What is LukeConnell doing for this coin? 
No idea, he was so sure we'd get huge press and now nothing. Maybe he's given up, I know I almost did.
Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 191. (Read 631747 times)
No idea, he was so sure we'd get huge press and now nothing. Maybe he's given up, I know I almost did.
Merged mined coins such as IXCoin reflect the true cost - the horrendous cost- of Proof of Work in their market cap.
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
You're right about merged mining being the ultimate goal for many of the long lived PoW cryptos, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to be pushing other coins to do this now. MM is the key edge iXcoin has over other more popular coins. I assume at some point someone will start a systematic purging of crap coins by using 51% attacks. When that occurs iXcoin should be in a good position to resist, but even very popular coins may not be able to hold up. So why give them forewarning if they aren't smart enough to figure that out for themselves. iXcoin needs time to catch up on marketing itself, whereas most new coins go straight to pumping. It's not a bad strategy because the pumped coins, if they are in it for the long haul, have the cash to pay for securing the block chain (MM) later. iXcoin has taken the path of securing first at the expense of its coin price. So it is slow to upgrade features and therefore vulnerable in the fast moving crypto market until its popularity rises.
There is no point adopting garbage that cannot be secured.
By deliberately not implementing merged mining ability most coins make it obvious from the outset there is no intention to secure them nor even to enable them to reasonably be secured even were anyone wishing to secure them.
On the contrary, they are deliberately designed to be abandoned by miners.
With merged mining though miners are free to mine any good useful coins that come along without being forced into abandoning all the coins they already merge in order to do so. Thus they are deliberately designed to enable miners to stick with them for the long haul.
-MarkM-
By deliberately not implementing merged mining ability most coins make it obvious from the outset there is no intention to secure them nor even to enable them to reasonably be secured even were anyone wishing to secure them.
On the contrary, they are deliberately designed to be abandoned by miners.
With merged mining though miners are free to mine any good useful coins that come along without being forced into abandoning all the coins they already merge in order to do so. Thus they are deliberately designed to enable miners to stick with them for the long haul.
-MarkM-
I agree with you that coins that are not merged mine have an agenda biased towards the miners.
New coins that are created vastly favor miners with a lot of mining power. That is the game that is being played for over a year now. Miners mine a coin prior to it hitting an exchange and then eventually dump their coins for maximum profit. Ordinary folk are at the mercy of these miners.
I would be okay if the miners and the investors goals were in an alignment, in other words, if the miners were interested in long term appreciation of the coin. Unfortunately, for most coins, these coins are just a proxy for mining BTC at a higher profitability rate.
There is no point adopting garbage that cannot be secured.
By deliberately not implementing merged mining ability most coins make it obvious from the outset there is no intention to secure them nor even to enable them to reasonably be secured even were anyone wishing to secure them.
On the contrary, they are deliberately designed to be abandoned by miners.
With merged mining though miners are free to mine any good useful coins that come along without being forced into abandoning all the coins they already merge in order to do so. Thus they are deliberately designed to enable miners to stick with them for the long haul.
-MarkM-
By deliberately not implementing merged mining ability most coins make it obvious from the outset there is no intention to secure them nor even to enable them to reasonably be secured even were anyone wishing to secure them.
On the contrary, they are deliberately designed to be abandoned by miners.
With merged mining though miners are free to mine any good useful coins that come along without being forced into abandoning all the coins they already merge in order to do so. Thus they are deliberately designed to enable miners to stick with them for the long haul.
-MarkM-
Merged mined coins such as IXCoin reflect the true cost - the horrendous cost- of Proof of Work in their market cap.
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
Agree about the high cost to secure a coin.
However, security is just one side of the equation, adoption is another.
Merged mined coins such as IXCoin reflect the true cost - the horrendous cost- of Proof of Work in their market cap.
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
A lot of coins prefer to do without a secure blockchain, basically selling people a bunch of insecure garbage - refusing to implement merged mining because by leaving their coin insecure their market cap can pretend that securing a chain doesn't cost a fortune. However they achieve that pretense by not actually securing their chain.
Basically they are aimed at miners not at users nor investors. Speculators seem to like them too thoguh because speculators like moving along with the miners to new coins every day leaving the fools who fell for the previous days' scamcoins holding bags.
Basically the miners are trying to get paid without doing the work: they want the pay but have no intention nor desire to actually do the work of securing a blockchain, so they just do a constant bait-and-switch, making a coin look like it has miners, while cloning another con to switch to leaving idiots who bought their stupid scamcoin stuck holding the bag, while their tame "speculators" follow them on to the next bait-and-switch ponzi scam.
They don't want to support merged mining so their chain can maybe actually have some chance of becoming secure because merged mining tends to lower the market cap, as it should since it tends to cause the massive cost of Proof of Work to actually be reflected (priced-in) in the market cap. To an extent the change in market cap (between not implementing merged mining and implementing merged mining) is a direct reflection of the real cost of securing a blockchain with Proof of Work. SCamcoins prefer to inflate their market cap by not securing the coin so that the market cap does not reflect the cost of securing the coin, and of course they try to pretend the chain is not secure since they also hope the fools they suck into their bait and switch ponzi coin schemes don't realise the garbage they are buying is utterly insecure.
