Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 75. (Read 631747 times)

Thanks for your input and clarification mmpool, it's good to have a guy like you on this thread.

Cheers!

Tell me something from the point of view of a massive mining pool (assuming you had one) - would you and if so why, continue mining a coin like IXC long after it stopped paying out anything?  Keeping in mind that IXC is not a popular coin and nor is it seen as a positive coin in the crypto world and in fact most see it as a scam premine coin.

Would you continue mining it if you had one of the biggest pools on earth and if so why?

Much appreciated...

I can only speak to my pool and the experiences for that.

This depends on how the merge mining is implemented. In mmpool's case all found blocks are first submitted to the bitcoin node as normal, and then checked against the other coins. This ensures there is no inefficiency against bitcoin, at a possible loss of efficiency for the alt coins.

The main inefficiency is the extra memory, disk space and processing load required by the extra coin daemons. There is also maintenance cost dealing with daemon crashes and hangs. DVC is problematic in that it is an old client and downloads additional files occasionally for computing the coin distribution to the open source contributors that it pays. Running extra coins can definitely be a pain.

Then can you explain why CEX went through all that trouble to remove i0coin and DVC [but not IXC?  After-all, those coins at least provide some sort of subsidy whereas iXCoin does not.

And isn't it also true that with each added merge mined coin you add inefficiencies, costing you Bitcoins?  You may not use up extra cycles but you are definitely losing Bitcoins due to inefficiencies resulting from each added merge mined coin.  

Which explains why CEX did in fact go through the trouble of removing i0 and DVC while leaving only NMC and iXCoin.

I imagine these inefficiencies become extremely costly when you're mining 40% of all the Bitcoins in the world, like CEX currently is.  So there must be a very good reason why CEX.io/Ghash.io continues to mine ixCoin so long after iXCoin stopped paying out any sort of reward.

Why would you be giving up potentially thousands of Bitcoins per month just to secure a totally unknown and forgotten ShitCoin nobody cares about?  

Riddle me that!

It's easier to keep ixcoin in the pool than remove it in terms of destabilizing something that is already working. Although my pool is a low hash rate I'm still happy to test any clients for merge mining code as I've done in the past - and to update the pool with new versions that work. There's little overhead in running and maintaining coins that the pool already has mining.

The sample of c++ from the main.cpp file Sunny is commenting on here is from the 3.x codebase of iX.

While many clients on the network say this is the code they are running I do not see that it is possible this code is currently what is deployed on the IX network right now.  Sunny King's statements were accurate at the time. There could be many reasons for this which I will not speculate on as I see no reason to.

If the 3.x code is what the backbone of the network is running right now there is no way that each block produces .01 iX even if there are no  transactions in the block.  The nSubsidy is currently zero and unless a block contains one or multiple transactions the fees (nFees as in the source code) would be zero or would be different each block depending on how the transaction was sent.  For example Vlad and did some tests last week and were easily able to send iX setting the fee down to as low as .0000005 iX..... 

So the subsidy has stopped but the code being used right now has hardcoded .01 per block fees + tx fees.

This means Sunny Kings statements were correct at the time he made them but are niether correct or incorrect now since the code was changed after mining stopped from the 3.x to whatever is being run now. 

To me and a few others this has been obvious for months but I felt I would mention it since what I see as obvious may not be as clear to others.

i doubt Sunny had anything to do with it...

That's not Roger Ver saying that, it's some newbie.

I see no evidence to support this at all.

And Sunny King is one of the best coders in Crypto World, not someone who would pay huge iXcoin bounties to do a simple copy and paste code update.

Well finally, thats settled 

Someone wants to make it very obvious that the other merge mined coins [except for NMC] have no chance of surviving; thus, making a big statement that iXcoin is being protected.

It is interesting as far as Hal's middle name and the timing of the iXCoin launch.  And one would expect a scientific mind to launch a test coin to see how Bitcoin will mature even if it was just out of sheer curiosity.

But I too have serious doubts.  It would be so hard for Hal to keep it a total secret for so long and it's too good to be true.

Personally I doubt Hal is the creator of iX

Makes sense Vlad.

Technically Hal didn't die, may God rest his soul, he is cryo-chillin at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Interesting place to build a cryogenic facility by the way, Arizona desert...

In an interview, Hal said his son [i believe] was computer savvy.

So it would be easy to hand down the account. 

And it would explain the super secretive rarely ever posting nature of Thomas where he only posts a few times per year and went 2 years without posting once.

IXC is 2nd alt-coin in the world, and 2nd most secure, only 10 days after NameCoin, born April 29th, 2011.

Thomas mined alone 3 months so people think the coin launched in August.

And Thomas said the coin was ready to launch earlier but they purposely delayed it.  But he never said why.

Looking at the poor grammar and design of the website and how he tried to buy up all the IXC, I would say he didn't want to be the first alt cause it would have been too much [positive attention], something Thomas worked hard to avoid.

To this day not a single article has ever been written about IXC.  Even when I got CEX.io to join iXCoin, who at the time was biggest mining pool on earth who 51'd Bitcoin, we still couldn't get a single article and I personally wrote Perianne Boring and other journalists.  

The lack of coverage for IXC for 4 years now, is as mysterious as many other unexplained things about iXcoin and its founder.

if hal finney was really ixcoin's creator. You'd think he'd have put work in bettering IXC. or perhaps just being the first altcoin. Not the 5/6th in the line

If Thomas was Hal, how is he still around after Hal died?

Someone inherited or hacked the forum account?

-MarkM-

Is there any real proof of this?  Would be very interesting.

I was hoping that was the answer.  So, yes, I like the idea for IXC payouts.

Good point but 1 million BTC just sitting there makes no sense at all.

And maybe Thomas can't code; hence the large bounties he has paid out.

And he still participated....once in a [long] while.