Topic: New Ixcoin fork -> I0coin - page 2. (Read 217119 times)

3 times dead and still going means it likely unkillable.

met 80 PTH v 10 PTH at that point who cares?

You mean besides the 3 times i0Coin died?

And the fact iXcoin is much more secure at nearly 80 Peta Hash?

Other than that, it's better than IXC. 

Joking Around guys, I see your point but it looks like some very powerful people have already chosen iXcoin.  Maybe it's time to join the VladFest.

Cheers!

well its attracted Vlad to comment!

More seriously though it offers all the benefits of IXC with none of the negatives.

How is the overtake prediction working out for you guys?

The i0Coin devs forgot to embed special hidden Aramaic meanings.  lol, that's iXcoin's real secret weapon.

 
Edit:  i0Coin doesn't even have a block explorer?  Sad.

Well for what it's worth we added i0Coin to AllCrypt.com - tho a thread with no posts for almost 2 months doesn't bode well for it sticking around...

this coin will overtake ixcoin as it has all the benefits none of the premine

No way. It is back on Bitparking's mmpool merged mining pool since a while back when it was the first of the merged mined coins to get a fix for a RAM hogging problem that all merged mined coins would ultimately have come up against.

It is also on at least one exchange: Vircurex.

-MarkM-

So is this coin dead ?

wow what do you think about this comment now?

my blockexplorer isnt really kept up to date as its an older version and i have to find a fix for the HD trashing... take a look @ the last block and you see only DVC is actually up to date.

EDIT: namecoin started again, this wont trash my HD so hard

I did not see that yet. Maybe running out of ram screwed up my valgrind results?  Though I don't even see anything in CheckBlock, in the version I have, that allocates memory off hand.    What assumptions are being made?    CheckBlock also is called regardless of mm being on or not,  it would not explain the rapid growth in memory usage once the mm blocks are hit would it?  Hopefully I can get a new computer soon and actually run i0coin again to get better data.

BTW, could you add block size to the information shown on your blockexporer?

according to valgrind every CheckBlock creates 1+ leak, no matter if you mined it or someone else. ive only saw this so far in i0coin
using the basic tools for debugging before assumptions is a good idea

leveldb will not,   some other changes done at the same time will help.   However I am still unconvinced i0coin having memleaks is the root cause of the issue.  I think it is an issue that is present in at least some of the mm patches.   I noticed that at the point that the mm kicks in, the memory usage starts to grow at the rate of about 10x per block as it did before the mm kicks in.

Additionally, I think the same behavior is in nmc test. I also see evidence of it in coiledcoin, and groupcoin.   I think the reason we don't see it for devcoin and nmc, is that the major pools for these form their blocks outside of the *coind codes logic.

http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=972

I just don't have the tools and resources locally set up to dig into this further, and was unable to find a good enough online block explorer to do so.  Since I am pretty much out of disk space on my laptop, it is going to be awhile till I can get back into digging into this, so hopefully someone else can beat me to it.



Are you sure of this?


Why are you so sure it is a memleak?   I think it is simply due to the issue above with mm, and the  number of blocks i0 has compared to the other chains.  dns lookup crap is due to it using ntp internally to enforce shorter windows of timestamps.   I know I used to advocate for a nontp option at least so on systems already keeping good time (running ntp already for example), all this crap can be turned off, and stop the load on the ntp public servers, and network use that is unneeded etc.

Yes it will, because those memleaks are not in bitcoin nor in the merged mining patches.

They are due to some stupid pointless garbage hack or other, or even just a typo or something, in I0Coin, if they exist at all.

All that I0Coin itself really is is a name, a magic handshake bytes set, an IRC channel or collection of IRC channels, a couple of default ports, a difficulty adjustment routine, a block number at which merged mining started, and a block subsidy schedule.

So we take a fully working nice up to date merged mined coin, and change the name, ports, IRC channel, etc etc and presto,a new incarnation of I0Coin but this time without putting stupid memleaks crap into it nor stupid DNS lookup crap into it nor any other useless or damaging crap into it.

However, it might still need shitloads of memory, because even the latest bitcoin code keeps all unspent outputs in RAM I think, and I0Coin likely has a massive number of tiny unspent outputs thanks to a period in which someone was spamming it with "dust" transactions.

-MarkM-

this wont fix i0coin, i0coin has a huge amount of memleaks...

Yes

Are you really making me go through my old HDDs to find my i0coin wallets? (which were surely empty btw)

I'm currently in the process of fixing the memory leak / various other issues and reviving i0coin.

Stay tuned.

+1

After using leveldb in bitcoin, the thrashing my disk took bootstrapping all the merged mining chains was embarrassing.

I am hoping that both I0Coin and GeistGeld might be a lot more amenable once the "Mergecoin" repo is ready and all the merged mined coins use it to update themselves to recent bitcoin code.

-MarkM-