Topic: [I0C] I0coin - The Best Choice In Digital Currency - page 45. (Read 82353 times)

Yes, hopefully all is well with the Admin. I sent him another email the other day. That makes 3 now, but still no reply. I seen the adservers error messages too and now 10C faucet button is no longer on Cryptoblox. Maybe another faucet will be started soon, we can hope for that too anyways!

me too
not had any of the payouts confirm since about dec.23rd.
i also sent a message with no response.
i also see that one of the adservers ('adbit') used on the pages is throwing up error messages too. looks
like cryptoblox admin has just not been around for a while... hope it isnt health issues or anything like that

Thanks for checking into the faucet. Hope Cryptoblox restarts or updates wallet, I'd really like the coins, haha :p
If not yeah, another faucet would be great!

CryptoBlox hasn't logged in since early November, but I PM'ed him anyway.  The wallet doesn't seem to be syncing with the block chain even though payouts are still being generated and posted.  If CryptoBlox updates the wallet or just restarts it should come back online.  In the mean time, I wouldn't use the faucet.  We may need to get another one.

I've been a bit curious about them because their payouts are not showing up on the block explorer.  I'll send a PM and ask.

Based on four years of operation I don't see any immediate problems.  Nevertheless, we should do a review of parameters.  Maybe 'sidhujag' would like to be an independent, unbiased reviewer.  The best way to improve a coin is to try to find weaknesses, and even do stress tests.

Been using the 10C faucet @ cryptoblox.com. Payouts is alright for a faucet. Unfortunately I have 9 deposits now that are not confirmed. Last confirmed deposit was on 12/26/15. Sent an email a week ago to faucet support, but as of date no reply. Does anyone know if there's a problem with this faucet? It's depositing, just not confirming   Thanks in advance for you time

If you change block times you probably need to adjust size of block and all other params that go with that.

Point taken.

It wouldn't hurt to do a review to ensure parameters are optomized.  And optomized parameters today may not be in a year.  They may need to evolve based on a number of factors.  Average transactions per block, average block size, etc.

I'd expect it's a continuous, iterative process.

Thanks for the heads up.


domob, brooksby,
Do you know of any questionable parameter settings?

Here is an example for you. It may or may not apply to this project but applies to one that I'm working on.

If you modify the block time from say 10 minutes to 1 minute you must assess bloat. The max size of a tx is 100k and max size of 1M per block. Logically you shoudl consider reducing max tx size of 10k and max block size of 100k, however with max tx size of 10k you can't fit a standard tx with anything above 50 or so txins so you need to keep that at 100k. Now you have the ability for a single tx to fill up an entire block (which may or may not open up other security ramifications in the system as a black box). Another thing to consider is the amount of blocks to keep by default with bitcoin's IBD push, since by default its set to a certain "size" in MB and changing max block size will affect this change because it seems optimized for this "size". It is set to 288 by default but if you reduce max block to 100k then you would want to set this to 2880 to match the same amount of data stored before pruning.

If you keep block size to 1M then you have 10x more bloat than bitcoin and that may invalidate any hope for it to survive under the logical pretense that storage efficiency will outweigh the network bandwidth constraints that would exist with 10x more bloat (this is because bandwidth costs more than storage in a blockchain network).

THis is just an example of 1 single parameter changing, now multiply that with x number of ramifications for every parameter now you have atleast 1000x extra checks to do by making something like 5 changes to the consensus model (that is an over-exaggeration but you get what I mean now?)

You sure like being vague don't you.  Give us some specifics on parameter issues.

You dont get it, your not a developer with any kind of experience sorry. Anyways i hope the dev here raises the quality of this project by properly assessing the ramifications of the changes

If you're referring to fast block times being less secure it's no less secure than someone paying a vendor in Bitcoin and waiting only for the transaction to show up in the receiver's wallet (no confirmations).  Vendors can't wait 10 minutes for every customer, let alone an hour.  Users can set the number of confirmations to what ever makes them comfortable.  I would argue that one quick I0coin confirmation is better than no Bitcoin confirmations since you know at least one miner has validated the transaction.

As for bloat, yes, the block chain grows faster, but many other coins have similar or faster block times.  But with the recent introduction of pruning this has little affect on the average I0coin user.  Users set the size of the block chain to just about any size they want. 

Parameters are generally a balance between opposing, but equally important features.  Security vs. tx times.  Block rewards vs currency inflation.  I think it's useful for different coins to have different parameter settings to demonstrate how they work in real world scenarios.

This is an exact clone of namecoin (minus name service) with tweaked params.. Most coins have atleast something to offer on top of tweaked parameters.

6.7 more transaction bandwidth? Well this means more bloat and probably cheaper dust attacks, perhaps a candidate for a unit test because i bet by simply "tweaking parameters" you will degrade a security aspect od the underlying mechanics which are all assuming certain thresholds.. This is the problem with most devs in coins they simply do not understand software enough to fully comprehend what they are actually doing but just a get rich quick by trying to fool others that hey ive offered a betted alternative which is untested and probably full of hidden bugs of which are the worse kind.

I'll give a thumbs up on the new design.  It improves on the old design and reduces the confusions you pointed out and definitely looks more metallic and realistic.  My vote is yes.

Most cryptos are either exact clones of another, or just slightly different.  I0coin's change in parameters from Bitcoin are small but gives it capabilities which improve on Bitcoin.

I0coin's features (many of which are improvements over Bitcoin):

> 6.7 times faster block times than Bitcoin so users can fully confirm txs in 9 minutes, not an hour like Bitcoin.

> 6.7 times the transaction bandwidth of Bitcoin even without block size increases.

> Faster mining rate early in I0coin's life means its 21 million coins are mostly mined already.  Near zero currency inflation means new I0coin generation doesn't devalue existing coins.

> Merged mining is more energy efficient because it shares mining resources.  This also offsets a reduced desire by miners to mine I0coin since it now has a small block reward.  I0coin has remained in the top 5% of cryptocurrencies when considering network hash power.

> Block chain compatibility with all of Bitcoin's block chain technologies.

> I0coin also serves to expand overall cryptocurrency bandwidth.  It's been well advertised that Bitcoin cannot even come close to fiat currency transaction volumes by itself.  Additional cryptocurrencies which are closely aligned with Bitcoin can share the bandwidth.

This is true, and I personally agree (that's why I work mostly on Huntercoin and Namecoin).  I was contracted to do the I0coin update, so that's what I'm doing here as well.

The ones that have any attention are those that actually have innovative code on top of bitcoin.. Theres not many clones with just tweaked params.. Sorry but to me thats a waste of resources.. To each his own i guess

Not sure what you mean here.  It is an alt-coin like 99,9% of the others out there - with its own blockchain and slightly changed parameters.  Apart from that, it is based heavily on Bitcoin's codebase plus merge-mining.

So its just a tweak of params? Whats different about this coin? Why the need to clone but not offer any credible substance over the trunk?