Coins like IXCoin already reflect that cost, and share it with a whole family of merged mined coins, so they all have much more honest market caps than the scamcoins; when they raise their market cap they probably do so in a far more "real" way than when the scamcoins do.
-MarkM-
@mmm01,
Welcome to the F U T U R E.
Was not iXcoin above 100k votes two days ago? Why is it going to lose again against Grumpycoin at 61k?
Grumpycoin? Is it the seven dwarfs' official currency?
Grumpycoin? Is it the seven dwarfs' official currency?
Grumpycoin seems to have more popularity probably a lot more miners invested in it. They are attempting/are bringing it back from the dead since the dev is inactive I believe. A lot of people holding coins that just want to be able to trade them off I suppose or the time spent mining would be rendered worthless. So there's more incentive on their part to try and vote it up. Plus the coin probably has a larger gathering since there's a big announcement for every coin now unlike when this coin first started and a crypto calendar site that may not have existed until the recent popularity of cryptos. At least that's what I gathered from taking a quick glance. It doesn't seem like it's a coin that's going somewhere, but I suppose most people say that about any cryptocurrency starting out. I don't see the value grumpycoin is adding but then again it could be just some fun coin like doge which can be enough sometimes.
Sorry I'm new to crypto been watching a lot of coins and I'm interested/going to buy 1k worth of ixcoin. There seems to be a lot of strength in this closed knit community and you guys have been keeping this coin alive among yourselves. This coin has both age and the backing of whoever is a part of its development team that has continued to work with it which just adds to its overall credibility. From what I've looked at there seems to be effort to market this coin and get the name out there more. It has stayed around the top 30ish on coinmarketcap and I think the market needs a solid mature coin with its core members behind it. Good work to you guys looking forward to following a coin and hopefully becoming a part of your community.
you had direct contact with bitparking!!!!?
looooolz i'ts only been ~370hrs since they hit a btc block. i jumped out yonks ago. 
i contacted all the pools that I had contact info for that mine ixcoin. they were the only ones to respond so far. looooolz i'ts only been ~370hrs since they hit a btc block. i jumped out yonks ago. friction, a minor bug in your new ixcoin code. it seems to default rpcport to port 8337 which is the same port as the binary port. this results in an error on startup if user hasn't overridden port in ixcoin.conf. the ixcoin help notes rpc port defaults to 8338 but this is not what the code does.
Thanks.
Ah, Vlad left, no wonder it takes hundreds of hours to find a block now! 
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
i notified mmpool.org of my test result and they have updated the ixcoin client. they will contact me if there are any issues.
you had direct contact with bitparking!!!!?
looooolz i'ts only been ~370hrs since they hit a btc block. i jumped out yonks ago.
i notified mmpool.org of my test result and they have updated the ixcoin client. they will contact me if there are any issues.
friction, a minor bug in your new ixcoin code. it seems to default rpcport to port 8337 which is the same port as the binary port. this results in an error on startup if user hasn't overridden port in ixcoin.conf. the ixcoin help notes rpc port defaults to 8338 but this is not what the code does.
i tested friction's ixcoin update for merge mining support. to do this i set up isolated network of bitcoin, ixcoin, i0coin, namecoin and devcoin. mining on this network at a lowered difficulty for test purposes generated a block on all the coins, including ixcoin. i believe the new client to be safe for merge mining from this test.
I'm sure the colored coin people feel just like the counter party people.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Thoughts about risks/rewards? If you think it's a good idea, how much more time do you think to wait on Thomas before thinking about going ahead with it in his absence?
I've never waited on Thomas, I figured he was either out of the loop or powerless.
I'm waiting on them.
I'm still waiting for that bounty. Still waiting....
I guess these are the best bounties you can get from Nasakioto
I'm sure the colored coin people feel just like the counter party people.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Thoughts about risks/rewards? If you think it's a good idea, how much more time do you think to wait on Thomas before thinking about going ahead with it in his absence?
I've never waited on Thomas, I figured he was either out of the loop or powerless.
I'm waiting on them.
I'm still waiting for that bounty. Still waiting....
I'm sure the colored coin people feel just like the counter party people.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Thoughts about risks/rewards? If you think it's a good idea, how much more time do you think to wait on Thomas before thinking about going ahead with it in his absence?
Thomas who?
Are there two?
Thomas the "Twin".
do you think it is a trick?
What? Which part? Expand, please.
I'm sure the colored coin people feel just like the counter party people.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Having to deal with snobby, clueless Bitcoin millionaires and an even more clueless bureaucratic foundation.
And not to mention the constant bad press and bad "actors" destroying Bitcoin's image.
Man, if only these new technologies had a coin just like Bitcoin, a Twin, one also ultra secure [just like Bitcoin] to build their technologies on, that would be a miracle and an amazing discovery.
Thoughts about risks/rewards? If you think it's a good idea, how much more time do you think to wait on Thomas before thinking about going ahead with it in his absence?
I've never waited on Thomas, I figured he was either out of the loop or powerless.
I'm waiting on them.
Jump to: