Daniel R. Treccia
20 min readJun 21, 2018


Censorship: I0Coin, Coinmarketcap Edition (and then a critical tangent for even further revelations)

You aren’t supposed to find I0Coin easily and that was good for its security in past years — yet I do not tolerate censorship.

Coinmarketcap not only censors I0Coin, but also its very own identity — hello Watson!

As I logged onto Coinmarketcap tonight I realized that it was censoring the fact that I0Coin was doing very, very well in the last 24 hours. I believe that is because some of you are getting the message here and I applaud you. Whether its today, tomorrow, or (gulp) the end of 2018 — we have a public gem, true sleeper of all sleepers, and very valuable coin in our possession. I believe that the development team dropped hints along the road and we have had a fair chance to get in on the true root coin of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and their derivitaves. For that I thank the devs. However, censoring I0Coin’s 24 hour performance is flat out uneccessary in 2018 with 99.98% minted coins in circulation. The blockchain possesses one of the top hash rates in all crypto, and just passed its 2.5 millionth block. The funny part is I0Coin will achieve more hash power and blocks from a state reorganization to correct the transactions discussed on this blog, simply by connecting itself to all of its orphaned blocks. I0Coin runs in a circle, it connects to the origin of four quadrants if you do the math, as well as to every point on the circle where an altcoin/fork/token/etc. formed from it. Here is a quick refresher of what that looks like:

The last time Bitcoin was measured in PH/s (4 quadrants) was in January 2015, when it was likely the same coin that was know as I0Coin today. In the current state, Bitcoin is not measured in Petahash because it is likely a linear process in one quadrant. Only I0Coin is a non-stationary, circular mathematical (stochastic) process.

The graph above is just a quick explanation of how blockchain can be represented using Euler’s Formula, Euler’s Identity, and stochastic processes. I covered those in a previous entry. This graph is probably a better representation than I made in that piece as my thoughts are always forming better connections to the bigger picture. I think it is important to stress that:

  1. Measuring I0Coin in PH/s means its hash rate is measured in the 1 quadrillion(s). This is significant in that a quad is equal to four and when Euler’s Formula/Identity are represented on a graph like the one above, they show I0Coin circles around four quadrants connecting to the origin.
  2. The last measurement of Bitcoin in the PH/s (petahash/sec) was in January 2015. That tells me one thing — the current I0Coin we have today was also directly mined as Bitcoin and that is reflected in its hash rate measure. For Bitcoin to cross all four quadrants in a circle, it would have to be an I=0 stochastic, non-stationary process — think of a circle, unconnected circle in four different quadrants, or even a spiral. At that point perhaps a disconnect was made to make both represented in four quadrants, yet I0Coin and Bitcoin were not connected directly in all places.
  3. The Bitcoin hash rate today is measured most commonly in TH/s (trillions of hashes/sec) on Blockchain.info. However, as I told you in previous articles, Bitcoin is not being directly mined. Today it is just a ledger or “bulletin board” of IOU’s to the source, I0Coin (and Ixcoin when the two combine). Thus, BTC (Bitcoin Core) is waiting for a state reorganization to correct its invalid tx’s, double spends, unspent transactions (UTXO’s), etc.
  4. I believe once I0Coin connects to IXC, ETC, ETH, BCH, etc. this will occur in one way or another. There are protocols I have discussed in 0x Protocol, Null Protocol, and even forks like BitcoinZeroX (BZX or “Bitcoin0x”) that will do plenty of reorganizing by the beginning of Q3. For all you when moon? people I get in my emails, this is my best guess where the process will begin showing dividends for I0C and IXC.

Coinmarketcap: Censoring I0Coin’s 24-hour Performance

With all of the censorship going on in crypto, from me getting kicked off Twitter for sharing the truth in my Medium articles to the Bitcoin.com report about that censorship making its way onto Medium itself, are we really surprised that Coinmarketcap is not reporting I0Coin’s performance with the other 24-hour leaders? Check out the Top 15 (taken June 20, 2018):

The question is, how many significant coins, gems, get censored when they perform well?

Now take a look at the 24-hour performance of I0Coin, taken at the exact same time as the Top 15 snapshot above:

The 24-hour volume does not meet CMC standards.

Now, you can see if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page that Coinmarketcap clarifies:

* Where Volume (24h) is at least $50,000

I would like to mention all it takes is a little bit of digging through the I0Coin ANN at Bitcointalk.org to see that I0Coin has actually been legitimately censored on Coinmarketcap before (March 13, 2016):

First image on March 13, 2016 (by Vlad2Vlad)

Vlad2Vlad actually got the coin over the $50,000 minimum and then all the way up to $87,000.

Then this happened:

Censorship, with the minimum $50,000 passed — 24-hr. volume was at $125,000.

To make things more weird, Coinmarketcap erased record of the 24-hour volume and ranked I0Coin’s market cap at 325:

Coinmarketcap-manipulation… March 13, 2016

Quote Vlad2Vlad on Bitcointalk.org:

…Just for the record!

You guys ever see anything CRAZY like this in the history of Crypto? Immediate and manual removal from the top 5 spots on Coinmarketcap!!!


So for the record, using ALL market buys, i0 hit $257,000,000 market-cap and a per coin price of $12. Surpassing my $10 prediction which I made when the coin was just 1 penny about 1 week ago.

(LINK) March 13, 2016 3:23:17 PM

I0Coin’s improvement in 24-hours was measured at over 150,000% according to Vlad2Vlad on March 13, 2016 — but it was hidden. This gives you an idea of just how quickly this coin will move once the truth or even an automatically triggered state reorganization occurs. We might as well let Vlad2Vlad sum up the lesson learned here, in relation to just how important and valuable I0Coin is (which is known by I0Coin holders):

The lesson was that even if I raised the price 150,000% and made a lot of noise, NOBODY SOLD.


This was all in 2016. I think action is about to happen to reflect the truth — the store of value in Bitcoin/I0Coin is the power/energy/electricity that has been made to produce it. That energy expenditure is processing power that is used to solve the complex algorithms/blocks/etc. to “mine” a block reward. The values are largely “unspent” and that gives way for a future spending of that money on — you guessed it — the root, the index coin(s), the I0Coin that was directly mined all along. It is the main chain of merge mining and always has been. We proved that yesterday by linking the BTC Hash 160 to the I0Coin block reward hash_160 Op-code. Once opcodes are programmed into BTC’s ledger and made compatible with I0Coin a return code will sign the transaction correctly back to I0Coin’s blockchain.

Then moon.

Reasons Why “When Moon?” = Moon Soon

Segwit2x never hard forked off of Bitcoin because Segwit2x’s explorer doesn’t recognize the tx coding.

As I write, Bitcoin Core (BTC) is at Block 528,446 on its ledger. I recently wrote a little about a BitcoinX fork in Segwit2x’s Github code for “Block 528,750”… At this rate we may see it in a day or two. Transactions have been running faster recently but I have also seen a slowing from time to time. The code does not directly claim a fork off Bitcoin Core, but I believe that actually will occur when Bitcoin Core hits 528,750 on its block explorer.

Bitcoin2x has a bug that caused it to never fork according to AndyD87 on Github.

The fork never took place at Block 501,450 according to Github user AndyD87 in the Issues section topic “Unknown. Syncing Headers 501450 #15” at Segwit2x’s official Github page. This user explains that the wallet is getting stuck at this block because Bitcoin2x peers are not connecting with the qt-client after the fork-block (501,451 and beyond). This is because after the “fork” block there are more Bitcoin Core peers connected to the client than Bitcoin2x (Segwit2x) peers. What this means is the “bug” is purely a way of saying, the hard fork never happened.

Bitcoin2x is just another chain (with less miners, but more blocks than BTC) connected to the current Bitcoin Core, which receives its block reward from Devcoin. Is this hard fork going to be a SegWit enabled, 51% attack as forewarned when the original fork was supposed to take place? Read this article to refresh your memory:

November warning about types of results from a Segwit2x hard fork. This fork will take place at BTC block 528,750 now.

Let’s go over some of the main points:

If there is a fear that has played on people’s minds as the end-of-days scenario for bitcoin, it is this. Attackers who hold more than 50% of hashing power could stop transactions from confirming and even reverse some transactions. They could undermine the whole project.

Point: Segwit2x (Bitcoin2x, BitcoinX) hard fork will lead to the reversal of BTC transactions. That is exactly what I0Coin needs and what I predict will take place to complete a state reorganization. Read my articles.

By all indication, a coordinated 51% attack will begin on, or around, Nov. 16. That’s when a consortium of miners representing substantially more than 50% of the network’s hashing power and an allied group of blockchain startups will seek to increase the block size.

Point: When the fork was originally planned, news outlet Coindesk admitted the 51% attack is a pre-planned event. I know these “attacks” are pre-planned and that the nature of it being an attack is somewhat fake news. The outcome is the same in both the fake news and my theory. The outcome is a return of value to I0Coin. That is the only outcome that matters.

This will require a hard fork, which while controversial, is a legitimate desire. In itself, this is not an attack.

However, the consortium’s effort has evolved beyond a simple fork. It is now being developed not simply as an effort to fork the chain, but to do so in such a way as to deliberately prevent the continued existence of the status quo chain.

Specifically, the developers involved have declined to introduce replay protection.

The 2x fork will create a situation where transactions performed on one fork, can be “replayed” on the second fork. In effect, users will have funds on both blockchains, but any transaction they perform on one blockchain could lead to a loss of funds on the other blockchain.

Point: The Segwit2x fork never took place, twice. The fork is scheduled for BTC block 528,750 and Bitcoin Core does not have replay protection. Cue the action of a state reorganization. Do not worry about “replay protection” or the logistics. Focus on the outcome. The return in value to I0Coin is triggered by this hard fork.

The preferred outcome for the consortium is that the status quo chain ceases to exist, that its transactions fail to confirm.

This is the literal definition of a 51% attack. If it sounds a bit bizarre to call the consortium’s effort an attack, that’s because it is. The consortium comprises many real supporters of bitcoin, acting in what they believe is good faith. They don’t mean to be attacking bitcoin.

Point: The transactions won’t confirm, the transactions will be awarded to the longest chain, which may seem to be Segwit2x at block 604,632 as I write. This alternate chain is being built without being a hard fork of Bitcoin Core. What the hard fork will do is turn the amount of nodes in Segwit2x’s favor because it is the longest chain. In a replay attack, hard fork of BTC from Segwit2x, the 51% attack manifests exactly how Coindesk explains it. Many people do not read open sourced code — and those who do are devs who play dumb to distract from the obvious — state reorganization will take place.

From State Reorganization to the 0x Protocol and Back to I0Coin

Segwit2x does have a block explorer. To try and predict what comes next from a Segwit2x hard fork, we should look at one of its blocks like we did with I0C, DVC, and BTC to find connections.

Segwit2x tx from current block 604,632.

The public key address is awarded 12.5 B2X with a (U) meaning unspent. This is similar to the DVC vout to BTC, which are erroneously awarded as around 12.5 “no inputs (newly generated coins)” to Bitcoin Core on Blockchain.info. The B2X public key address and the OP_hash160 for the 12.5 (u) B2X can be found on Bitcoin Core’s block explorer as well:

0 coins received… yet.

You will notice that this is just a holding place that has received 0 coins, much like the instances of ETH/ERC20 pubkeyhash’s showing up on BTC’s block explorer, but not having any coins sent to it yet. We found that in previous articles, but a good linked example I may provide is for FuturXe, a well performing token from the last 24-hours most people never heard of. First note its hash address for the smart contract on Etherscan:

Note that this is an address for a smart contract on Etherscan. It also shows up on BTC’s block explorer.

Just like B2X, the FXE token smart contract hash can be found on BTC’s blockchain.info explorer without any coins received, yet:

We also see the addition of a BTC public key address in addition to the identical BTC Hash 160 (BTC version) of the FXE smart contract address on Etherscan.

Here is a look at one transaction within that ERC20 smart contract:

TxHash looks an awful lot like the op_return script that, when enabled, returns all value to I0Coin.

There is a transaction for $1,238.34. However, lets focus on the top “TxHash” which looks identical to the OP_return code from I0Coin’s raw block data — that when enabled in BTC and now methinks ETH/ERC20/ETC contracts — returns all value back to I0Coin as discovered yesterday. I wrote:

I0Coin will be rightly credited whenever Bitcoin developers allow the op_codes to be read by Bitcoin correctly. I0Coin includes this OP_Return code which has its proof-of-ownership to these unspent Bitcoins via Devcoin Auxpow:

"OP_RETURN aa21a9ed1cb281f948723a9c0409a97f7d92accca5cf0c72ce17a12c443b8fcaa1a2e508",

OP_Return is described by Bitcoin Wiki as a “provably prunable output” and we know that I0Coin utilizes a pruned blockchain. This saves space and also is an accepted signature script for proof-of-ownership at a later date… whenever Bitcoin developers allow this Op_code to be read correctly. I0Coin is getting shafted.

So where are these FuturXe tokens going to land? I am guessing they will be called back to BTC and then back to I0Coin in a similar manner. This will prove my main theory that Bitcoin and Ethereum (all forms) are connected to the same root, Index: 0 coins — I0Coin and then Ixcoin (by merge and shared Index: 0 status).

The first input to the FXE smart contract was from address “0db364e9f67be3166fe4dce5c1473d15345fe2bb”. The BTC explorer brings up the hash as a Hash 160 with 0 coins received. The first ETH transaction in to the address is from “0e48ae8f21a9820132185d44da0236faa74e94a1” for 1 ETH on March 21, 2017. Note the extra input data “0x”:

0x Protocol is tied to FXE as well as a signature that will sign a return back to I0Coin via OP_return sig hash.

Remember the “0x Protocol” being the Ethereum response to a state reorganization in which I predicted it would reverse Ethereum (and all related) back to I0Coin as well? Well here is our first direct tie. Because we proved the Hash 160 op_script shared a BTC hash 160 with a public key we tied to auxpow rewards from DVC going to BTC as “newly generated coins” we tied how Bitcoin Core would have it’s transactions reversed back to I0Coin via merge mining rewards it rightfully earned and delayed because BTC cannot read the op_codes — yet (as explained via Zerocoin protocol).

Now comes in the 0x Protocol sign. Basically, this is the same thing. Think of the FXE smart contract TxHash as the signature that, once allowed to be read correctly, will sign back FXE to I0Coin. However, now we can also link the I0Coin op_code, op_return to the “0x” protocol because FXE received its value from a hash_160 with the “0x” input noted. To prove this input data is tied to the 0x protocol and not random data, we have to go further:

This transaction shows the (potentially) 0x Protocol linked transaction received its first input of 16.91 ETH from Shapeshift on March 16, 2017:

0x20 can also be read as “20” in both tonal and decimal.


462 DAYS AGO: Shapeshift sends 1st input to -> address which sent 1st input to FXE contract -> FXE (contains txhash to potentially enable opcode and use OP_Return sig hash to return value to I0Coin)… wow.

Next, Shapeshift’s first input:

This is Shapeshift’s first input tx, but it claims it came 30 days ago on May 21, 2018. If Shapeshift sent an input of 16.91 ETH on March 16, 2017 — 462 days ago, how is the first tx in to Shapeshift on May 30, 2018!?!?

I did say that timestamp format errors of Y2K and Y2K38 nature, in my best opinion, were a reason to create cryptocurrencies. The technology would show how to correct different coding errors for different timestamp formats and also use public crowdfunded effort by creating “cryptocurrencies” … I covered that in my first article. Who would’ve funded the effort to “fix internet coding errors in 2009? 2017?”

This input comes from address “eb6c05047f51f4031fcd6542e74042e45cd0816d” (note the 0x input added again here).

Let’s take a look at the meaning of “0x Protocol” once again. I wrote in my 0x article:

In the relayer orderbook pruning example, as soon as the order appears invalid within the pending state layer we recommend flagging it as such and to stop broadcasting it to UI/API clients. If the order becomes valid again later (e.g due to a chain re-org) it should be unshadowed and the order shown once again.

In other words, this explains how the earlier transaction which ended up sending its valley forward to the FXE smart contract is allowed to exist, but any record of the Shapeshift transaction has stopped being broadcast on the Shapeshift account through Etherscan. In this scenario, Shapeshift has only input tx’s that are not flagged by 0x protocol since May 30, 2018.

The 0x Protocol also states that this transaction could become valid again once further information, like newly found info from a pruned blockchain (I0C is pruned!) comes to light and makes the transaction valid. In other words, what we suspected now looks to be factually true — the 0x Protocol will note this transaction, 462 days ago, which gave all of its value to FXE, will now be reflected as “valid” and broadcast through a state reorganization. The txhash from FXE which looks exactly like an OP_RETURN script sig for I0C will call all of the value back through this re-broadcast, 462 day old transaction, back to I0Coin — via the 0x Protocol. We know know why the script sig has not yet triggered a return of value from FXE to its input to Shapeshift back to I0Coin…

Before we had the 0x Protocol answer this was the recap…

462 DAYS AGO: Shapeshift sends 1st input to -> address which sent 1st input to FXE contract -> FXE (contains txhash to potentially enable opcode and use OP_Return sig hash to return value to I0Coin)

Then we found the “0x” data input on the first input (being broadcast) to Shapeshift, which is only 30 days old:

30 day old tx is first input to Shapeshift (which does not come before the previous input!) therefore it does not get added ahead of FXE’s first input on March 21, 2017

Recap update:

462 DAYS AGO: Shapeshift sends 1st input to -> address which sent 1st input to FXE contract -> FXE (contains txhash to potentially enable opcode and use OP_Return sig hash to return value to I0Coin)> (unrelated transactions between March 21, 2017 and May 30, 2018) > Shapeshifts first broadcast input tx 30 days ago (which will properly be fixed by 0x Protocol and finding the correct data on I0Coin’s pruned blockchain via a state reorganization through B2X (potentially).

Read it over, it’ll make sense.

Sidenote about Shapeshift: It has history of “hacks” and corruption — making it a perfect candidate for a fake news setup and future outcomes of events similar in nature to the Segwit2x fork (which has yet to actually happen!).

Back to Segwit2x Raw Block Data

Since we found how the 0x Protocol would be triggered on Ethereum after a Bitcoin state reorganization triggered by the Segwit2x fork actually happening (at block 528,750) — lets dig more into the data B2X is currently broadcasting out.

We already noted:

  1. The public key receiving 12.5 B2X (at block 604,632) has the reward output unspent as well as linked to the BTC blockchain.info explorer with the same Hash 160 noted below in the op_code, but this address has yet to receive any input to BTC.

2. We noted the OP_RETURN code is similar to the code in I0Coin’s block reward output, which I0Coin uses to call back transactions from both Bitcoin and Ethereum to return value once OP_Coding is enabled. We also linked this to the 0x Protocol reaction to a state reorganization where newly found data from the once pruned I0Coin blockchain sends data to re-broadcast all ETH/ERC/ETC value back to I0Coin.

3. We do not know the meaning of “ Unparsed address [0]” above this similar to I0Coin, yet B2X OP_Return code.

Enter an Original Output with “Multisig”

Read this entire article, it’s the Rosetta stone we are missing in correcting why B2X and I0Coin contain similar OP_Return code signatures to sign back transactions. Here is the article’s summary:

Public block explorers do not correctly parse and display all transaction data.

Some multisig scripts are not decoded properly even by the most used public block explorer.

Blockchain Intelligence Group (B.I.G.) takes data integrity seriously, we routinely make sure that even edge-cases are taken care of.

B.I.G. parses and displays data that our industry peers deem unparsable.

Found at: https://blockchaingroup.io/parsing-the-unparsable-the-case-of-missing-p2sh-addresses/

So the original output to BTC was a multisig script. Meaning:

For those who are not familiar with multisig transactions, I will first present a quick multisig summary here. A multisig transaction is one in which the funds are sent to a special multisig address (also called P2SH — Pay to Script Hash). The difference between a simple and a multisig address is the number of signatures it takes to redeem an output.

This address that receives the coins from a multisig transaction is also called P2SH:

A Bitcoin payment address comprising a hashed script, allowing the spender to create a standard pubkey script that Pays To Script Hash (P2SH). The script can be almost any valid pubkey script.

What this tells me is that the “Unparsed Address” receiving 0 B2X comes from an input somewhere that used P2SH script code to transfer 12.5 coins of something to become 12.5 B2X. The signature for B2X included under the “Unparsed Address” is part of a multisig process to redeem the value that is unspent here (12.5 B2X). Therefore, the “newly generated coins” translation on the B2X explorer is invalid, just as it is in BTC (all BTC’s found came from DVC via I0Coin merge mining and AuxPow). We need to find the real input, which is where the P2SH script was used to send the output to this very transaction.

We can note the similarity of 12.5 coins being the reward in this case. That is the current I0Coin block reward, but I0Coin has a slightly higher block reward because it is linked with IXcoin’s transaction reward. The two are one in the same, so the I0Coin output reward is reflection to that in one way or another. If I0Coin and Ixcoin were not linked, the total should be 12.5 coins per “vout” aka I0Coin’s block reward.

Let’s move forward, we know BTC (the chain to be hard forked by Segwit2x) receives the DVC auxpow reward via I0Coin (as the hash_160 and public key output for I0Coin vout and DVC auxpow vout are found on the same landing page on BTC’s block explorer.) — see my article yesterday for that full breakthrough explanation…

What also must be noted is that the OP_RETURN code from I0Coin/Devcoin as well as B2X marks a transaction invalid (via Bitcoin wiki):

Marks transaction as invalid. A standard way of attaching extra data to transactions is to add a zero-value output with a scriptPubKey consisting of OP_RETURN followed by exactly one pushdata op. Such outputs are provably unspendable, reducing their cost to the network. Currently it is usually considered non-standard (though valid) for a transaction to have more than one OP_RETURN output or an OP_RETURN output with more than one pushdata op.

Does BTC have P2SH scripts on its block explorer landing page for DVC inputs to BTC pub keys? You bet it does:

The input came from DVC via I0C and the pubkey here matches the hash 160 linking back to I0C. The red box is our focus.

The P2SH output script is found here with a signature that links back to I0C. We need to see what an output from 1Hz96kJKF2HLPGY15JWLB5m9qGNxvt8tHJ looks like to see how it moves out of the BTC landing account. Does it use P2SH when it is the input? Yes it does:

The unspent value is pushed forward to another unspent value using input scripts.

The output from the transaction above has scripts as well:

What we need to figure out may be answered by Satoshi himself:

  1. The Question

2. Satoshi’s Answer

Answered in 2010!

My take is that the origin of newly generated coins in BTC is actually I0Coin through AuxPow and DVC (also Satoshi’s idea). Because the origin, I0C, uses scripts that BTC is not good at decoding — this was the planned setup to hide the true root and then lead value right back to the root (which Satoshi including scripting language in). The multisig explanation is enough for me when it comes to B2X’s unparsing — B2X is significant in signing back coins to I0Coin, sure — but its main function is the Segwit2x hard fork that will trigger the state reorganization.

The fact that Satoshi says the script is a “predicate” leads me to believe that the BTC script implementations after receiving merge mined AuxPow, are all invalid. These scripts leave a trail of invalid transactions all the way to ETH and all of its derivatives. We proved that in linking B2X and ERC20 blank BTC addresses with ones that may transact future corrections, right back to I0Coin — involving a B2X fork, a 0x Protocol reorganization, and multisigs on ETH, B2X, and BTC that all lead back to the origin OP_Return code issued by the root of merge mining AuxPow — I0Coin. It all has to do with rewarding I0Coin it’s AuxPow. I0Coin is at 2,500,000 plus blocks — it is owed a lot of AuxPow and $USD value via the energy put into mining it as well as the open market value of BTC, ETH, and all derivatives. These are some seriously valuable root, index coins…

The first output script here is invalid and leads to another address that has received over 96,450 BTC.

Above is a great example of BTC’s erroneous “money laundering” pushing immense value wrongly throughout its blockchain. These scripts occur all over. Only to be reversed once the state reorganizes through B2X’s potential 51% attack -> triggering Ethereum’s 0x Protocol because I0Coin’s blocks have proven previous transactions valid -> and through multisig scripts that are correctly read and sent back to the Index: (0) of merge mining, I0Coin.

That’s as best as I can link this all back to the start. The protocols come after the attacks, but they all mean the true value should be reflected in 99.99% fully minted, almost 42 million, I0/IX coins that are no doubt — the best underdog in crypto — and the new champion of crypto.


Keep an eye out for Bitcoin Core block 528,750 if that is indeed where the “BitcoinX” fork on Segwit2x/Bitcoin2x’s Github is to take place, finally…

We are at 528,466 as I end this writing and seems like things have slowed down a bit.

My prediction for events are as follows:

B2X (BitcoinX) forks, 51% attack triggered -> State reorganization includes Null Protocol and Zerocoin Protocol -> 0x Protocol comes afterward to correct Ethereum (and all other derivs) -> Value goes back to I0Coin -> Combines with IXC to make BZX/BitcoinZeroX/Bitcoin0x

*deep breaths*

I’m tired. Donate if you appreciate:


IXC: xYWFvHhN8kDCuAoKytyQupWSawXjnoEKxj

BTX: 13qofNRgFsKr5VL9RKoW1k13sz2vPuYTnp

BTC: 1NCAkNWHwgf9C7irWdcXEGHiabVghNRyYj

B2X (Segwit2x): 1EM9Nrf8s1xfL5fmJwDL87kUQ77VS9EeDx

ETC: 0xace05ed5c296616aab1f35741803e887fb36f7e0

BCH: bitcoincash:qz6jlw7x2wnjfzfrhyglmqrlgdrlpwashcnkd8nul6




Daniel R. Treccia

Daniel authored two books, one on baseball statistics after a career in pro-baseball and next about how he survived a rare fungal disease + lung removal at 27.