Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 173. (Read 631747 times)

IMO the fact that colored coin uses as the "native" currency the currency of the network itself (i.e., IXC, bitcoin) but
Counterparty needs an additional "meta-currency" as its native currency. This difference leads to the situation that coloredcoins
is more limited in regards what it could be used for (there can be no bets or similar things for instance).

Matter of taste.

They are different things, and can live simultaneously in the IXC blockchain.

Burning means that you send IXCs to an address from which they can not be recovered (i.e., nobody knows the private key).

Let's allow people decide on that. Implementing it basicly costs nothing.

I just thought by merging them we could create a better solution.

If that's not possible then I agree, implement both and let free markets decide.

As for the Ferrari example. I thought adding IXCP would permanently tie your 1,000 IXC to your 1,000 IXCP.

So I guess that's still a bit confusing. It's like having a debit card and using it yet your underlying funds remain the same. So what happens if I spend all 1,000 IXC, doesn't that mean I'm out of the game with my 1,000 IXCP?

Or vice versa, I spend all 1,000 IXCP, doesn't that now limit my purchase ability as far as the counter party option goes?

So then IXCP is nothing more than a totally different coin riding on IXC's back, taking advantage of its ledger an security.

If that's the case this solution is incredibly elementary and needs to be improved.

It makes more sense to tie IXC to IXCP so it's truly one system, one currency.

But then you wouldn't be able to also use colored coins.

In which case we're really just diluting IXC by 21 million coins by adding IXCP to the blockchain.


Is Gavin busy?  lol

It's not only that miners would not accept those (possible) solutions requiring changes to the IXC protocol. These solutions are still so immature that nobody can be sure thay actually work. The worst thing that could happen to IXC is that we introduce some new protocol feature and then someone comes up with a clever exploit and steals our funds. That's something IXC would never recover from.

Well, to my knowledge there is no easy solution, if there even exists a solution, to the problem of distributed escrowing of funds (needed for bets, and fully distributed exchange of "native" assets (like IXC)). This is why I originally challenged Friction on this point as he his "hybrid scheme" implicitly assumed that. But why do we need to merge them? Why can't we have both of them, and let the markets decide which one is more useful?

Yes, if at certain predefined time you have 1,000 IXC, you would get 1,000 IXCPs.

I don't fully understand your question, but if you pay with IXC, you are left with 500 less IXCs, if you pay with IXCPs, you are left 500 less IXCPs. They are two separate currencies both living in the IXC network.



Exactly.

Units would be the same as IXC. The number of IXCPs issued would be the exact number of IXCs existence on the day IXCP (IXC CounterParty) is launch. Distribution: the amount of IXCs owned in the chosen time = the amount of IXCPs given.



Yes. IXCP would be nothing but replacement of XCP in the original CounterParty (hence I proposed the name IXCP). In the original CounterParty they created that currency by burning (i.e. destroying bitcoins). For every burned bitcoin you received a certain number of XCPs.

I keep seeing things being said about an option not being a solution cause miners won't adopt it.

We only need one maybe 2 pools to update and that's it.

CEX.io has been very IXC friendly and I feel comfortable that if we had a really unbelievable solution and feature the pools would update the code.

So let's focus on the best possible solution and not something inferior based on fear.

One thing about the burning idea.

Friction is right in that it raises the value of existing coins but that will lead to hoarding and then longer term what happens when millions of iXcoins are burned?  We would have to inflate and those who didn't spend their coins will be essentially taxed heavily.

So burning then will lead to fiat 2.0.

There must be a way to merge the best of CounterParty to the best of Colored Coins.

Is Gavin still busy with Bitcoin?

Jamaer,

Your 1:1 split, so I understand it right.

If I hold 1,000 IXC I would then also get 1,000 IXCP?

So when I go to buy a new Ferrari, what am I spending out of the 2 and what exactly happens, what's the outcome if I spend say 500 of my coins?  What am I left with?

And also let me clarify, all 21 million IXC would be intact after this split.  All IXC holders would simply get matching IXCP's right and if they don't want to use them then nothing happens.

Thanks.

Let me give a couple of arguments why I think Counterparty with IXCP IPO/split/whatever I outlined is preferable to the infinite burning Friction seems to be proposing (I'm happy with that too).

Techically they are pretty much same to me. The difference as I see it is the use. IMO what IXC needs now is a lot of use/transactions so that the merge mining will continue beyond the block reward going to zero. If CounterParty is implemented with the burning option, I'm afraid only a handful of people will try it (at least in the beginning). On the other hand, if we do the IXCP IPO, all people owning IXC would automatically get IXCPs, and even if they had no interest to Counterparty at all, they still have an incentive to change their IXCPs to IXCs (which means at least a lot of transactions). Plus I see the anouncement of the fixed block (when the IXCPs are delivered and IXC Counterparty comes to the use) as a great opportunity to Vlad and others to advertise IXC.

You could do it by allowing the miner of a block to create a special transaction such that inputs are transactions to that specific address and output is to the address specified by a validated request transaction (e.g., the burning of metacoins). If the special transaction was not done according to the protocol rules, other miners would not accept the block. But like I said, that's too much to the unknown territory, so it's unlikely miners will accept changes like that in the near future.

Yes, burning is wastefull, but if you really think about it, burning a coin increases the value of a coin to the entire population of coin holders.

I don't know how you can implement 'an address only accessible by the protocol'.

That's exactly both the solution and the problem ... you need to change the IXC protocol to allow miners to move IXCs from the "holding pot" to people. That opens enourmous security threats (even with a very careful planning and implementation) , and I'm doubtful if the majority of miners is willing to accept the protocol (code) change.

Yes, that's a solution. Like I said earlier, personally I don't like the burning thing (as it is one-way but may be two-way in the future). But infinite burning period is IMO definitely better than a fixed term. Is this the implementation you are proposing?

Yes the assets are equivalent to colored coins.

The bets of course will need another currency.

One way to logically create this is to use the burn functionality.  Unlike Counterparty, you can burn IXC anytime but the exchange rate will always be 1:1.    This effectively pegs the value of the metacoin with IXC.   Alternative to burning of course is to exchange IXC of the metacoin.    There is however no mechanism to burn the metacoin so it becomes IXC.   That technology is still being worked on by the meta-coin folks.

That would be wondeful! In fact, their alpha version is now operating in bitcoin testnet3, and it would be rather trivial chance for them to make it work in the IXC blockchain instead.

Well, in your terminology it would be more like a 1-1 stock split execpt that the new half is given in a new instrument called IXCP which can not be used in place of IXP. So no more IXCs would be created or IXC diluted. IXC and IXCP would be tradeable (within IXC blockchain!), so markets would decide their relative value. If markets decide IXCP (Counterparty) is worthless, it is the same as if CounterParty was never implemented. So this can only increase the value of IXC.

In technical terms, only thing that is done is replacement of initialization ("burning") in the original CounterParty protocol by this creation/split/IPO initialization in IXC blockchain. This means for instance that any code developed for the original Counterparty protocol is directly adapted to our implementation simply by changing this initialization code (which will be the same forever).

From practical point of view, this simple means that you or whoever is now "in charge" of this coin, announces e.g. here, the date (i.e. the blocknumber) when the CounterParty will be taken into use in IXC (and which will also the date of the "split"). Only thing that needs to be done by that is the new initialization code (I don't see any, at least theoretical problems with that). The rest of code/tools etc can be taken directly from the original CounterParty.

ColoredCoins and CounterParty try to achieve similar things, but the approaches are slightly different. IMO everything essentially boils down to this "escrow thing" I'm pointing to Friction. In ColoredCoins the "solution" is that there is no escrow, which means that certain things won't work: full decentralized markets, bets, etc (see e.g. here). As implied earlier, CounterParty "solved" the escrow problem by creating a new currency/instrument (XCP).

But it is important to understand that both of these are non-existent from the IXC network (read: miners) point of view. Only thing the network sees is some ordinary IXC transaction (with some extra info embedded). There is no reason why we could not have BOTH OF THEM! In fact, I believe that would be preferable. Let the market decide which one is the better technology. From the IXC (miners) point of view, the more embedded protocols => more trafic => more miners fees.

They are all very welcome here.

The new Bitcoin foundation has made it clear that they will not empower other technologies which could compete with Bitcoin in the future.

My guess is they will start to change the bitcoin protocol and eventually make it closed source so they can add features and keep them for themselves.

CounterParty, ColoredCoins etc., your best chances are with the one and only true and ultra secure Bitcoin Alternative in The World:  iXcoin - the Bitcoin Twin.

iXcoin is even better than Bitcoin cause you can buy the coins for much cheaper, there's more liquidity in IXC, no bad image problems and most of all, you'll get total freedom and control, something that has long been gone from Bitcoin.

So hurry up, First come First serve; soon everyone will see how centralized bitcoin is so those who build on iXcoin first will most likely become the defacto tech of choice.

Good luck to everyone and...

Welcome to the  F U T U R E!

I asked coloredcoin team to use ixcoin blockchain to test their coloredcoin project

Their answer?

"Thanks!
Ill have a look at it"

I hope we are going to have this team joining the community. It could be fun!

Maybe they need a little bit of encouragement

http://coloredcoins.org

I think iXcoin would be able to handle anything thrown at it so then I wouldn't want to put a cap on new coins.  I also wouldn't want to police all the new coins coming out.

That creates a lot of red tape and greatly slows down innovation.

We have to make all of this as easy and free as possible.

All of this of course is based on the premise that iXcoin will not me choked.

All I think we need to do is increase the block size to some much larger number.

Friction,

along with the next upgrade, can we increase the transaction block size?  Let's stay ahead of Bitcoin if possible.  They will definitely increase that size logarithmically in the next 2 years so why not move ahead of them.  

I think this is the only choke point - besides some potential liquidity issues but all coins, including Bitcoin, have this issue.