Coinbase Just Gave Away What I’ve Long Suspected
Coinbase adding Ethereum Classic fits trend of my entries on I0C, IXC, Nullex, and more…
(Note: the two articles that precede this are a must read to follow along)
If you watched the Trump-Kim summit and were disappointed that a Bitcoin state reorganization did not occur, you may have been reading my tweets this weekend on its significance. First, understand that the policy of open sourced projects is to have complete transparency to the public — meaning, if the devs are leaving clues to the projects importance, its because they want you to find out the truth without explicitly saying it. My past articles cover the importance of I0Coin and how it could be seen as the 10th Bitcoin as well as the first (or root origin). You will recall why I thought BTX might be 10C and thus I0C. Well, no state reorganization occurred, however I did see this tweet from Cryptopia at the same time the Trump-Kim Summit began at 01:00 UTC:
Having covered in my other entries that I believe Ethereum Classic and Ethereum are attached to Bitcoin’s blockchain and how I0coin could trigger the state reorganization via “Zerocoin” and now “Null” Protocols, the devs reply sparked my interest. You would understand how a light bulb clicked when I saw this headline when I woke up in the morning:
In keeping things short and sweet, I will point out the problem on ETC’s genesis block (and thus Ethereum’s genesis block) where the two blockchains have seen absolute haywire due to Y2K, Y2K38 like problems. I tied those to my theory that Bitcoin is able to communicated information from Ethereum to Bitcoin, but not Bitcoin back to Ethereum — and thus ETC. The issue of incorrectly translating Bitcoin hexcode looks like this on ETC Block 0:
The same issue is caused in Ethereum address 0x000- where Ether and ERC20 tokens have been trapped:
How This Relates to Coinbase’s Addition of Ethereum Classic
Coinbase is going to be adding ETC to a place that may very well recognize the error in code that has caused ETC, ETH, and ERC20 to receive large amounts of frozen funds. The purchase of Paradex upgraded GDAX to Coinbase Pro recently. The reason this is significant is because on Coinbase Pro, where ETC will be listed for trade, the 0x Protocol is in place. The most interesting part of the 0x Protocol in relation to my theories being:
On the other hand — we can’t afford reacting immediately to changes in the pending state layer because the transaction making an order invalid might not end up being included in the canonical chain due to chain reorgs and we will have discarded a valid order.
The solution we are proposing here is to shadow orders that are deemed invalid rather then removing them from our set of orders immediately. 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. Since we don’t want our DB to grow indefinitely — it might make sense to still run an iterative cleanup worker that checks the validity of flagged orders at a much higher confirmation depth and removes them conclusively if they are deemed invalid at that point.
The significance of this quote is it recognized why we have yet to see a correction based on I0Coin’s accurate record of block sequence because of its record of all merge mining done with Bitcoin, and its power to trigger a state reorganization by rejecting the null (all unspent mining rewards would be invalid and refunded to the root coin).
In the above quote, the 0x Protocol mentioned how they will flag certain orders on the blockchain (Bitcoin’s blockchain) as invalid, but they will not discard the order because they may be corrected in a state reorganization. In other words — 0x Protocol contains invalid outputs (from 0 input newly generated Bitcoins), but reorganizing the chain these inputs are necessary to push the rewarded coins back all the way to the valid root.
0x Protocol has this flagged issue on Ethereum Classic not broadcasting it to UI/API clients. You will recall the tweet at the beginning of my post from an ETC dev being upset that ETC is still in maintenance at Cryptopia — the only place where one can trade I0coin. In order to trigger a state reorganization, we need the Nullex Protocol as well as the 0x Protocol. My reasoning being:
- With Coinbase acquiring Paradex, which is built on top of 0x, the potential for ETC triggering a state reorganization for Bitcoin and Ethereum are now significantly higher. This is due to the coding transalation error between Bitcoin and Ethereum/ETC blockchains, which have allowed the problem to persist at the time because the first reaction of the 0x protocol is simply to shutoff ETC Block 0 from communicating to the rest of the blockchain. Believing that these blockchains are all the same takes this further.
- A pruned chain is mentioned in 0x Protocol as a way of flagging but not invalidating a transaction. I0C has a pruned blockchain format that allows it to be loaded easier by only having certain checkpoints broadcast out to wallets and applications. Specifically 0x Protocol explains:
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.
Therefore, once the correction is triggered by I0C, there have to be incorrect transactions to reverse (UTXO’s from newly generated coins).
The definition of coinbase in relation to Bitcoin is:
The coinbase is the content of the ‘input’ of a generation transaction. While regular transactions use the ‘inputs’ section to refer to their parent transaction outputs, a generation transaction has no parent, and creates new coins from nothing.
Now I know this will be laughed at by some who haven’t followed my entries closely, but what if Coinbase is coinbase. What if the coins generated from coinbase and part of UTXO’s or stuck in Ethereum and Ethereum Classic are going to be credited back to Coinbase in some pre-planned state reorganization. That would explain why Coinbase has decided to add Ethereum Classic and force a situation of further scrutiny by having it on Coinbase Pro, which was Paradex — an application on top of 0x Protocol.
This also explains why Cryptopia has yet to bring ETC up to function according to the ETC dev tweet. Maybe fiat to coinbase through Coinbase is how a 0 input transaction was first possible on the Bitcoin blockchain. Even Bitcoin’s genesis block displays a parent hash of 000000. The 0 parent hash is also at ETC block 0. Because newly generated coins cause invalid transactions that have only been flagged, the madness has continued. But what if the Bitcoin Block 0 and Ethereum Classic Block 0 are telling the truth about their parent hash “00000-”. They may have the same exact root, the Input(0) coin. So where did those Bitcoin’s come from? And where did they go once sent to Ethereum address 0x00-??? I think therein lies the answer.
Maybe I0Coins are being given out as newly minted coins. Perhaps that is how coinbase, which is responsibly for “0 input” generation and output of newly minted coins occurs. Maybe these coins are just forward acting “zerocoins” … I0coin is the Zerocoin. Enter Nullex:
The above diagram basically only describes the Zerocoin Protocol, which destroys one coin that is used as an input and “mints” a new coin as the output. What if the coins being sent by coinbase in Bitcoin are I0Coins that are being destroyed to mint Bitcoins? What if these I0Coins were just Bitcoin all along as I have proposed in my previous entries and this is how they show up on Bitcoin’s Blockchain.info — with their previous history withheld from public view. What does this mean for the Null Protocol? Simply if done in reverse, we could see a backwards translation by sending Bitcoins rewarded as “newly generated coins (no input)” back to the source — coinbase.
However, you also know I have proposed a blockchain that interacts correctly both forwards and backwards. If the full I0Coin record of merge mining were relefected a state reorganization could very well be triggered and implemented in a Null Protocol execution — meaning all previously minted, unspent Bitcoins would have their value transferred back to the parent hash “0000” … simultaneously, the 0x Protocol could release forward all the trapped Ether, ETC, and ERC20 tokens “forward” to the source, the parent hash “0x00” after the triggered state reorganization.
Basically I am proposing that Coinbase acquired Paradex and implemented its 0x Protocol into Coinbase pro for this reason — the same reason Cryptopia has not brought ETC up to date where it resides with I0C. Once one happens, so does the other. Coinbase is probably the source of these “zerocoin” transactions because of well thought out forsight. The protection of the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchain which relays correct translation forward and backward of different hexcode prefixes and suffixes by using the tonal notation (or Tonal Bitcoin). I propose the Tonal Bitcoin I have previously written much about is the combination of I0C and its twin IXC. These exist in the space between the two chains that also correctly connect them. The forward and backward compatibility will come through a state reorganization and that will all point back to I0C and thus, IXC — which I believe are connected or will be connected. This state reorganization shifts all the value stored in Bitcoin and Ether, Ethereum Classic, ERC20 tokens and Bitcoin forks back to its rightful source, the 0000- parent hash. The input 0 coin is where coin generation began, will be corrected, and will continue into the fully functioning future of an interoperatible and correctly coded super blockchain.
As far as the company Coinbase goes, the assumption that they are the coinbase stems from their first mover advantage as a fiat to Bitcoin gateway, but also because of the coins they tend to list. As for the future of I0C and IXC, I can see IXC being used going forward as an evolved combination with I0C as well as some top Bitcoin derivatives such as Bitcore (BTX) and others.
Perhaps I0C will join in this future blockchain but the coin will be sought out as one of the first recognized digital stores of value for purchase. I0coin has stored value due to all energy/electricity costs of Bitcoin and Ethereum mining, transmission, and all generation of forks and tokens. The energy cost goes back all the way to the origin of the project, at the 0000 parent hash — which has no input (0-input “coin”)…. But those are all just my well thought out theories based on the facts in front of me.
The future? It’s ready right now.
Welcome to the decentralized internet you have always hoped for.
