to the ix coin directory and it recovered them.
So now i have one private key good for btc and ixc
I would argue it is diluted over substantially more miners than early bitcoin mining. I would be very surprise any single individual is holding more than 200K IXC.
I watched someone buy 235K IXC on the exchange. I don't know for sure if they still hold it. 
Clearly the way to make money with this is to get some value for IX (and lots of IX) and then trade them (all) for BTC slowly so as to not destroy the market early.
Are you saying you are NOT doing this?
Whatever happens in the end, IX will fail since there is no use for them except to trade them for BTC (unless the following)
If you do get actual markets for people to accept them - then that may change, however, with the startup of taking 580K coins, no company with someone who has an ounce of economic sense would risk their business on something with that glaring flaw.
And no matter how you try to hide it behind other words, the 580K is a glaring flaw.
Are you saying you are NOT doing this?
Whatever happens in the end, IX will fail since there is no use for them except to trade them for BTC (unless the following)
If you do get actual markets for people to accept them - then that may change, however, with the startup of taking 580K coins, no company with someone who has an ounce of economic sense would risk their business on something with that glaring flaw.
And no matter how you try to hide it behind other words, the 580K is a glaring flaw.
It seems to me like Ixcoin is even more friendly to early adopters than Bitcoin. Its faster growth rate due to its larger generations combined with the large-scale mining at low difficulty are flooding its early adopters with easy coins. It has already reached a total of over 1.6 million coins distributed only a few days after going public.
I would argue it is diluted over substantially more miners than early bitcoin mining. I would be very surprise any single individual is holding more than 200K IXC.
The day following Ixcoin's introduction, I bought several thousand Ixcoins at 0.00006 BTC from miners me
FixedHere's one trade I made: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.447628
1/ Before investing in Bitcoin we were a bit uneasy about the prospect of early-adopters with massive BTC holdings possibly tanking the value of our investments by flooding the markets. I eventually dismissed this feeling, but several experienced investors we mentioned Bitcoin to kept bringing up that point. I don't have anything against early adopters profiting, because without them we wouldn't have the wonderful Bitcoin ecosystem we have today. It's just that I would prefer the value of my investment to not be dependent on a handful of early adopters with millions of BTCs. I prefer to spread my risk. We saw a trial-run of such a scenario with the MTGox episode.
It seems to me like Ixcoin is even more friendly to early adopters than Bitcoin. Its faster growth rate due to its larger generations combined with the large-scale mining at low difficulty are flooding its early adopters with easy coins. It has already reached a total of over 1.6 million coins distributed only a few days after going public.
In particular, I think it is unfair to keep hundreds of thousands of whatever-coins for yourself, and it is unwise to think that a bitcoin variation that is "almost exactly like bitcoin, only different because... well, just because" will ever have anything more than speculative value.
How do you respond to the idea that you started this new blockchain with the primary purpose being to make you an early adopter so you can get rich quick, especially considering you made 250'000 ixcoins for your personal use (not bounties) before even announcing your project? Many people on this forum including me think just that.
The day following Ixcoin's introduction, I bought several thousand Ixcoins at 0.00006 BTC from
In particular, I think it is unfair to keep hundreds of thousands of whatever-coins for yourself, and it is unwise to think that a bitcoin variation that is "almost exactly like bitcoin, only different because... well, just because" will ever have anything more than speculative value.
How do you respond to the idea that you started this new blockchain with the primary purpose being to make you an early adopter so you can get rich quick, especially considering you made 250'000 ixcoins for your personal use (not bounties) before even announcing your project? Many people on this forum including me think just that.
The day following Ixcoin's introduction, I bought several thousand Ixcoins at 0.00006 BTC from miners. At that rate, that equates to ~17BTC for 250K Ixcoins - less than what we spent on hosting/domains/related, not counting our time. Nothing was stopping you or others from purchasing large holdings of Ixcoins at these prices.
Miners are now sitting on 1 million Ixcoins. Some early miners managed to mine 150K Ixcoins. Should they be scolded for being early adopters?
