Yea im not going to agree. satoshi put in the work in getting BTC going. Thomas hasnt
Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 76. (Read 631747 times)
This is exactly why I argued that we need to hold on to the remaining iXcoin Premine:
RT @petertoddbtc: So The Bitcoin Foundation is almost bankrupt, and @olivierjanss wants to see dev work crowdfunded instead. https://t.co/YuCdMD61dy
I have seen Bitcoin core devs work for free while their idol, Satoshi, sits on a million Bitcoins.
Next time someone wants to complain about the Premine they should compare that fact to the huge bounties being paid out for the last 4 years, by Thomas Nasakioto!
sigh. the ixc comes off the open market by trading the coins mined for BTC then that BTC for IXC
Ahmed
Ahmed
So who would be providing the IXC for your pool to use as payouts?
Not me. I only own 50,000 iXCoins now, hardly enough to pay out any miners.
Essentially yes. IXC has no current block reward so people mining IXC wouldnt get anything. What we'd be doing is mining other coins and gradually exchanging them for IXC (people can choose to keep specific coins)
Ahmed
Given there are no more blocks to mine for ixc, that would mean payouts to miners of other coins would have to come from current IXC holders.
If you look at the current iXcoin market, there are very few sellers. I just don't see any regular selling for such a mining scheme given most ixc holders will not sell their coins as has been evident for quite some time now.
So who would be providing the IXC for your pool to use as payouts?
hoping to review some iX issues this weekend, it was brought to my attention that iX coin is active again for deposit and withdraw on Cryptsy's exchange.
Well it'd inflate the price a bit. But on the sha ports when mining POW coins. You can merge-mine IXC. I've been doing that with terracoin although only found dvc and i0c blocks so far
Ahmed
Ahmed
Essentially yes. IXC has no current block reward so people mining IXC wouldnt get anything. What we'd be doing is mining other coins and gradually exchanging them for IXC (people can choose to keep specific coins)
Ahmed
Given there are no more blocks to mine for ixc, that would mean payouts to miners of other coins would have to come from current IXC holders.
If you look at the current iXcoin market, there are very few sellers. I just don't see any regular selling for such a mining scheme given most ixc holders will not sell their coins as has been evident for quite some time now.
What do you guys think of using a mining pool which will pay out in IXC?
Ahmed
Ahmed
Is this a way to essentially add an artificial block reward back, and ensure continued IXC support from the miners using your pool? Interesting concept, but I don't quite understand how it would work. Would you pay out in IXC even if someone is mining a different coin? Cause if they are mining IXC wouldn't you generally pay out in IXC anyway? (Forgive me if it's a dumb question, but I don't mine.)
Essentially yes. IXC has no current block reward so people mining IXC wouldnt get anything. What we'd be doing is mining other coins and gradually exchanging them for IXC (people can choose to keep specific coins)
Ahmed
OK but wouldn't you be incetivizing people to NOT mine IXC? They would need to mine a different coin to get IXC payouts. Unless you require that they mine IXC in addition to their other coin of choice to get IXC as a payout. That might work. You may have a new mining schema for coins which are mined out. IXC is breaking new ground here.
What do you guys think of using a mining pool which will pay out in IXC?
Ahmed
Ahmed
Is this a way to essentially add an artificial block reward back, and ensure continued IXC support from the miners using your pool? Interesting concept, but I don't quite understand how it would work. Would you pay out in IXC even if someone is mining a different coin? Cause if they are mining IXC wouldn't you generally pay out in IXC anyway? (Forgive me if it's a dumb question, but I don't mine.)
Essentially yes. IXC has no current block reward so people mining IXC wouldnt get anything. What we'd be doing is mining other coins and gradually exchanging them for IXC (people can choose to keep specific coins)
Ahmed
A good idea would be to include adaptive block sizes inside IXCoin so we can not have the same issues BTC has
Are you refering to what LukeJr has been touting for Bitcoin, to let the miners decide the size of the OP_RETURN? Even so, the devs would want to code an upper limit to prevent attacks that intentially bloat the block chain.
Nope. If youve been keeping up with bitcoin lately theres been talk of gavin wanting to upgrade block sizes from 1MB to 10MB. Essentially we'd use an average over the last X blocks to calculate the max size of the block. Which we could do every 10K blocks or so.
What do you guys think of using a mining pool which will pay out in IXC?
Ahmed
Ahmed
Is this a way to essentially add an artificial block reward back, and ensure continued IXC support from the miners using your pool? Interesting concept, but I don't quite understand how it would work. Would you pay out in IXC even if someone is mining a different coin? Cause if they are mining IXC wouldn't you generally pay out in IXC anyway? (Forgive me if it's a dumb question, but I don't mine.)
A good idea would be to include adaptive block sizes inside IXCoin so we can not have the same issues BTC has
Are you refering to what LukeJr has been touting for Bitcoin, to let the miners decide the size of the OP_RETURN? Even so, the devs would want to code an upper limit to prevent attacks that intentially bloat the block chain.
What do you guys think of using a mining pool which will pay out in IXC?
Ahmed
Ahmed
WOW, huge 45,000 IXC block just got dumped on Cryptsy.
That's a very rare event. I wonder who would do such a thing? Maybe a trader who bought at 5,000 sat last month and took the quick profit.
What a bad time to be broke [again].
The noise about holders not offering bounties etc is mostly just noise, partly because there is a huge kitty already set aside for that from the start and partly because the coins are so ridiculously cheap that (a) it would take a ridiculous number of them to make a dollar-amount bounty interesting to not-actually-inherently-interested coders etc and (b) anyone actually interested can buy up vast quantities dirt cheap.
Basically anyone who wants to can buy a massive number then improve the coin or its ecosystem to increase the value of their holdings.
Meanwhile others have a hard enough time just eating all the dumped coins cheap to try to keep the price going too far down, giving them away to not actually interested coders etc would most likely just end up seeing the coins re-dumped by those uninterested coders etc thus undermining the buyers' attempts at keeping the buy-side orderbook upheld.
-MarkM-
Basically anyone who wants to can buy a massive number then improve the coin or its ecosystem to increase the value of their holdings.
Meanwhile others have a hard enough time just eating all the dumped coins cheap to try to keep the price going too far down, giving them away to not actually interested coders etc would most likely just end up seeing the coins re-dumped by those uninterested coders etc thus undermining the buyers' attempts at keeping the buy-side orderbook upheld.
-MarkM-
Thank you very much for that post, Mark.
A good idea would be to include adaptive block sizes inside IXCoin so we can not have the same issues BTC has
Is there any reason ix cannot raise it from 80 to 520 bytes? I thought we could do that due to having empty blocks now.
Any advantage over bitcoin would be great. I would even go higher to 1040 if it were possible.
To prevent bloat I thought it was already decided to add a mandatory fee of .001, just like Bitcoin. That's a minuscule fee but it should prevent spam.
And what happened to GroundRod? He was doing such good work and now nothing.
My input is to leave OP_RETURN at 80 bytes until we need it higher. Once the block chain gets bloated it will be hard to reverse the affects.
The noise about holders not offering bounties etc is mostly just noise, partly because there is a huge kitty already set aside for that from the start and partly because the coins are so ridiculously cheap that (a) it would take a ridiculous number of them to make a dollar-amount bounty interesting to not-actually-inherently-interested coders etc and (b) anyone actually interested can buy up vast quantities dirt cheap.
Basically anyone who wants to can buy a massive number then improve the coin or its ecosystem to increase the value of their holdings.
Meanwhile others have a hard enough time just eating all the dumped coins cheap to try to keep the price going too far down, giving them away to not actually interested coders etc would most likely just end up seeing the coins re-dumped by those uninterested coders etc thus undermining the buyers' attempts at keeping the buy-side orderbook upheld.
-MarkM-
Basically anyone who wants to can buy a massive number then improve the coin or its ecosystem to increase the value of their holdings.
Meanwhile others have a hard enough time just eating all the dumped coins cheap to try to keep the price going too far down, giving them away to not actually interested coders etc would most likely just end up seeing the coins re-dumped by those uninterested coders etc thus undermining the buyers' attempts at keeping the buy-side orderbook upheld.
-MarkM-
The fee structure i was planning on sticking with what we currently use. I'm not 100% sure when it'll be done. Might be a few weeks.
Ahmed
Ahmed
Jump to: