You and your cryptic stuff. Like anybody here paid attention in history. Lol
Speak for yourself.
Also, you are all aware of this already -- you're all cryptic. But the same thing I0coin has gone through many times as far as underproducing blocks/overproducing blocks (first time I saw OVER in that situation you guys recently pointed out) - happened with the Bitcoin Cash fork into "two new blockchains"...
This article has all the answers:
https://medium.com/fixedfloat/bch-hard-fork-14ca3bf67506Yesterday FixedFloat.com couldn't process my Bitcoin Cash for BNB swap as fast as usual even though they require just 2 confirmations to automatically swap the assets. Support told me that was because Bitcoin Cash only produced one block in the past hour... They also are aware of the the two new blockchains being that they wrote on their home domain blog and their medium the same blog story about the "bch-hard-fork"... Why they duplicate their blog on medium and also have a more selective blog with not all their medium entries on their home domain is beyond me
Now if you ask me why that situation is happening to I0C in this time or fractional rewards - 3 years late of when the coin was supposed to have achieve 21,000,000 coins? Merge mining. Block rate. LATENCY... It's like everyone thinks somehow magically every 10 mins on the dot there's a bitcoin block. Not so. And then of course, pools. We have no clue who is mining I0coin but if there's some sort of movement going on where exchanges freeze withdrawals and deposits as they did with BCH that means that the miners have less to mine for tx fees and if any developers decided to put in changes to the core code as both groups agreed to implement that weird new hash algo before the split because the community and miners were against reallocating developer rewards giving 8% of rewards to a development fund, that still means that the devs had consensus to change to the same algorithm meaning, no long is this a SHA-256 blockchain. Thus 2 new blockchains were first 1 new blockchain with a different hash algo... Then community and miners not wanting to give any of their block rewards to further develop Bitcoin Cash's network was signaled by 85% of the miners, thus gaining the agreement of the exchanges (so they froze dep/wd they need miners for) and effectively all miners lost income they normally rely on exchanges for when mining txs in and out. The problem here is the scheduled date Nov 15 2020 gave exchanges reason to freeze funds because 85% of miners (whoever they are) signaled they wanted to go with nChain's opposition to a development tax/tithe of 8% per block reward. Thus BCHN was the first block mined after the scheduled network upgrade block. Bitcoin ABC developers had a block mined at 72 minutes after the schedule upgrade block. Remember 15% of miners never flagged support for nChain... so someone mined it. 2 blockchains or not, the network is not split, and it remains possible certain tx from one chain will end up copied exact on another. The two dev groups Bitcoin ABC and nChain did agree to a new algorithm before the two new blockchains were created when miners chose to mine with nChain's "BCHN" - after they also post-split changed the way block emission rates were controlled to be more predictable. What's happening with I0Coin and "BCHABC" is exactly the same. The predictability whether its 1 block every 72 m or 86 blocks when 240 were expected or whatever for I0coin by i0c's chainz block explorer - is unpredictable. Perhaps that's because of latency of a long running chain, a pruning that has occurred to run the latest software without using all the memory bloat for users (GUI nodes), or the fact that Bitcoin "BTC" blockchain is tied to Bitcoin Cash's network, just like the two new blockchain's are part of that network still, and that merge mined coins with different developers that come and go, or even a coin like I0Coin who contracted domob1812 from Namecoin to do its latest update in 2016 are just on autopilot and the lag its experiencing is from all the other changes to the BTC blockchain it remains merge mined with spill over when things like Bitcoin Cash have demonstrated that its only when you change that SHA-256 algo that you can break completely from the network. Devs can change all they want, miners can choose to mine blocks according to whatever fork they feel profits them, and exchanges can trade anything without it being on chain because all they do is hold your coins in one pooled wallet while you trade around credit until you pull off the exchange.
I0coin is only listed on FreiExchange. Same with DVC. Ixcoin is on Frei, but it also is stuck on YoBit, because they didn't upgrade when the 2018 fork and block size changes occurred. They still have a version 11.9 wallet - whether that means blocks are still being mined by them for that is anyones guess but they make the coins on the exchange stay prisoner (hence the support man being the "warden" lol). But that hard fork and majority of miners going with the 0.14.1 version and it still being merge mined probably in one way or another can confuse the network, especially if an exchange like Yobit is mining blocks without any awareness from the users - we just know our funds are locked if we have any there.
I think what's happening with I0coin has more to do with what just happened with Bitcoin Cash. Exchanges awarded the coin they held to still be Bitcoin Cash and retain the BCH ticker for the most part, but that's because they knew the miners were against the 8% development fund. So the community and miners keep their rewards 100% - but as for nChain and its new BCHN chain, who knows where they got the development money to continue - especially if BCHN (the so called blockchain with more predictable emissions of block rewards and blockrate) are affected by sharing a network with BCHABC and txs from either chain copy over unexpectedly to either chain, thus ruining predictability. It could make BCHN devs scramble for the cash to fix it and if they don't have it, miners have to switch on over the network to the other chain at some point if the devs from the BCHN split run out of money to scale/continue to be profitable...
So I0coin... a little late on its 21 million, or maybe its current reward is zero inflation enough due to errors on other blockchains connected to the merge mining network back to the mother chain that BTC is mined on.
Network fees for BTC and ETH txs on-chain are extremely high. Congestion is a curse. It could be said that more mining is not what is needed, but a better platform to move these coins over, like Stellar. Who says the token/coin output of a mined block can't be settled on a ledger with SCP and no known attacks AFAIK. The future could be an expanded network without copycat chains, settlement only available on slow block producing chains or high fee pool dominated and mined BTC or ETH blocks. At a certain point SECURE doesn't have to come from blocks, and the pools being able to charge a kings ransom for getting tx to settle on blocks is stupid at this point as well as unneccessary. Stellar has proven that. And its first version was blockchain based "secret bitcoin project"... Bitcoin relying solely on blocks for settlement is leading to centralized kingmakers that choose whether the little guy gets to have their tx settled in a block if he pays a fee high enough for them to be willing to do it - and these pools are increasingly bigger and bigger corporate operations that make tons of money from ganging up and controlling the pooled mining of blocks. The value of the merge mined chains on its network also suffers because they are connected to these other gangs of corporate pools making massive fees for relaying txs into blocks. That's insane. The few who do merge mine also get these alts but because they are merge mining with BTC, perhaps the Bitcoin Cash networks issues have happened between our chains and BTC without us realizing it. Either way, the price remains low because while all these slowed block rates occur and changes to other SHA-256 coins from the main chain continue to tweak and cause problems in the network - we don't have many coins on exchanges nor the liquidity for people to trade. Part of the solution is migrating tokens to Stellar. The other? We are suffering not from merge mining, dumping, etc. - all the traditional reasons are ancient coins are almost worthless in USD. We are just taking hit after hit but still we move forward because of everything Bitcoin devs can patch, BTC mining pools do to collude, and the fact a community has yet to form around us. But I tell you what, we do have devs - and we certainly can coalesce (like Merge Mining Pool once did) and make our own changes to where the true value of each chain is reflected on the front end, in the UI. Until now, all over our value is hidden on underneath, brewing and bubbling up beneath the surface attention to BTC and its blockchain or its more recent splits. There will be a point, just like short squeezes from reddit, where the suppression of these gems with a great ROI possibility to rise above BTC's blockchain and also cash in on the secure network they built all these years... IXC and I0C both scarce, but with IXC's upgraded blocks to scale, I0C possibly moving or merging into another coin or blockchain... DVC providing necessary constant inflation so that there will always be more to fund continued development and also with a network fix or two of these associated milieu coins - truly having a value people will want DVC for. Then, my friends, do we have a day to shine.
It's obvious enough to me. I have seen you operate for almost 4 years now. And I am aware of the commitment. We're almost at a point where all of this is possible. Even a rebrand may happen - like it does with stocks that pivot and get new tickers. A buy back is possible to give longtime hodler's the true value in locked or frozen value that maybe someone who has custody or manages all this from a higher power and firm will give to us for compliance reasons unknown to us. But if we believe, and we persist, this is going to be discovered sooner or later. Someone will diagnose the problems on BCH which will lead to people auditing as well and at some point maybe we find the root of where we lose our value and were surprised that we, the holdouts, the ones on the original hash algorithm, remain cross-chain compatible, and the value shared among all coins and blockchains on such a secure network - will be the basis of value for the next level platform we move on to.
But that's just me.
EDIT: Chainz also uses a discontinued Google Code for the way it relays its information that it displays. I don't wanna get technical but you can find it when you read about their API and "dws"
