Topic: New Ixcoin fork -> I0coin - page 27. (Read 217119 times)

I don't think one or more exchanges set the value (community members that use the exchange platforms do) and the disappearance of one or more (or all) of the exchanges has any affiliation with actual worth or valuation.  Instead the disappearance of one or more *coin-holding community members have affiliation with actual worth or valuation.  Putting pressure or blame towards those one or more exchanges (which are not the source for the items exchanged) seems like a misdirected effort.

I provided information on why it's closing down. I provided information about the double spend attempts on the i0coin block chain. The ixcoin chain has the same problems - it has a low hash rate and has no one maintaining the chain software to provide fixes. The risk is to great for the exchange to operate in this environment. If you want the chain to succeed and exchanges to open then you need to do something about encouraging more people mining and more usage of the coin.  

Others in the forum here have indicated that other exchanges may open to facilitate trade in these coins. You may not be holding worthless coins you may just have to wait for another exchange. You could even operate one yourself or do 'over the counter' trades in forums and IRC. If you're worried that your coins are worthless do something about it and make them worth something.

I've invested over 5000 US$ in hardware and electricity for mining Bitcoins and some money buying Bitcoins. Then i've deposited all my hard mtgox-earned and mined Bitcoins plus my mined Ixcoins on http://ixchange.bitparking.com for trading.
Now, the exchange suddenly closed and i have some Bitcoins and many worthless Ixcoins.
What do you think how i'm feeling now?
No rollback, no real information about what's going on? No excuse, just shutting down, telling that someone has stolen money, bla bla...
This looks like a mafia... introducing Bitcoin forks, opening exchanges, collecting trading fees, making big profit, then shutting down, and bye...

Since the last three weeks the Ixcoin value was rapidly falling, because some people sold all their Ixcoins at any price... hmmm...

Think about it!

I have not asked or imposed on anyone to cover my losses. The withdrawal fee has always been there. Users of the exchange were able to see the fee and choose to deposit or not knowing that there's a fee to withdraw. That fee is solely there to cover the network transaction fee for sending and receiving coins. Knowing a fee exists the risk is upon the user that if circumstances require them to withdraw they need to pay that fee.

In a previous comment you raise an analogy of early termination charges on insurance policies. The withdrawal fee here is not an 'early termination' fee. It's a fee to cover what the bitcoin network charges for transferring money and has been charged always - whether 'terminating early' or not.

You are making it sound like I'm charging a fee to recoup losses. This is not the case.

I'm perfectly willing to give him a break. The issue is him compelling other people who might not feel so generous to also give him a break. It's perfectly fine to open a business to help the community, but you can't then turn around and insist that individual members of that community turn around and help you out. He can certainly *ask* the community to help him cover his losses. However, it is wrong for him to compel them to or to impose his losses on others.

The balance of the accounts within the exchange are stored in a database, not the block chain. So when a double spend occurs, the other end of the trade still gets the BTC updated in the database. The exchange itself is short the money but the trader is not. I have made good on the losses. The exchange was structured to minimize any loss (compared to the entire BTC balance the exchange held) knowing that I'd be covering it.

Thanks for the service DoubleC.  We've traded BTC together and I've used his exchange.  The 5 cent transaction fee for withdrawals is trivial, and people could leave their coins there is they wanted.  No one promised they would be worth any thing.

I think I have his BTC address on my email somewhere to donate to.  Anyone want to buy some potentially worthless i0coins?  Possibly becoming a collectors item (lol)

We're not dealing with create-out-of-thin-air-fiat-currency-to-cover-losses-in-guise-of-insurance exchanges/banks.