There were several motivations why we introduced Ixcoins. To name a few:
1/ Before investing in Bitcoin we were a bit uneasy about the prospect of early-adopters with massive BTC holdings possibly tanking the value of our investments by flooding the markets. I eventually dismissed this feeling, but several experienced investors we mentioned Bitcoin to kept bringing up that point. I don't have anything against early adopters profiting, because without them we wouldn't have the wonderful Bitcoin ecosystem we have today. It's just that I would prefer the value of my investment to not be dependent on a handful of early adopters with millions of BTCs. I prefer to spread my risk. We saw a trial-run of such a scenario with the MTGox episode.
The current Ixcoin distribution is somewhat clearer which I hope might reassure potential new investors. The 2/3 of the total 1.5M IXC in existence belong to miners. Close to half of the remaining 1/3 is set aside for bounties. The rest will be used to fund future development and some for ourselves. Omitting the initial difficulty ramp-up, I'm betting IXC will be evenly distributed since the mining community is mature and competition is fierce. Setting a high difficulty right from the start would have avoided the difficulty ramp-up phase, but we believe would also have prevented the general excitement and very rapid uptake from the Bitcoin community.
2/ Waiting until 2033-2050 for all 21 million BTCs to be generated sounded a bit distant. We wanted a shorter maturation period to reinforce the scarcity aspect of Bitcoin. By 2015 when hopefully the masses start using Bitcoin/Ixcoin (due to current Bitcoin dev trends and imploding fiat currencies) and when all Ixcoins have been generated, it'll be refreshing for people to use the strictly non-inflating Ixcoin currency (and also avoid explaining the complex inflation and mining techno-babble), whilst still reassuring them that there is not just a handful of Ixcoin holders but that it is spread over many thousands of miners.
3/ Fun and (currently limited) profit. We made multiple orders of magnitude more on bitcoin trading but this is way more fun!
Why go through all these hoops?
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
Does that math take into account that each found block is worth 96 coins instead of 50? I've not used that site, but in most cases the online calculators do not allow you to change that value...
It calculates based on individual coins, block count doesnt matter.
Yes it does... Difficulty determines how many blocks each MH/s will get you, if you don't account for the fact that an IXC block gives 1.92 times the coin reward your math will be skewed. If they traded 1:1 and had the same exact difficulty rating, it would be almost twice as profitable to mine IXC because of the coin difference. It'll also screw up your inflation calculations and just about everything else (7200 new BTC every day compared to 13,824 IXC - which is kind of the whole point). Calculations based on difficulty and hashrate have results in # of blocks, which must then be translated into a given # of coins. We must compare coins to coins, not blocks to blocks if we're to have accurate numbers...
Why go through all these hoops?
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
Does that math take into account that each found block is worth 96 coins instead of 50? I've not used that site, but in most cases the online calculators do not allow you to change that value...
It calculates based on individual coins, block count doesnt matter.
Actually I can think of a very great use of this to the Bitcoin world.
It has been mentioned before, but seriously it would be worth attempting a network takeover and seeing if it is possible.
Are there any grounds to say someone can't try it?
Those grounds could be considered the same as those for creating this blockchain:
An attempt to make money and nothing more.
And yet it would also work well as a threat test for the Bitcoin block chain.
It's all nice in theory but when tried in the real world it helps make the problem seem more real.
Certainly not something anyone but a large company/government could do to Bitcoin (currently something like 13Th/s)
but to this one it could be worth trying to prove proof of concept for considering the security of Bitcoin ...
It has been mentioned before, but seriously it would be worth attempting a network takeover and seeing if it is possible.
Are there any grounds to say someone can't try it?
Those grounds could be considered the same as those for creating this blockchain:
An attempt to make money and nothing more.
And yet it would also work well as a threat test for the Bitcoin block chain.
It's all nice in theory but when tried in the real world it helps make the problem seem more real.
Certainly not something anyone but a large company/government could do to Bitcoin (currently something like 13Th/s)
but to this one it could be worth trying to prove proof of concept for considering the security of Bitcoin ...
1. Pointing my machine to Ixcoin.
2. Buying lots of ixcoins
...
3. Profit?
2. Buying lots of ixcoins
...
3. Profit?
Edit: ok, strike that..it seems the hash rate is oscillating wildly...I'm sure you guys can think of several scenarios as to why this is happening.
