Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 107. (Read 631747 times)
The price is rock solid. Pretty amazing; more stable than even Bitcoin.
I've been talking to Zhao - CTO from OkCoin, regarding adding iXCoin to their exchange. China exposure on the biggest Chinese exchange would be a massive catalyst for iXCoin.
He had only 2 concerns before listing iXCoin.
A) The price needs to be stable.
B) iXCoin needs a bigger market-cap.
I pointed out to him that iXCoin price has been much more stable than coins like Litecoin and DogeCoin and in select periods has been more stable than Bitcoin.
And I also told him that we'd be working on increasing the market cap via more active development [hopefully with some significant involvement from our partner, CEX.io].
Finally, if we get OKCoin on-board; landing Huobi and BTCCHINA would be nearly automatic.
@GroundRod & Ahmed: all this is supercool. Once you have it ready, I will do my best to transmit it to Jeffrey Smith asap.
@Friction: to run a coin for free is really innovative for miners. Hope for them the price will increase and get a fair tx fee able to support their costs.
Thanks. Very important that this gets into the main-net.
I've just begun re-porting over the code to a clean 0.9.3 BTC base (direct not forked from DVC like before). Almost done there so now thats life made a lot simpler for me and GroundRod to pull changes from bitcoin core's github..
Once thats done im going to fire it up and see how it runs on the network. once thats fine, then testing on testnet and we should be ready to begin testing on main-net
Once thats done im going to fire it up and see how it runs on the network. once thats fine, then testing on testnet and we should be ready to begin testing on main-net
I've got to admit, IXC running on zero miner rewards all of a sudden looks ridiculously innovative.
Do we have word yet as to when the 0.9.x client will get into the CEX.IO pool?
Do we have word yet as to when the 0.9.x client will get into the CEX.IO pool?
Interesting: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-blockchains-might-want-to-consider-using-at-turing-complete-txs-822100
That is interesting, thanks for posting. Will spend sometime researching it more this week.
Was myself looking at the 'Open Assets Protocol', and thinking how it could easily be used with Ixcoin Core.
An important aspect to both, from just spending a short time reviewing them, is that they appear to me to be non-disruptive concepts to our commitment in keeping current with the latest Bitcoin Core.
https://github.com/OpenAssets/colorcore
Quote
Colorcore is an open source colored coin wallet compatible with the Open Assets Protocol. It supports two modes: a command line interface, and a JSON/RPC server. The command line interface is suitable for managing a local wallet without going through any third-party service. The JSON/RPC interface is suitable for server-side implementations of colored coins and programmatic colored coins wallet management.
Open Assets is a protocol for issuing and transferring custom digital tokens in a secure way on the Bitcoin blockchain (or any compatible blockchain).
Open Assets is a protocol for issuing and transferring custom digital tokens in a secure way on the Bitcoin blockchain (or any compatible blockchain).
ETA: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-colorcore-the-new-colored-coin-wallet-compatible-with-coinprism-767548
Exactly, and empty blocks is just one way iXcoin is breaking new ground and proving the bitcoin algorithms work even before bitcoin does.
BINGO!
With empty blocks, ixCoin just got way faster and more efficient than Bitcoin.
In ~100 years Bitcoin too can be all grown up and match what ixCoin can do today. haha.
I wonder if all the banks and corporations of the world wanna wait 100 years.
And I will just note the fact that no-one has considered the technicals of this by replying to my question of "can the software handle empty blocks?".
You don't think Satoshi considered empty blocks? Ixcoin is pretty much a copy of bitcoin.
Exactly, and empty blocks is just one way iXcoin is breaking new ground and proving the bitcoin algorithms work even before bitcoin does.
Thanks, Yap that is what I finally figured out , don't see why it needs to be stored in the ixcoin blockchain and it throw me for a loop earlier today, but if I go back far enough in time on our blockchain it shows up as 50., guess it's just part of the overall proof of work data structure.
The block header of the parent chain is serialized in the child chain so nodes can verify the work associated with the parent chain. Without this all nodes would need to run the parent chain as well as the child chain. Done this way only the miners need to run both. Looking into why the getblock command is returning that 25.16255556 value now, it's being returned as part of the aux-pow coinbasetx fields, when human readable (somewhat) JSON responses are generated. Found that is true for almost any block I look at, and I'm not sure why or what it means,
If it's pulling values from the auxpow coinbasetx field then it's probably the value of the parent chain's subsidy - in other words the value of the bitcoin block that it was merge mined with.Thanks, Yap that is what I finally figured out
Finally committed the Ixcoin 0.9.3 source code changes to GitHub, that I've been working on this past week.
https://github.com/GroundRod/IXCoin
Not producing a pre-release build on it just yet, nor do I plan on it, kinda depends on Ahmed's schedule.
Generated a pull request so he can bring them into our main repository. Soon he should be able to generate new builds using the efforts made to keep our code up-to-date and spiffy
GR
And I will just note the fact that no-one has considered the technicals of this by replying to my question of "can the software handle empty blocks?".
You don't think Satoshi considered empty blocks? Ixcoin is pretty much a copy of bitcoin.
