Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 154. (Read 631736 times)

My suggestion is to cross an 'i' over a bar to produce a character that is both an i and an X.  
I made a few plain drafts myself but then found this good enough example of the basic concept .

You know, when it comes to the whole blocks mining out...

Wasn't the point of IXcoin to see what happens when a coin similar to bitcoin mines out faster? Partly as an experiment.

I know it carries risk, but anyone who got in on the crypto-currency realm at this early stage in its life should have understood the incredible risk that comes with it.

That having been said, I've not seen anyone disagree with (including myself) the realization that we must do what it takes to keep CEX on board.

To those still Tuning in....

regarding code updates and stuff to get done.



Any new progress on finding a currency symbol? Vlad maybe you can use basic paint program and crudely sketch out something that you were envisioning?

Yes, exactly. And now think about average-Joe who wants to make some bets. First he buys IXC. So far so good. Then he starts looking betting markets. He finds three games with nice odds. Game A is definied in terms of user-definied-currency-A (UDCA). So he tries to buy UDCA with decent price. Game B is definied in UDCB, So he buys some UDCB. Game C is definied in UDCC, ... you get the picture. So maybe it might be better just to have metacoin he could buy with IXC and make his bets in all games?

 Unlike CounterParty... we are going to set it up so that different fees are required per operation.  So if you issue assets, you pay IXC proportional to the asset.  If you make a bet, you pay IXC to make a bet.

I however need to make a point here.  It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.

So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.

If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.

So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.

In other words, you can always create a new asset that is

(a)  can be locked... no other further issuance.

In short, you can (*if you like*) create your own meta-coin.   

Then why does the "asset" require trust and the meta-coin is trustless?

--> An asset requires trust because it has to represent something of value.  So let's say you bake in the requirement that you need the meta-coin to be able to make an exchange.  Then it automatically has a utility and is valuable.   But why the hell will you do that when you can just require IXC fees are required to perform a transaction.   Why create yet another coin?



I think they're the same in principle but with different functions.

This may be where the confusion is.

Answer this:

Doing it the way Jamaer suggests, would that allow 1,000 other people to also tag their assets onto iXcoin's blockchain for security, or not?

--> Don't know what you mean.  This is all happening in the IXC block chain, so all the assets are equivalently secure.   Every asset here is *more* secure than almost every alt-coin in existence.  More secure than LTC, DarkCoin, BlackCoin, DogeCoin etc.   


Cause that's what I'm sensing. Jamaer's solution sounds more secure in that there's some hard coded guarantee of say 21 million coins where with the asset solution some scammer can decide to print more "assets".

--> Print more assets?  If you lock your asset, you can't print more than what was issued.


So then of this is the case, it's a choice between trustless security and free markets flexibility.  And I would choose free market flexibility - and basically become the ebay of crypto assets:  selling security space on the iXC BlockChain and letting the buyer buy the user "assets" which they choose to trust.

--> Why the hell do you want to create yet another coin inside IXC that does nothing?  Unlike CounterParty... we are going to set it up so that different fees are required per operation.  So if you issue assets, you pay IXC proportional to the asset.  If you make a bet, you pay IXC to make a bet.  If anything... there would be a pegged metacoin to IXC (This will allow refunds).   Maybe that is version 2, or allow anyone to *burn* IXC. 



Edit:  Now I'm beginning to understand the meaning behind:  Internet eXchange Coin.

A crypto ASSET exchange market.

Ok, the meta coin is better from a legal and trustless point.  Which is a big sales point.

But can others then still add on their versions like they would if we used user defined assets instead.


I like the metacoin idea better but creating a free market which can grow and invite others to add their versions of "assets" has some very appealing benefits.

I hope I'm expressing this clearly.  I'd like to see anyone being able to add their own meta coins as well and let markets decide which is best.  If that's possible.

No, it is not. How many times we need to go through this?

A metacoin is not issued by anyone, it is created within the implementation. Therefore it is not controlled by anyone, and it will exists as long as the protocol exists. Any user definied asset is issued by someone, and requires trust to the issuer (additionally with some legal implications). I could issue a coin mimicin my proposed metacoin 2b), but I can also cancel the coin at any time. I'm sure you can imagine reasons (mob/feds, my family) for doing that.

WTF? Why are you playing silly word games? This has nothing to do with "the difference between issuance and distribution". It is simply than no one can issue more CP metacoins or cancel the metacoin as nobody can cancel bitcoin or make 50 million more bitcoins. Any CP user definied currency can be canceled at any time or more of the currency can be created at the will of the issuer. I guess you understood that already, but instead of being man enough to admit your (repeated) false statement, you chose to play childish "muddying the waters" games. I have no time for those, so have fun with yourself.

Issue

Assets are issued with the issuance message type: the user picks a name and a quantity, and the protocol credits his address accordingly. The asset name must either be unique or be one previously issued by the same address. When re‐issuing an asset, that is, issuing more of an already‐issued asset, the divisibilities and the issuing address must match.

The rights to issue assets under a given name may be transferred to any other address.

Assets may be locked irreversibly against the issuance of further quantities and guaranteeing its holders against its inflation. To lock an asset, set the description to ‘LOCK’ (case‐insensitive).

Issuances of any non‐zero quantity, that is, issuances which do not merely change, e.g., the description of the asset, involve a debit (and destruction) of now 0.5 XCP

You need to clarify the difference between issuance and distribution.

With Bitcoin, technically the developers issued 21 million coins and provided sha-256 mining as a way to distribute said coins.

No, it is not. How many times we need to go through this?

A metacoin is not issued by anyone, it is created within the implementation. Therefore it is not controlled by anyone, and it will exists as long as the protocol exists. Any user definied asset is issued by someone, and requires trust to the issuer (additionally with some legal implications). I could issue a coin mimicin my proposed metacoin 2b), but I can also cancel the coin at any time. I'm sure you can imagine reasons (mob/feds, my family) for doing that.

A metacoin is the same as a user defined coin.  There is no difference.  You can bet with a user asset versus another user asset. 

Anyone (IXC foundation included) can chose to distribute a new asset in any way it pleases.  Via burning IXC, by paying a fee, etc.   

Nope. In 2c) there is no coin/asset (apart from IXC) with a special status, i.e., there are more things in 2b (and 2a) than in 2c. If you really want to see this as a "subset" thing, you can argue that 2c) is a subset of 2b) (or 2a) (with an additional freedom that any asset can be used for bets).

In terms of implementation, it is a subset.