ahh you mean like ixcoin which had only one number changed in the code?
I find it interesting to see what would happen if the supply of coins was increased, although it's a pretty easy step of logic to conclude that it would flood the market with supply. I0coin could have at least taken the opposite side and tested what would happen if supply was distributed slower or on a different curve instead of a roughly equivalent supply line. Half the number of coins and more blocks per hour is not a innovation.
or are you talking iocoin which was invented to show the stupidness of ixcoin.. which does solve btc problems like speeds up the transaction confirmations by speeding up the block found time.
Yes, the childish-ness of 'see, I can make a clone too because I don't like the way you did it'.
that includes an encrypted wallet, which means if a trojan steals your wallet they cant spend the coins.
Enabling a client feature that is already in testing by Bitcoin devs is not any bit innovative. The same could have been done by anyone that wanted to test it on the Bitcoin client or Ixcoin client as well.
it also includes address checks to make sure you dont send iocions to a btc addy.. unlike ixcoin which will let you do that.
Another trivial client feature and not an innovative change to the bitcoin protocol.
and it has difficulty growth and drop limits that prevent what is happening with namecoin where everyone waits until the diff drop, and then mines the fuck out of it until the diff shoots up to over 100k before disapearing back to BTC.
That's something that I didn't know, but lends itself more to a pump and dump clone than an evolution of Bitcoin. It presupposes that people will treat it like namecoin and abandon it when difficulty gets too high. If I0coin network, not the client, actually had features that would make it a serious alternative to Bitcoin it wouldn't need this.
interesting you pick i0coin when ixcoin is much more scammy..
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
it was poorly made,
and when I looked at i0coin on launch date (which was beyond a disaster, and worse than I predicted) they didn't even have a full suite of clients up, since you like to espouse client features, i0 failed miserably
it doesnt try to address a single flaw,
i0's list is short too, and nowhere near ground breaking
and the founded took 500k coins for himself.. but let me guess, you think that is cool right?
That doesn't bug me for a few reasons. At least half of the coins he mined are up for bounty, and most likely more than half since some bounties can be paid more than once. Since Bitcoin already exists and he is second to market, incentives are needed to foster growth. Early adopters in Bitcoin managed to accomplish this because they had a long slow head start and paid bounties out of belief in the cause, no such thing will happen in any clone. And the biggest part is that Ixcoin was launched in relative silence by a single post on the forums, not with a bunch of advertising and hoopla out of spite.
Neither ixcoin nor i0coin have any features that are innovative technical improvements to the Bitcoin protocol. Both supply curves could have been simulated on a graph and analyzed for effectiveness. They have both muddied the water of crypto currency. Congrats to both.