Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 136. (Read 631747 times)

well you never know , maybe someone else will take a crack at it 

the reward you would have to have given much earlier.

now you're all fucked

I understand nothing, pulled a project like this?

I guess you will be rich, otherwise I can not explain

luck to all

I'm out

That update is nowhere close to being done.  We can't even get a status update or a deadline, in case you're gonna bother asking for one.

So take off your usual 6 months hiatus and see ya at Christmas.

Cheers!

I clicked on your link and I didn't see anything relevant and especially nothing about me.  Not sure what I'm missing.


Edit: Click the link after your link.

Wow, they posted a bunch of my Twitter posts.  Interesting.


Edit:  here's the real link:   http://tradewithdave.com/?p=21505

Just wanted to check in and say that the 50K IXC bounty is still up for grabs 

I expected more activity in the final stretch of the issue .. more volume, more interest from people.

the truth that disappointed me a little, nothing seems to want to change things about IXC.

Let's get it over with already.

i think i can handle it but don't have a server to host it on

Does anyone know of an iXcoin block explorer?  AltExplorer ( http://altexplorer.net/  ) dropped almost all their coins and only support about 10 coins now.

@cinnamon_carter - Excellent detective work, thanks for adding it to the list here.  Was playing around with the 8.6 client today myself, noticed that at least one balloon popup in the lower right still said bitcoin, need to remember to check *all* those strings shown to the users. 

@Dimays - Welcome aboard, not sure Frictionless will be implementing them for Ixc, perhaps helping out.  My guess is the timetable is open

I noticed something earlier as I continue my research for various things.

In iX (and other coins) getblocktemplate crashes the windows client  (I am speaking of the qt here not the daemon)

aux seems ok.....here is block 214915



03:20:57

getworkaux 01


03:20:57

{
"midstate" : "1515aca27913b59564379ca13f3b50e86851ab59ca71dbab9d6a2a10d030752d",
"data" : "0003000106cdd73969ea7f65cc05fb124a78159f80440cbe8847f9d0fb387a9261334999f297bfb 55d839e5c6fbcfa42a5fff363bf439515b769dcd19a12427a3055de3053d31e941871986d000000 0000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000",
"hash1" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000",
"target" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000006d98710000000000000000"
}


03:21:14

getworkaux 02


03:21:14

{
"midstate" : "6eaef090e2a97edeeef617187630fe85fa42764af7c43179b6289bee1b3d8e94",
"data" : "0003000106cdd73969ea7f65cc05fb124a78159f80440cbe8847f9d0fb387a926133499933427a1 3d3916d2c98a17e49f4256bfb01ee982de11e14fc18efeb50f6ea719d53d31ea51871986d000000 0000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000",
"hash1" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000",
"target" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000006d98710000000000000000"
}




NOTE, this is an issue with the 'static' client that Frictionless released and the unofficial clients I released with and without UPnP support with a checkpoint and the newer heartbleed proof version of ssl..... the thread is so long I wonder if this ever came up before....


Namecoin does not have getblocktemplate turned on but getwork looks fine


04:18:25

getwork


04:18:25

{
"midstate" : "41af3fa410ee791d723410cc64b25d7368c29f4240e7b0e3bedb1891a9893ef2",
"data" : "00010001ec633aaf4d90e20554f86dbc83694d220eae25540ae73cb60adf670d4dcd2bedb973f6a 8113b35ab4812bee3a877ae6f773db7b34ed64d4042a192ad2a5781ed53d32be3185d313b000000 0000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000",
"hash1" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000",
"target" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000003b315d0000000000000000"
}


04:18:46

getworkaux 1


04:18:46

{
"midstate" : "bf5e3bc4435131f93bde8c2aee401d9a6bba6dd66cdcc226467a0b40b7addb12",
"data" : "00010001ec633aaf4d90e20554f86dbc83694d220eae25540ae73cb60adf670d4dcd2bed8b3a034 a8bcfc3e60902e83ddb14e5c6f5509d600991f25b39394c6b1ef555ee53d32bf8185d313b000000 0000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000",
"hash1" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000",
"target" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000003b315d0000000000000000"
}



finally I tried i0 just for kicks and found


04:33:50

getworkaux 1


04:33:50

{
"midstate" : "a894da56dbba8f73982580d047676636023a4fbe2038f627f1f179dae61bc54e",
"data" : "0002000122e7a84f09ee9660a0c9fbeb113c35113b741c9ee5787dfeec64c9ee823819162790191 d47a369bff612f78703e100ed8dc45d74a6306da2b1e58fe99860107453d32faa19090b62000000 0000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000",
"hash1" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000",
"target" : "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000620b0900000000000000"
}


04:34:05

getblocktemplate


04:34:05

{
"version" : 131073,
"previousblockhash" : "82381916ec64c9eee5787dfe3b741c9e113c3511a0c9fbeb09ee966022e7a84f",
"transactions" : [
],
"coinbaseaux" : {
"flags" : "062f503253482f"
},
"coinbasevalue" : 150000000,
"target" : "00000000000000090b6200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"mintime" : 1406348478,
"mutable" : [
"time",
"transactions",
"prevblock"
],
"noncerange" : "00000000ffffffff",
"sigoplimit" : 20000,
"sizelimit" : 1000000,
"curtime" : 1406349241,
"bits" : "19090b62",
"height" : 1197928
}


This does not mean anything is really seriously wrong since most people don't need these commands or use them in windows.

Still we should look to get them repaired and understand why they are not working.  Probably a trivial thing but anything that is broken now may not just 'magically' fix itself when the jump to the 9.x codebase is made.  Then fixing things in the future becomes more difficult.

I posted this for information purposes so we can work together to help things move ahead properly.

Hi, I'm new here but I've read many posts..

just a question..

Considering your time, FrictionlessCoin, when Counterparty and 0.9.2 port will be completed? approximately 1 month, 6 months or more than 1 year?

ty  

In theory I could delegate to somebody.... unfortunately... there is nobody to delegate to.

The reality is that nobody seems to have any skills to maintain this stuff.  It's kind of like the American economy, there are lot's of jobs out there but nobody with any skills to fill them.   If you find yourself lacking the skills, then I suggest you make the effort to acquire the skills.   Most everyone here are all back seat drivers that never lift a finger to make a real contribution.  This is the curse of crypto-currencies,  everyone wants to get on the ride, but nobody wants to make the real effort.

Even Bitcoin has a similar problem with development.  Mike Hearn has been complaining about the underfunding of Bitcoin development:  http://www.coindesk.com/mike-hearn-underfunding-leaving-bitcoin-development-crisis/

That's because the talent required to maintain these crypto-currencies are not commensurate with the kind of compensation being offered.   Developers are extremely expensive,  my time is extremely expensive.   My work for IXC, I consider works of charity.  

The changes are beyond cosmetic.  The difficulty algorithm is different.  The merge mining code needs to exist.  In fact, even if the code should behave identical to how it behaved when the first coin was ever mined, from when merged mined was introduced, until how it behaves today. 

You can attempt to get the current bitcoin code base and make cosmetic modifications, however you'll find out that it'll not be able to accept blocks in the IXC block chain.   Modifying code for an existing block-chain is much more difficult that creating a brand new coin.

Thanks ahmed_bodi, starting to look like a To-Do list now!

Merged Mining Patch, Reward Schedule, Retarget Schedule, Network Parameters

Thanks once again FrictionlessCoin for taking the time to speak with us,


I understand that point, was not suggesting otherwise.  Simply that code for the creation of new coins (how many etc) need no be included in future releases of IXC code (really soon now).


Ok FrictionlessCoin, you know way more about this than I, concede that writing a new, really good, better than ever merged mining source code file against the BitCoin 9.2 code base is going to be allot of work.

However, my thinking is this:  In every other regard IXCoin == BitCoin, its just now running out of time to mine new coins, so no matter the version #, be it 3.x, 8.x, 9.x or 22?, compiling the newest BitCoin code base, while changing the error messages text, logo and scripts to build for the different platforms gives us the new IXCoin code.  What am I missing?

Even if the miner subsidy rates go to zero, you will still need to merge mine.  Once you stop mining, the coin goes dead and is unable to process new transactions.

It's all nice to want to have your own development and be able to move forward in development, unfortunately all this takes a lot of effort.   It takes a lot more than just upgrading the code base.  The 0.8.6 has been sitting in the repository for months now, yet it takes effort to get the miners to adopt it.   With a new 0.9.2 client, we'll have to go through the entire cycle again.  It isn't easy.

The only way I see of getting things moving is to fork out some IXC in terms of bounty.   

Reality check for all alt-investors.... look at most alt-coins.... they've crashed big time.   The only ones that are maintaining a decent market cap are the ones that are providing technological innovation.

Out of the top 20 virtual currencies:

Bitcoin*

Litecoin*

Ripple

Nxt

Darkcoin*

Peercoin*

BitSharesX

Dogecoin*

Namecoin*

MaidSafeCoin

Mastercoin

Counterparty

Monero

BlackCoin*

BitShares PTS*

Bytecoin

XCurrency*

ReddCoin*

CloakCoin*

Quark*

Only 11 are derived from Bitcoin code base.  The other half are entirely new implementations.   

Well there we go,

Thanks FrictionlessCoin for the updates, your offer of returning the counterparty advance, honesty and hard efforts to-date.  Figured BCF was slime on the wall, from what I can tell your 8.6 client is working well, I'm not sure who is using it yet, but it appears to me to be a big step forward from the previous release.

FrictionlessCoin, for those developers in the community that want to take things to the next level, was there a(some) particular issues you felt concerned about with the release?  Areas in the code or considerations you didn't get a chance to work on to your satisfaction?  Putting that 'extreme warning' on the ixcoin.co website download link turned most of us end users off from ever trying it.

Perhaps the best thing to do @ this point....is we have someone take over the .co website and/or go another route.  Seems the foundation should make having a coherent and up-to-date coin website portal the highest priority, highlighting the 8.6 client as the next evolutionary step.  Does anyone know if CEX/ghash.io is already using the 8.6 code?  Sounds like ahmed_bodi has already tested & confirmed the merged mining capabilities of that client fork.  Others?

What I see as the way to advance IXCoin now is to get the client up to the latest version of bitcoin (9.2).  The merged mining part could take some time to get tested and operational, & as FrictionlessCoin points out, needs to be done first, before counterparty or other features are considered. 

On that point....it just occurred to me, perhaps there is a way we could short circuit it's development time.  Very soon now we'll not care about mining coins, what we'll care about most is flexible transaction fee management and the super secured hash rate, merged mining offers.  Unfortunately, I'm to much of a noob on cryptocoin coding to be able to answer this question.  It is interesting that we can soon gut any code required to mine coins, other than the parts required to insert blocks & secure the network hash rate.

It sure does seem like it's time we move on.. stop depending on the other (IOC, NMC or DVC) development communities/people to publish their latest code, so we can copy it.  We should leap frog to the front of the pack, or at least co-develop the technology with knowledgeable developers, such as I see posting here & I'm confident we can get any code developed fully tested before releasing the binaries to general use...

GR

BCFrictionless is someone who seems to take pleasure in being an impostor.   

Anyway, if anyone want to receive their payment back for a delayed delivery, then let me know.  I've got like one donation for the CounterParty stuff. 

I am pretty much pre-occupied with other endeavors in the crypto-currency space, there are plenty of new interesting developments particularly with respect to new coins like Ethereum, Maidsafe and NEX.  So in terms of how I want to prioritize my time,  I will do so where there is maximum gain.   IXC is a difficult proposition for me since I earn only on the donations of others.   In short, I treat it like a charity endeavor and not something of my highest priority.   

If folks are demanding for greater urgency, then I suggest increasing the incentive to do work for IXC.