In the case of mtgox losing money (several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoins, maybe a million or more, as of yet still kept secret/private by mtgox), mtgox was able to continue because of their transaction fees that generate us$20,000-us$100,000 profit in bitcoins per month and using those profits to cover their losses (which technically if everyone withdrew their money from mtgox, it would be clearly obvious mtgox had insufficient funds, but this didn't happen and mtgox has had (and still has) opportunity to account for losses in this way.

bitomat was unable to endure similar experiences since the exchange had free transactions.

bitparking seemingly has similar opportunity as mtgox has had (and continues to have) in which continued profit from transaction fees could be used to compensate users for their losses, however, in this particular case, the technological p2p cryptocurrency implementations are still vulnerable to provide a safe, reliable exchange market, whereas in case of mtgox, bitcoin did not noticeably suffer from such vulnerabilities as of yet.  Therefore, this added issue resulting in bitparking to continue offering services in the exact same exchange markets may prevent its opportunity to compensate users for their losses by using funding generated from continued transaction fees and instead would rely on using funding from other sources.


And then when that happens, all bitcoin exchanges will probably endure similar experiences, but more devastatingly in relation to fiat currency investments.

I feel badly for doublec, and have told him that personally, as well as offered the few crumbs that are left in my accounts to offset the losses. I was speaking more to a gesture, turning off the automatic fees would be a measure of courtesy to those who have to pull everything out, regardless of how trivial the amounts is to some, a courtesy that might offset some of the surprise at having the only legit exchange for alt/cryptos go under overnight.

And in faireness- how did doublec lose "200 btc" already? It was stolen from the exchange by double spending, so it was actually stolen from those traders who were on the other side of the transaction that was cancelled on the double spend, unless doublec has guaranteed their accounts and made good on the losses.

Sucks to be in the Wild West phase of growth for this thing, but this is the era that creates the barons, the robber barons, and the robbers. You want upside, you will see proportional downside.

We're talking about 0.01 btc and 0.01 i0c here. That's like 5 cents for bitcoin withdrawal and nearly nothing for i0c withdrawal. It's nothing for each user but adds up if doublec has to pay for it all. He's lost ~200 btc already trying to do this community a favor. Please give him a break.

I never bothered to get my own ixcoin and i0coin wallets. Are there any web wallets or other services that can hold my IXC and I0C for me while I wait for them to become worthless?

It does make sense to turn it off, since you are compelling people to withdraw. It's not really fair to tell people "you must withdraw all your coins" and at the same time charge them a fee for doing so. Consider a person who just deposited some funds, who now must withdraw them an incur a fee and who gets nothing for his funds.

This is the risk you assumed, and which you were paid for assuming, when you opened an exchange.

I guess a good analogy might be a whole life insurance policy. Such a policy might have a fee associated with cashing in the policy before a particular date. But if the company is going out of business and requires everyone to cash in their policy or lose it, they should clearly waive the fee.

Um? How is NMC's lower hash rate possible to do a 51% attack on BTC based on anything below 51% of BTC?
The BTC hash-chain gets extra crap put in it for NMC when an NMC block is also a BTC block.
Otherwise, nothing happens to BTC
It doesn't suddenly change what's required to do a 51% on BTC nor does it lower in any manner or form what BTC will accept as a block.

He could start mining TB/GG since the chance of those getting attacked are pretty much nil, wouldn't you say?

I really dont understand what the hell developers are doing?
They created a new way to transfer money & after millions of dollars invested, they just going to watch & let it die.
So, as said by many that bitcoin is a scam is going to be real?

Ok. There may be a attack after 19201 due to very low hash required to do an attack.

I have some bitcoins & i am also mining bitcoins.
How i have to protect my mined coins & also the coins i am mining now & also i will be mining when nmc block hits 19201?
Bitcoin developers not going to do anything?
They just watch the attack & all innocent people who put money on bitcoin & mining loose all their money & go empty handed, bankrupt or even suicide?

Thanks for the explanation, learning a lot from you guys, I guess I need to change my username

Bitcoin is vulnerable to attacks involving a majority of computing power, yes. So is every other bitcoin-based chain. SolidCoin 2 claims to have solved it but there's no details on what they've done on that chain.

Does that mean that even Bitcoin itself is vulnerable?   But GG claims it is not vulnerable to the 51% vulnerability.  Can't Bitcoin implement what GG has done?

I'm aware of this. Why do you think I'm not? There's nothing that can be done to avoid attacks by someone with greater than 50% hashrate (with current coin designs) since they can re-write the chain at will - all they need is time.