Looking into why the getblock command is returning that 25.16255556 value now, it's being returned as part of the aux-pow coinbasetx fields, when human readable (somewhat) JSON responses are generated. Found that is true for almost any block I look at, and I'm not sure why or what it means,
If it's pulling values from the auxpow coinbasetx field then it's probably the value of the parent chain's subsidy - in other words the value of the bitcoin block that it was merge mined with. Now that we dodged a bullet time to buy some more ixcoin :-)
The hash rate has gone down today though....
Several of the merge mined coins are down in hash rate. It's not an iXcoin issue. I still think one of the pools is doing maintenance. Been going on for over a week now.
Now that we dodged a bullet time to buy some more ixcoin :-)
The hash rate has gone down today though....
Now that we dodged a bullet time to buy some more ixcoin :-)
And I will just note the fact that no-one has considered the technicals of this by replying to my question of "can the software handle empty blocks?".
Because none of you have a fucking clue.
Because none of you have a fucking clue.
Someone needs to rethink on who doesn't have a clue.
Not bad, not bad at all Jumbley
Thanks for the reports kraizi, I've pretty much determined it's not a problem with the network chain, perhaps its wrong in our latest code, I'm not even sure that is true at the moment. Looking into why the getblock command is returning that 25.16255556 value now, it's being returned as part of the aux-pow coinbasetx fields, when human readable (somewhat) JSON responses are generated. Found that is true for almost any block I look at, and I'm not sure why or what it means, this is Ahmed's place of expertise, so hopefully we'll hear from him about it later today....in the meantime I'm getting up to speed on this section of the code, if I figure it out will let you know. My current thinking is that I'm being a little to jumpy, need to cut back on the caffeine, & looking for problems that aren't there or ones that we'll need to fix as we wrap this upgrade project up....
GR
Thanks for the reports kraizi, I've pretty much determined it's not a problem with the network chain, perhaps its wrong in our latest code, I'm not even sure that is true at the moment. Looking into why the getblock command is returning that 25.16255556 value now, it's being returned as part of the aux-pow coinbasetx fields, when human readable (somewhat) JSON responses are generated. Found that is true for almost any block I look at, and I'm not sure why or what it means, this is Ahmed's place of expertise, so hopefully we'll hear from him about it later today....in the meantime I'm getting up to speed on this section of the code, if I figure it out will let you know. My current thinking is that I'm being a little to jumpy, need to cut back on the caffeine, & looking for problems that aren't there or ones that we'll need to fix as we wrap this upgrade project up....
GR
I've not made any accusations. I may have a made a prediction that it's the end, and I do believe that any straight-thinking person must see that. This coin is stunningly insecure, because once any one of the 2 or 3 big miners supporting it no longer see a reason to continue (quite understandable when their income is zero) the hashrate will drop so much that blocks confirmation time will become high / infinite. See ATC for example.
There are many reasons for pools to keep mining.
- Pool owners are sitting on large caches of iXcoin.
- Zero income for pools is not correct. It's just lower than before. Granted it's about 1,000-10,000 times lower at the moment.
- Looking toward future transaction growth. (We need to work harder to ensure this.)
- Minimal resources needed to keep mining since iXcoin is merge mined.
@publicjud - Ya that is how I see it too, looks to me like the blockchain is holding up really well!
Was wanting to ask anyone running the ixcoin client, please go to your console and do 'getblockhash 227500', then 'getblock', if it shows a 25.something coin spend tx in there, shut down the node and let me know. Not sure if this was widespread or a targeted attack, I would have been the only one showing up on the network with a client version of 090300 last night...
Was wanting to ask anyone running the ixcoin client, please go to your console and do 'getblockhash 227500', then 'getblock
I see a 25.16255556 vout at block 227500. But the mining is still chugging along. Why is that a problem?
{
"hash" : "647e0cc70ccc05e85a6ac76bb2eb8f5faba8fc1b575419d1207097cf70aa9c33",
"confirmations" : 21,
"size" : 992,
"height" : 227500,
"version" : 196865,
"merkleroot" : "46d1f841b971a48cc93e1979ab441183540930077d4df912bb2a57e2c0e0e0be",
"auxpow" : {
"size" : 771,
"coinbasetx" : {
"txid" : "e1efe5d4ac01dcbabaca5ab7a20c96216c284128f023e8fbced6a493ec11e27b",
"version" : 1,
"locktime" : 0,
"vin" : [
{
"coinbase" : "032cf604e4b883e5bda9e7a59ee4bb99e9b1bcfabe6d6d8a5534b8264cfeea05f1253f95785a942 a991efe78688f09f574321f2f10a5fd10000000000000005162300bda5555954d696e6564206279 2061766862",
"sequence" : 4294967295
}
],
"vout" : [
{
"value" : 25.16255556,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 c825a1ecf2a6830c4401620c3a16f1995057c2ab OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914c825a1ecf2a6830c4401620c3a16f1995057c2ab88ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"xqtX774tAbX9Dz7uKkwZivAnSiPnVjsRci"
]
:
:
Where do I get the new client?
https://github.com/GroundRod/IXCoin/releases
The Ixcoin BootStrap.dat (3+years of bockchain) I made on Sept 28th, and the Win32-Setup executable, latest build there.
I downloaded the iXcoin core v0.9.2.1 pre-release from GroundRod. I ran it with both a 3.24.3 and 0.8.6 block chains and both re-indexed and synched with the network just fine. Looks like we are on the right track.
Jump to: