In absence of further donations and suggestions, I will decide to use that 0.25 BTC for a new blockchain explorer.
Regards
Thanks Deadsea! Sorry I haven't been of much help lately. Too much Kool-Aid. lol
Appreciate your consistency.
Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 39. (Read 631736 times)
In absence of further donations and suggestions, I will decide to use that 0.25 BTC for a new blockchain explorer.
Regards
Thanks Deadsea! Sorry I haven't been of much help lately. Too much Kool-Aid. lol
Appreciate your consistency.
I've confirmed that CEX.io is still mining at the moment. Although they shouldn't need to mine just to let people withdraw funds, but that what they said. They didn't say if they caused the hash rate drop.
Mining ensures blocks move, so that transfers can take place on the blockchain. Without blocks moving withdraws on blockchain would look to the users as if they are not happening.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
I realize we need some miners to keep transactions moving. I just don't know why CEX.io has to keep mining. With iXcoin's 2 week difficulty re-target time and since CEX.io controls so much of iXcoin's hash rate, I would think they would be winding down by now. It may take them 1 or 2 months to completely wind down without locking up iXcoin's block chain.
you could have 0 reward stake transactions though i believe so essentially the same thing
Stake coins tend to mint new coins though, whereas IXCoins main claim to fame is that it already minted all its coins thus it shows us what happens when minting runs out.
IXCoin needs to keep going despite minting no new coins, in order to show that coins that over time mint less and less coins are able to kep on going beyond the point where the minting stops entirely.
This might mean we need more actual transactions, so that there will be plenty of transaction fees for miners, and of course the higher the price per coin the more actual vlue those transactions fes will add up to.
It also might be the case that in order for merged mined coins to work well once they reach the end of their minting period the folks who actually use the things will need to be running mining hardware themselves, al doing their little part toward securing the coins they use. Weren't there rumours that higher-efficiency mining chips were coming along someday, maybe with solar power too, so mining could become more distributed again?
-MarkM-
IXCoin needs to keep going despite minting no new coins, in order to show that coins that over time mint less and less coins are able to kep on going beyond the point where the minting stops entirely.
This might mean we need more actual transactions, so that there will be plenty of transaction fees for miners, and of course the higher the price per coin the more actual vlue those transactions fes will add up to.
It also might be the case that in order for merged mined coins to work well once they reach the end of their minting period the folks who actually use the things will need to be running mining hardware themselves, al doing their little part toward securing the coins they use. Weren't there rumours that higher-efficiency mining chips were coming along someday, maybe with solar power too, so mining could become more distributed again?
-MarkM-
nope it doesnt
Ahmed, does the 9.x update that you worked on have any CLTV op code?
As per this conversation with CIYAM, merge mined coins that support this CLTV op code have a good chance of doing "atomic" transactions with bitcoin. Or atleast are on the right path.
Apparently litecoin is going down this road. http://blog.litecoin.org/2015/12/litecoin-core-v01040.html
Hmmm, i wonder what the status of the other merge mined coins is?
That is going to come down to if and when they implement the new CLTV op code (previously OP_NOP2) as per Bitcoin and now Litecoin.
To a fair extent I think this is where the Litecoin project has been very smart - by staying so up-to-date with Bitcoin they will be able to take advantage of such new kinds of scripts probably before any other alts can.
As per this conversation with CIYAM, merge mined coins that support this CLTV op code have a good chance of doing "atomic" transactions with bitcoin. Or atleast are on the right path.
Apparently litecoin is going down this road. http://blog.litecoin.org/2015/12/litecoin-core-v01040.html
Hmmm, i wonder what the status of the other merge mined coins is?
My main interest though is in getting this tech into bitcoin merge mined coins. You mentioned that litecoin would be possible but a little tricky to implement.
With what you have now, is it possible for ixcoin, i0, dev, or namecoin to implement this?
With what you have now, is it possible for ixcoin, i0, dev, or namecoin to implement this?
That is going to come down to if and when they implement the new CLTV op code (previously OP_NOP2) as per Bitcoin and now Litecoin.
To a fair extent I think this is where the Litecoin project has been very smart - by staying so up-to-date with Bitcoin they will be able to take advantage of such new kinds of scripts probably before any other alts can.
a stake coin would not be so bad on the other hand and a hard fork rather than a shitty swap is doable imo ( i could do it at the right price)
What did you have in mind?
a stake coin would not be so bad on the other hand and a hard fork rather than a shitty swap is doable imo ( i could do it at the right price)
Which would be a great way to destroy mobile devices.
Even laptops are typically not robust enough to make reasonable mining devices.
The kind of coin to use for something like that would be ones that do not use Proof of Work, since such devices cannot reasonably be expected to do any serious work.
-MarkM-
Even laptops are typically not robust enough to make reasonable mining devices.
The kind of coin to use for something like that would be ones that do not use Proof of Work, since such devices cannot reasonably be expected to do any serious work.
-MarkM-
what youve described is just simple cpu mining but on mobiles
Mining ensures blocks move, so that transfers can take place on the blockchain. Without blocks moving withdraws on blockchain would look to the users as if they are not happening.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
We've been planning to stop IXC mining on December, 1st, according to the following schedule: http://blog.cex.io/news/altcoins-removal-and-multipool-suspension-14762
However, some of our users need to withdraw IXC. Therefore, we have enabled mining, just for them to withdraw the funds. At the moment, we cannot tell, when the mining will be ultimately turned off.
However, some of our users need to withdraw IXC. Therefore, we have enabled mining, just for them to withdraw the funds. At the moment, we cannot tell, when the mining will be ultimately turned off.
I've confirmed that CEX.io is still mining at the moment. Although they shouldn't need to mine just to let people withdraw funds, but that what they said. They didn't say if they caused the hash rate drop.
Merry Christmas, Thomas!
Yours truly,
Galileo
Thanks for alerting us Cinnamon, maybe it was just some daemon maintenance over at MMpool or something like that that caused the stoppage you noticed.
There was a crash on the merge mining bitcoin daemon and the pool switched over to a backup merge mine with less coins until it was fixed. It may have been this. It would surprise me though since mmpool seems to have a very low share of the hash rate. It only has 2 out of 120 immature blocks at the moment which is <2% of the hashrate of the coin.What client version are people using for mining at the moment? What is the canonical repository that has tested merge mining?
I started a new thread to better organize some of the iXcoin information since our websites are currently in disarray.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ixc-ixcoin-bitcoins-twin-brother-1250445
I listed 0.9.3a as the latest version. What I'm not clear on is which version SHOULD we be using for mining. It should be 100% compatible with the older 0.3.24.3 version so we don't fork the network, which F2pool already did a few months back (see macbook-air's comments https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12056074).
My best guess is 0.9.3a should be our target mining client since this has updates which F2pool recommended.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12077057
If CEX.io is dropping out then we may be in our best position to date to transition to 0.9.x.
Yeah, running okay I guess, I now wonder though how many blocks it takes to change the difficulty. Maybe this coin somehow did not get the faster-than-bitcoin's difficulty adaptiveness that I thought most merged mined coins all got at around the same epoch long ago.
The later clients most likely have the faster-than-bitcoin's difficulty adaptiveness, but most miners still use a four year old client, 0.3.24.3. That's why getting miners to upgrade was at the top of my list for iXcoin priorities. The trick is finding a newer client which won't fork the block chain. Which would be best for this transition? Which version is well tested for mining?
Thanks for alerting us Cinnamon, maybe it was just some daemon maintenance over at MMpool or something like that that caused the stoppage you noticed.
There was a crash on the merge mining bitcoin daemon and the pool switched over to a backup merge mine with less coins until it was fixed. It may have been this. It would surprise me though since mmpool seems to have a very low share of the hash rate. It only has 2 out of 120 immature blocks at the moment which is <2% of the hashrate of the coin.What client version are people using for mining at the moment? What is the canonical repository that has tested merge mining?
Okay I just checked again: getinfo said "blocks" : 294884, date output was Thu Dec 24 07:36:19 AST 2015, difficulty unchanged.
So 92 blocks in about 16 or so hours, should be 6 blocks per hour but maybe running at closer to 5.75 blocks per hour.
Yeah, running okay I guess, I now wonder though how many blocks it takes to change the difficulty. Maybe this coin somehow did not get the faster-than-bitcoin's difficulty adaptiveness that I thought most merged mined coins all got at around the same epoch long ago.
Thanks for alerting us Cinnamon, maybe it was just some daemon maintenance over at MMpool or something like that that caused the stoppage you noticed.
It is good to have any problems pointed out, especially when they turn out not to be fatal of course since that way this indefatiguable coin gets yet more colourful history on file of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that it has waded through in its long and illustrious career and still keeps going and going and going...
Of course it would be nice to be on more merged mining pools so that any problems at one doesn't make such steep difference in block speed.
-MarkM-
So 92 blocks in about 16 or so hours, should be 6 blocks per hour but maybe running at closer to 5.75 blocks per hour.
Yeah, running okay I guess, I now wonder though how many blocks it takes to change the difficulty. Maybe this coin somehow did not get the faster-than-bitcoin's difficulty adaptiveness that I thought most merged mined coins all got at around the same epoch long ago.
Thanks for alerting us Cinnamon, maybe it was just some daemon maintenance over at MMpool or something like that that caused the stoppage you noticed.
It is good to have any problems pointed out, especially when they turn out not to be fatal of course since that way this indefatiguable coin gets yet more colourful history on file of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that it has waded through in its long and illustrious career and still keeps going and going and going...
Of course it would be nice to be on more merged mining pools so that any problems at one doesn't make such steep difference in block speed.
-MarkM-
indeed it is
Spot on.
Actually if the bigger pools have now dropped ixcoin it may give us a good opportunity to get the miners upgraded. Although the block chain not moving is a concern. What is the difficulty retarget time period for version 0.3.24.3, if that's the current client driving the mining? If memory serves it is two weeks.
Although I'm still convinced atomic transaction are needed for survival.
Actually if the bigger pools have now dropped ixcoin it may give us a good opportunity to get the miners upgraded. Although the block chain not moving is a concern. What is the difficulty retarget time period for version 0.3.24.3, if that's the current client driving the mining? If memory serves it is two weeks.
Although I'm still convinced atomic transaction are needed for survival.
Block chain is moving well again.
2)
The future of ix --
What many people predicted for a long time appears to have happened.
no block solved in almost 48 hours.
With difficulty north of 700 million will take at least a dozen petahash to move the chain normally.
Anything less has the potential to move the chain slowly.
Again you seem to be alarmist on this matter. A couple hours or maybe three or so hours ago I did getinfo in my IXCoin client and saw "blocks" : 294789, with "difficulty" : 727496767.26042449, and admitedly maybe half an hour or so later I saw no change so thought you might have a point, but I just came back to that terminal and checked again and see "blocks" : 294792, without any change in the difficulty.
So maybe it takes more than three blocks to change difficulty, but there is evidently no cause at all for panic as despite the difficulty three blocks moved already.
I just checked again and see block has not changed again yet, so did date command. with output of Wed Dec 23 15:39:20 AST 2015, so I can see actual time elapsed when I check again later, instead of relying on my admittedly not very good subjective concept of elapsed time...
-MarkM-
Jump to: