Topic: Ixcoin IXC To-Do List 2015-2017 (Read 4526 times)

Hi Vlad. Welcome back. I have a small request of you and I understand if you'd rather not indulge me. Is there any way you could ask this guy, deadsea33, a question about IXcoin that only he would know the answer to? Apparently he was a treasurer in some capacity for you guys.


He's back now and we're trying to figure out if his account was hacked and sold or if he's the original owner. Thanks.

I like this plan for 2017.

This can be the new TODO thread.  Unless it's confusing, then let's close this one as well and link to the main thread. 

BiX,  bitcoin for the "Average" person, not like those 1% ers.  HAWWWWWWWW

I agree with you and Thomas.

From a marketing perspective it would be foolish to abandon the network effect of years of internet name propagation. This is why I was suggesting adopting a second name. An AKA...

I like where you are going with MIX. It was making me laugh. However it gives the impression that ixcoin has a built in mixer or something like that.

To follow your logic my suggestion would be BiX. lol

From a marketing perspective it makes sense to include some explanation in the title. Bitcoin-ix suggests that the system is similar to bitcoin. And of course some people will read it as Bitcoin9.

Also Bitcoin-ix follows in the footsteps of others who have recognized the power in using bitcoin in a name. BitcoinPLUS, BitcoinNEW, BitcoinDark.

I don't know about that. Ahmed and cinnamon seem to still be around. Groundrod is known to take breaks from the forum as well. Vlad never went anywhere.
—----------------------------------------


Endulge me as i make some shit up real fast....

What if, ixcoin had a second name? A name that was easier to market to the masses.

Bitcoin-ix also known as ixcoin...

Same would work with i0

Bitcoin-i0 also known as i0coin.

-beeep-- this was just an expansion to the bitcoin a,b,c theory,   -beeep-

Vircurex was the main site for up-holding the price of coins, because their cut of the fees that they give to people who have bitcoins on deposit makes them the best place to deploy bitcoins that are most likely just going to sit on the buy side of orderbooks for long spans of time.

Some time ago I sent some bitcoin to Vircurex and it did not arrive, I notified them by email and after several days finally the bitcoin arrived and I was able to continue stengthening the buy sides of the merged mined coins.

Maybe about three weeks or so ago now though again bitcoin deposited there failed to arrive, once in a while I re-send to them my email notifaction of the fact but I dunno, maybe they have gone on vacation or something, so far the bitcoin has failed to arrive so the merged mined SHA256 coins have been biting farther and farther down into the buy sides I had already built. The fact I cannot replenish the buy sides means I pick up those coins cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, which is great for me, but by failing to get my deposited bitcoins into my account they have basically screwed the merged mined coins, especially I0Coin and IXCoin, by preventing the constant influx of bitcoin that had been constantly not only replenishing the buy sides but also growing them.

They broke the momentum of increase in price that had been building long term, now in effect causing artificially an extended dropping of prices.

Manipulation? Admin on vaction? My emails going into their spam folder? (Unlikely as in past they always got my emails.)

Whatever, despite my thus picking up massive amounts of coins dirt cheap it is very annoying that they broke the long term momentum of price-increase that had hitherto been happening...

Heck I even sent some bitcoin to Cryptsy now, the scamcoin exchange I had never wanted to join.

I joined it to cash in the "clams" scam since "clams" gave me free "clams" by their choice of how to airdrop, so I figured heck I joined Cryptsy anyway so I might as well try to use it for something now I am there. They do not pay me to keep bitcoins on their exchange though, which Vircurex does. So I have no plan to build buyside order-books there, I am simply snapping up dirt cheap IXCoins there while they are cheap.

And just now read that maybe I won't be able to withdraw them from there? Hmmm, I knew they are an exchange created for the purpose of cashing in on scamcoins but are they also a total scam too? I always figured anyone supporting every scam must be quite the scammer so would not be at all surprised. Maybe I should have just dumped my "clams" and withdrawn the resulting bitcoins instead of being tempted by the cheap IXCoins there...

-MarkM-

Ix and i0 were neck and neck, i0 pulled ahead briefly then has been dropping like a rock

Howdy jumbley,

I don't blame you about moving on. Ix project seemed interesting about a year ago when it was being advertised as "native" colored coins", a complete lie btw. The only interesting thing it has right now is that it and i0 are exact copies of bitcoin. Bitcoin a, b, c. Maybe one becomes like swift, one for everyday uses, and one for dust or whatever.

In reality, cex has ixcoin in a pair of golden handcuffs. Ixcoin code cant be updated till they allow it. Im curious if you have heard anything from cex about the testing in their sandbox? Or did they just get pissed from internet personalities and sloff it off? Regardless its not going to affect me, as a crypto watcher Im just curious.

If Thomas was to give you control of pre-mine and you used it to pay devs then maybe this coin could take off again. For me personally, this coin has been tainted and it wasn't by Thomas. I have moved on.
All coins are a popularity contest and IXC has little to offer in this respect.
I wish you hardcore IXC supporters the best of luck and hope that you are not too badly burnt by the markets.

Ix and i0 neck and neck on coinmarketcap

Just got a reply from noashh

Hi, the project is going fine, thank you. The data we collected is at http://wiki.supernet.org/wiki/Bitcoin_rpc_compatible_coins.

Cheers
noashh




I just looked at the list and noticed that both ix and i0 don't have an ios wallet. Maybe this is a point where both communities can work together?

thanks mark for keeping me honest.  I think I got a little confused    when researching i0 and accidentally grabbed some info from io. (I edited that post so as to not confuse more people)




I noticed that cex no longer has the majority of hash on bitcoin anymore. Does this mean anything for ixcoin hashrate, positive or negative?

All the more reason to get into mining to support pools that do merged mining...

-MarkM-

NaMeCoin came up with merged mining originally.

Maybe even the same guy or team that came up with NaMeCoin in the first place.

Basically I think NaMeCoin was the first alt and it was swiftly realised few miners would want to abandon one coin to mine another, or try to split up their hashing power between coins. Thus merged mining was implemented. The theory of it might maybe have already been out there though, I am not sure about that.

-MarkM-

CoiLedCoin (CLC) was briefly attacked (about two or three days) by LukeJr but survived and has been chugging along ever since, albeit never seeming to get back onto any of the well known public merged mining pools.

I0Coin is not "finally" getting some "new tech", on the contrary it was the first of the merged mined coins to fix the "excessive RAM usage" problem, then the others adopted its fix.

I0Coin has 1.5 minute blocks or maybe 2.5 minute blocks or something like that, so was revealing the RAM problem faster than most of the other merged coins due to generating more blocks. It thus served as an early warning system showing the problem all the merged coins would start running into as the number of blocks they had generated increased over time.

Techically of course GeistGeld showed the problem massively and sooner, but fewer people were actually paying attention, in particular no large public merged mining pool was mining it, so it was not really until mmpool dropped I0Coin due to excessive RAM usage that people really started paying attention.

Even then, for a long time, there was a tendency to simply assume I0Coin and GeistGeld were buggy code, leaking RAM; so it was some number of months (of nice low difficulty mining of I0Coin for those willing to set up their own merged mining) before a programmer figured out what the problem really was and that all the merged coins would run into it as they created more blocks.

So really one can say that I0Coin came up with the important "new technology" and the other merged coins adopted it.

-MarkM-

Now it seems to me like the brotherhood is running some great experiments here with bitcoin; Fast minting, faster blocks, minting forever..

I know there has been a heated argument over the 1MB blocks. Are all brotherhood coins using 1MB blocks or something different from that? Can the data from any of these coins be used to help with this discussion? I'm just curious.

Are there other copies/clones of bitcoin that are merge-mined that should be included in the list?

Truly this conversation is getting interesting. I actually am not really familiar with any of the merge mined coins except ix. To hear of how fast GeistGeld is makes me very interested in it. Reminds me of the "flash"


So of the brotherhood of merged-mined sha256 bitcoin clones

we have ix and i0 the copies of bitcoin with fast minting rates,

        ix being the bitcoin clone that has proven life after terminal mining,

        i0 the bitcoin copy that is finally getting some new tech.

Gesitgeld, bitcoin with superfast blocks

Coiledcoin (besides what mark just said) my quick research led me to this post,
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.675166

IS it dead JIM?

And

Devcoin and groupcoin. I'm still researching these, but maybe this quote sheds some light.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.827744

According to the readme file

Groupcoin is the precursor to devcoin, in which we tested
some ideas to fall back on in case we could not do what
we wanted devcoin to do.

Devcoin was described at

https://github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/wiki/Devcoin-Description

but the description has apparently since been moved to

http://www.devtome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Devcoin

Back to all these merged coins being related...

Two less well known members of the merge family, coiledcoin and geistgeld, do not seem to currently be supported by any well known public merged mining pools thus have quite low difficulties, and monitoring them can be helpful maybe to the whole merged family because they might be able to show us potential problems before those problems start hitting the more-popular members of the family.

GeistGeld is the super-fast-blocks one, like crazy-fast blocks, so fast that just looking up an auxblock to give work to a miner can take long enough that no matter how many gigahashes the miner has it won't be able to increase the difficulty. The main original purpose of GeistGeld was to find out the practical limit on how fast blocks can be and still allow merging of many blockchains. It might be good to adjust its speed in fact, to try somewhat slower, since it seems clear that its current speed is too fast for any pools to consider supporting the coin. The pool ends up spending so much resources on trying to keep up with GeistGeld that it does not process other chains as fast as it otherwise could; mmpool once reported that the actual value mined was less in total when GeistGeld was in their merge, because other coins such as bitcoin suffered enough lag to earn less overall than if resources were not being spent trying to merge GeistGeld.

Coiledcoin is slower blocks, but have you noticed that it is using lots of RAM? I thought the RAM problem had been fixed across all the merged coins, including Coiledcoin?

Maybe some of you could take a look, see if it seems to you too to use lots of RAM?

It seems to use more than GeistGeld, yet GeistGeld has of course way the heck more blocks to process so shouldn't Coiledcoin be using less RAM than GeistGeld if both have the same RAM-usage fixes in place?

-MarkM-