It's a pool statistics bug. When the pool finds a block it cleans out the information it uses the calculate the hash rate, so it drops until there's enough to compute it again. Why go through all these hoops?
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
Does that math take into account that each found block is worth 96 coins instead of 50? I've not used that site, but in most cases the online calculators do not allow you to change that value...
Why go through all these hoops?
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
bitcoinx.com can do it for you, input difficulty as 4096 and hashrate, it comes out to 0.00053 @ 1024 diff thus now at 4096 you need to get atleast 0.00212 per namecoin to be even with bitcoin mining/price.
The price atm is mostly trailing around 0.002 which makes it just as profitable if not slightly less profitable considering trading fees involved to convert to BTC on the ixcoin exchange.
The previous 1024 and below were really profitable
So here's my latest bit of analysis:
We can approximate an "instantaneous" difficulty if we know the current network hashrate as follows:
Difficulty ~= Hashrate * 0.13969625
If we assume the 133,367 MH/s currently operating on the only IXC pool to be the entire (or at least the majority of) network hashrate then that gives us an estimated difficulty of ~18631 once we get past the "initial climb" difficulties. Assuming this difficulty holds (which it won't) that would require IXC to trade for about 0.005137 BTC each in order for them to be exactly as profitable as bitcoins. At current difficulty of 4096, breakeven value is around 0.001 BTC each. Given that these are the bounds between which price seems to fluctuate, I feel pretty confident in those estimations.
Realistically we won't get breakeven values under normal circumstances, but if we use NMC as an example, they tend to average around 68% of their breakeven value, so we should expect an instantaneous value for IXC somewhere around 0.0035 BTC
Of course there's a lot of assumptions there:
1. 133,367 MH/s is the total network speed - it's not, but with no better tools it's an ok guess
2. The same ratios that hold for NMC will hold for IXC - probably not true as NMC has added value
3. Price follows difficulty - it seems to be the other way 'round actually (but they ARE usefully related for "instantaneous" math)
Does anyone have anything else to add or spot any other flaws in my logic/math?
We can approximate an "instantaneous" difficulty if we know the current network hashrate as follows:
Difficulty ~= Hashrate * 0.13969625
If we assume the 133,367 MH/s currently operating on the only IXC pool to be the entire (or at least the majority of) network hashrate then that gives us an estimated difficulty of ~18631 once we get past the "initial climb" difficulties. Assuming this difficulty holds (which it won't) that would require IXC to trade for about 0.005137 BTC each in order for them to be exactly as profitable as bitcoins. At current difficulty of 4096, breakeven value is around 0.001 BTC each. Given that these are the bounds between which price seems to fluctuate, I feel pretty confident in those estimations.
Realistically we won't get breakeven values under normal circumstances, but if we use NMC as an example, they tend to average around 68% of their breakeven value, so we should expect an instantaneous value for IXC somewhere around 0.0035 BTC
Of course there's a lot of assumptions there:
1. 133,367 MH/s is the total network speed - it's not, but with no better tools it's an ok guess
2. The same ratios that hold for NMC will hold for IXC - probably not true as NMC has added value
3. Price follows difficulty - it seems to be the other way 'round actually (but they ARE usefully related for "instantaneous" math)
Does anyone have anything else to add or spot any other flaws in my logic/math?
After thinking about it, the reality is that I have way more ixcoins than I have bitcoins. So why should I want bitcoins to succeed over ixcoins, even if the creator of ixcoins didn't really add any value, and he reserved a huge chunk for himself? Ixcoins are functionally no worse than bitcoins.
Except that Metcalfe's Law says that bitcoin is functionally vastly superior.
Metcalfe's Law is often used in a figurative sense, even though he was talking about physical boxes trading bits with each other.
The analogy is pretty easy to figure out. The network I'm talking about here isn't just the nodes pushing blocks and transactions around, it is the network of people and businesses that grew up around the software network.
Good point. How many merchants accept bitcion currently?
Seriously?
?? XDi can't believe this got so deep with the logic a couple of you are showing.
dudes all you have to do.
you convert your "ixcoins" to "bitcoins" and THEN you can buy your drugs! XD
Jump to: