Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 156. (Read 631736 times)

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?

The Bitcoin protocol was designed to engulf the whole world, to be a planetary coin, and iXcoin is identical.

Things [like transaction size/block size limits] can be easily raised so we should do that as well with this new update and not wait on bitcoin.  The hardware will be there, this technology is not a simple accident, it has come at the right time and it was designed to handle anything.

Whatever makes iXcoin faster, easier to use and more flexible on a mass scale.



@Jamaer,

Now I see (better) your proposal.  IXC is independent of the meta coin, it is the meta coin which will need IXC to function.  Therefore, IXC will be the value which is what we're after.

The meta coin then simply acts like an enabler.  Enabling special features to be used by iXcoin holders.  Like a bolt-on feature.  Interesting.

Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?  Cause when we were discussing this before we were looking for the best way to not include the pools.

I am for this proposal unless someone comes up with a better one.


Thanks!

Each operation is on a separate Transaction output.  I don't think Counterparty is aware of Bitcoin transaction boundaries. 

Before answering, does anyone know if each Counterparty order, trade or bet is contained in its own separate IXC transaction.  Or are multiple Counterparty events crammed into a single IXC transaction?  I assume only one event per IXC transaction since we only have 80 bytes in the OP_RETURN. 

I still don't understand what's the problem with a metacoin (or an asset becoming the prefered metacoin). Those coins are not new altcoins in the sense that they are independent from IXC. Instead, they are are fully dependent on IXC, but IXC is independent on any Counterparty defined asset/coin. There is no way they can "dilute IXC", only (possibly) add value to IXC (through the increased use of IXC, i.e. transaction fees). Those coins are directly traded with IXC in the network, and since you can not even use those coins/assets without owning some IXC (for fees), it makes little sense even to set up a third party exchange (say for metacoin <-> bitcoin). In other words, those interested in Counterparty features will first need to get some IXC.


And that's the problem. In oder the network to decide where the coins should go, the network has to understand the Counterparty protocol. That is, the implementation has to be native. Or can you explain a method for an escrow without the network understanding/parsing the protocol?

There's a football coin now?

How's that possible, I own most sports coin domains, including footballcoin?

Looks like I need to get pissed one day and just launch everything I intended to launch last year.

Not really.

What event?

has any one notice that IXC went up after a certain even in this thread.

Come again?

looks like you're keeping how you found [Suspicious link removed] a secret for some reason.

We've already agreed that we prefer Counterparty to use IXC instead of a metacoin, but without being able to excrow IXC then trading will be slower (taking mulitple confirmations) and betting won't be possible.   Plus, it would be very easy for one of the Counterparty assets to become the preferred metacoin over IXC, especially if a Counterparty asset can perform the functions faster.  So it's best for the native IXC escrow to be there from the start.

As I see it an escrow transaction must be added to iXcoin, let's call it ESCROW-START.  It would be similar to a regular transaction except instead of actually moving coins to a new owner it just locks the coins in place in the block chain.   They are later unlocked and either left with the original owner or sent to a new owner depending on triggers from Counterparty.  Of course, you would also need an expiration on escrows to prevent IXC from being permenantly locked, and you need a cancel escrow feature in case orders are cancelled.  I assume most of the logic for escrow is already in Counterparty if you need a reference. 

You may also need a second new escrow transaction, call it ESCROW-END, or you may just add some extra code in the normal IXC transaction logic.  Either way, you need to finalize a transaction begun with ESCROW-START.  Both ESCROW-START and ESCROW-END need to understand Counterparty triggers to integrate IXC correctly into Counterparty.

For example, for a Counterparty trade IXC logic would look for Counterparty orders where IXC was involved.  Any time an order is placed an ESCROW-START transaction is also created, locking the IXC coins.  Then Counterparty trade executions would trigger the ESCROW-END transaction to finalize, sending the coins to their new owner.

Similarly for bets, IXC logic would look for Counterparty bets.  Any time a bet is placed an ESCROW-START transaction is created.  Then a Counterparty bet winner would trigger an ESCROW-END to finalize the transaction.

All the triggers for escrowing and finalizing would be comming from Counterparty.  In the furture, similar logic could be added to look for triggers from any other financial platform that we want to support natively. 

It's more work to add this native IXC escrow, but IXC will benefit because it will be used much more intensively by these financial platforms, which means more IXC transactions, more fees and happier miners.

Very well said.

I made my case and placed my vote.

It is completely unpredictable as to what the Bitcoin Foundation will do in 2033.   

To predict that they will support zero miner subsidy is pure speculation now.    Who knows what kind of technology will have evolved by 2033.  IXC simply does not have that luxury and likely any choice that will be made by 2014 will of course drastically be different from what they do in 2033.

In short, this notion about keeping identical with Bitcoin is completely false.

Amin, brother.

I'm so glad someone else sees all this cause sometimes I do feel like just giving up, like this is all just some crazy idea I should have never entertained.

So thanks for validating my madness.  Haha!

Correction... I said I had some stake... just not a lot of stake.  

Yes,  Vlad is a mad man, but all this crypto stuff is crazy stuff anyway.

IXC actually is a coin that is very well positioned relative to all the other alt-coins out there.

It has an incredible hash rate, plus it is extremely well distributed.  Probably Vlad is the largest stake holder with about 2-3% of the coin.  

The fact that IXC market cap hasn't plunged significantly tells you that there are a lot of crazy stuff going on behind the scenes.

Looking forward to your 5th alias.  lol.


Haha, don't make me post them all.  I try to be civil these days.

All mature and professional and shit.

Good luck to you, I'll do my best to serve the best interest of ALL.

It's not fear its common sense.  You have a developer who expresses little interest in your coin, calls it insane thinking and you a mad man.

? Something is wrong with this picture haha.

Anyways I'll drop back from time to time. best of luck.

No, no, you are not.

This coin has made tremendous progress [for an abandoned coin] long before you and Zebedee showed up "to help us out".

You and Zebedee have [thus far] been nothing more than a source of anxious FUD spinners.

You don't phase me and you're not gonna derail our plans and momentum with your fear-based bullshit.


Nice try, though.

Me and zebedee are trying to help you out and see sense.  I argue with everyone on this board, its FUN

Yes, forgive me, I'm gonna go to CEX.io and demand a written contract right now cause the guy with 100 IXC doesn't trust them.

And right after that I'm gonna go to the White House and demand they give me something in writing too.

Dude, are you kidding?

The sheer fact CEX.io has agreed to join our board and committed to mine IXC for free is a massive, ENORMOUS break for iXC.  But it's not good enough for you, you want me to start throwing my weight around, you know, cause I'm the iXcoin guy.  Haha!

Yeah, that's how you handle someone who's a million times your business stature.  Show them total distrust.

You obviously have fear and trust issues - indicative of someone who has a lying problem.  I don't.  I have no reason to not trust CEX, they have nothing to gain by falsely joining our board and lying to us - they've got MUCH MUCH bigger and better things to do.

In business, you sometimes have to trust your business partners, especially the ones holding the keys to your future.

And yes, feelings aka intuition is very often used in business and economics where developing and testing a theory is needed.  Sorry, I don't [yet] own a time-machine.

You sure are ablaze given you've got only 100 iXcoins at risk.  Man, I wish I'd only have $7.50 on the line.  

Cause you're acting like you spent 70+ Bitcoins [or something] on iXcoin.  But you're not a distrusting and dishonest person to exaggerate to such a massive degree, so I'll take your word for your 100 IXC investment and remain perplexed about your anger and hasty, emotional decision making.

I literally have my life savings at risk in iXcoin and I'm trying to do what's right for iXcoin [for the long run] and not just for myself.  For myself, I'd announce a massive PoS scheme, that's the biggest crypto trend right now and everyone is falling for it:  "To bring in new investors and help secure the coin after terminal mining".


Haha - what shameless scammers.

Yes, we got a mad man running the show.   Honestly,  I think an element of crazy is needed to differentiate this coin from the rest.