Index Funds, Coinbase, & Raw Block Data
I0coin is not aware of AuxPow and that’s huge…
We have talked about the original five coins (including Bitcoin) that were merge mined since 2011 when the concept became a reality. A quick definition of some key terms is quoted below:
Auxiliary Proof-of-Work (POW)a.k.a “AuxPOW”. This is the way that merged mining can exist; it is the relationship between two blockchains for one to trust the other’s work as their own and accept AuxPOW blocks.
Merged Mining- The act of using work done on one blockchain on more than one chain, using Auxiliary POW.
You will hear that four altcoins that were first “merge mined” with Bitcoin were I0coin, Ixcoin, Devcoin, and Namecoin. However, Bitcoin Core is currently on another path, and that path is definitely not the mainchain being merge mined. I know this is confusing so read the following descriptions that I will elaborate more on to explain exactly why this is important:
Auxiliary Blockchain — The altcoin that is accepting work done on alternate chains as valid on its own chain. Client applications have to be modified to accept Auxiliary POW.
Parent Blockchain — The blockchain where the actual mining work is taking place. This chain does not need to be aware of the Auxiliary POW logic, as AuxPOW blocks submitted to this chain are still valid blocks.
In other words, Devcoin’s block explorer (header image), notes “AuxPow” because it is an auxiliary chain. We assume the parent blockchain is Bitcoin, because that is what we were always told. This is not the case. First, take a look at Devcoin’s raw block data for merge mining:
"chainMerkleBranch": [
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"f98c4e9736d8eb8bb46299798906695c755369a3df99a93ffdded1713f1cf6e2",
"48e55233b9707330def98c80a2105eaa5fac8f687d872ffb4b4741fa2bdb247d",
"c77d206e2f3cc38e18b85aaa89a8f142a9bf0f4106925d39708f91083e7d8594",
"3ba39c95fbb9a0db25983d362f300d9ebb14895925cc693c3948bfd30312bf19",
"88f285329e4266dafee4dc29bdcf22e7789178834bc6e1ccfef54aa7a22ae5b7",
"250351869a3e8f5b781c6f08c5d5e6408a46903506202e83f3b3d22cba48c37e"The above information is identical for I0Coin. However, I0Coin does not note the “auxpow” on its blockheader.
It also does not contain Devcoin’s “coinbaseIndex: 0” line:
So what is a coinbase transaction?
The coinbase transaction is generated before the block is mined, not afterwards, because it must be included in the list of transactions just like all the others. It is the first transaction in the block, and its hash is used in exactly the same way as all the others when constructing the merkle root.
Once the coinbase transaction is created and the merkle root calculated, then the nonce is varied and the block is mined.
In my understanding, Devcoin notes the coinbase index of “0” for the same reason it notes “auxpow” on the block header — because it is an auxiliary chain. I0coin just notes that its Index is “0” …
In my last article I wrote about “zerocoins” being the source of newly generated coins on the Bitcoin blockchain. These zerocoins in my estimation are I0coins that are minted as Bitcoin block rewards. Don’t believe me? Bitcoin is currently minting around 12.5–12.7 BTC per block reward:
Now, lets look at the merge mining “coinbase” which, as I have read, is not going to mention a coinbaseIndex, because its “Index: 0” is the coinbaseIndex.
The coinbase — or source of 0-input Newly Generated Coins — is I0coin. You can see this in its output:
"value": 12.6386849,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 9eecda14fe314502197be7401f4bc3000d73335a OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a9149eecda14fe314502197be7401f4bc3000d73335a88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"jVyetUA4do21v9UM4o1MTS7fsgDZzo69gR"The value noted is awfully close to the current Bitcoin block reward. These two blocks may not necessarily match up between Bitcoin and I0coin, but the proof I was looking for here is pretty apparent.
Now, we must link I0coin to the “coinbase” Devcoin is mentioning. How do we find out if Devcoin is specifically mentioning I0coin as its coinbaseIndex: 0 and not some other coin? Well, we have the chainmerklebranch’s noted previously (7 total) being an exact match. We can go one step further:
"coinbase": "03790c0841d6c8b32d11561741d6c8b32c9759462f45324d2026204254432e544f502ffabe6d6dabbc59d100ba60a40bb89047ece469083cef0ebd164209f2ff758d61c4bd05498000000000000000e70055b5bf21010000000000",
"sequence": 4294967295That is the identity of the “coinbase” which is non-specific to merge mining — and noted in I0coin’s raw block data.
"coinbase": "03790c0841d6c8b3b61ca9b941d6c8b3b4d7db332f4254432e544f502ffabe6d6d6d06aedfd53e17d57349c4e44b05f0d1528b6ec18bbf94a7b7f7ced3362c51158000000000000000cf0092a5977c000000000000",
"sequence": 4294967295This is from Devcoin’s raw block data. The coinbase mentioned is similar to I0coin’s. But the sequence is the exact same. Sequence notes how blocks are organized in linear sequence over time. Being the same, we can assume that I0coin is being mined at the same time as Devcoin, and thus, that Devcoin’s coinbase is I0coin.
Take a look at Devcoin’s auxiliary block reward output (mined after the coinbase, I0coin). It’s output is slightly more than I0coin:
"value": 12.81725394,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 ba507bae8f1643d2556000ca26b9301b9069dc6b OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914ba507bae8f1643d2556000ca26b9301b9069dc6b88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"1Hz96kJKF2HLPGY15JWLB5m9qGNxvt8tHJ"The address which Devcoin sends its output to (1Hz96kJKF2HLPGY15JWLB5m9qGNxvt8tHJ) is on the Bitcoin blockchain, and it has received many similar amounts of “newly generated coins” today!
If you look at I0coin’s output data, there is a public address where I0Coin’s are sent within the I0coin directory:
"vout": [
{
"value": 12.6386849,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 9eecda14fe314502197be7401f4bc3000d73335a OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a9149eecda14fe314502197be7401f4bc3000d73335a88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"jVyetUA4do21v9UM4o1MTS7fsgDZzo69gR"All this means is that I0coin is keeping it’s own “zerocoins” it generates on its own chain. The hexcode is similar to the merge mined Devcoin — the hex’s prefix and suffix match I0coin, with the output being slightly more before it is sent to a Bitcoin address:
"vout": [
{
"value": 12.81725394,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 ba507bae8f1643d2556000ca26b9301b9069dc6b OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914ba507bae8f1643d2556000ca26b9301b9069dc6b88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"1Hz96kJKF2HLPGY15JWLB5m9qGNxvt8tHJ"Note that the suffix for I0coin’s block output hexcode is “a88ac” and Devcoin is “b88ac”. From a to b is how I read that. Ixcoin, I believe, is also involved in this process. It does not list any coins as its block output, but it does show transactions on its block. See below:
"vout": [
{
"value": 0,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN aa21a9eddee50812a63bf9d6f25f08dcd443871031dde655ff43b2234878a3d8f1c9f098",
"hex": "6a24aa21a9eddee50812a63bf9d6f25f08dcd443871031dde655ff43b2234878a3d8f1c9f098",
"type": "nulldata"
}
},So, Ixcoin doesn’t generate a block reward, because we know from my previous articles that Ixcoin is fully mined as of 2015. It did just upgrade to 64 MB blocks so it can record many transactions:
{
"value": 0.00014796,
"n": 1,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 23b3c9db7ea55d701fd768a14d23a4e3b5c0934b OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a91423b3c9db7ea55d701fd768a14d23a4e3b5c0934b88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"xau1udAQzhSy9dqwS2BEtcvzWasa3YPBWX"
]
}
},
{
"value": 0.00018652,
"n": 2,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 1c93ad34a38a46942a18b329292b857927abcb2c OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a9141c93ad34a38a46942a18b329292b857927abcb2c88ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"xaFLi77BsPJpE7pvpyqRzNuCWeJeHiPpkT"The hex prefixes and suffixes on these blocks link up on the first transaction to Devcoin’s “b88ac” suffix. That is present on the block reward output on Devcoin’s blockchain. Even though these Ixcoins are recorded as going to an Ixcoin address (xau1udAQzhSy9dqwS2BEtcvzWasa3YPBWX), they are marked as OP_DUP defined as:
Duplicates the top stack item.
Using this op_code along with op_hash160 is how these coins duplicate block rewards in merge mining. However, Ixcoin is done mining new coins. Ixcoin still shares the “Index: 0" with I0coin in its block data. What does that mean?
"index": 0,
"chainindex": 0,
"merklebranch": [
"8939a3db49d27c1d37bac5c746cb6f47a0026b103926d668d55666ed7583b2ca",
"13f7a8525a00bd29a8bcfd24a40d39c4a618a9fc0c80018ac28a8e032f42ceb0",
"1a3cd116a9906f62a120870138c76b77e44f8a5ea4abaeb310d9bf4bf26249ef",
"7ad49de8addcf10bf32573049cdbcda0c9a7eeed9c9b259538b661f11ff98edf",
"838ce4cc894734f48b75f72e3bb5d8880dd8f32f7337cbc0227dd3b722fb1a4a",
"71d60fe1b1dc845b796ca968bf168a9343ef63f40663aab53b5e83a1da6f3f64",
"5e949bb851921dbcaecf768d92f1282aac83b19ea236733c51f8d2fd4547c211",
"9999736314a2a35020f9174d94db891cb9912eb400dd873e15cbf21b56220673",
"ff99fdd5961c533460823de6f4171d1c66d3c2cd411a51b75d5f3c956a4d2f2a",
"72bd3020603c0907062404e14767be7780b4ad0fbb0b972386aa3498efad58db",
"3809d0d036386ee479699dea843fb4e1f57e64c567eaae3279f4e98ab8a7609d",
"26944aa71331f268640f5e043e5ee71f3ad6c7866940f5388b8a8ad945a362dc"
],
"chainmerklebranch": [],The “Index: 0” denomination above is from Ixcoin’s raw block data. This is the same Index for I0coin. No mention of AuxPow, and that is true because the chainmerklebranch is empty — unlike I0coin and Devcoin which have 7 matching hashes for coins still merge mining new coins. I0coin finishes 99.98% of its mining this year, in 2018.
Therefore, I believe what is being OP_dup’d on Ixcoin’s raw block data is merely transaction fees. Ixcoin is done generating new coins, via mining, but it is not done collecting transaction fees for its miners. This coin is Index: 0 of merge mining, just like I0coin. This explains why Bitcoin receives a slightly higher block reward than Devcoin sends out. If we add the amount of Ixcoin’s (0.00014796) that are OP_Dup Hash160'd to the same prefix and suffix hex as Devcoin, which has an output of 12.81725394 sent to a Bitcoin public address, we get 12.81725394 + 0.00014796. This equals 12.81725394.
The total doesn’t match the amount being sent out from suffix b88ac (Devcoin) to the Bitcoin address. However, we must add I0coin’s transaction output as well, which has suffix a88ac for its proof of work and “788ac” for its transaction fees:
{
"value": 0,
"n": 1,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN aa21a9ed85054fd6e9a9943ec48b14f3fa14c6ab8d100958062581a2debcd22c7c63dc26",
"hex": "6a24aa21a9ed85054fd6e9a9943ec48b14f3fa14c6ab8d100958062581a2debcd22c7c63dc26",
"type": "nulldata"
}
},
{
"value": 0.10192487,
"n": 2,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 172cc5187962a7255beddfbd99b547ff7a793527 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914172cc5187962a7255beddfbd99b547ff7a79352788ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"jHbsZUv4jHcLCScE29ozo9BuB7CktK5Lk8"Notice the “nulldata” matches the output of Ixcoin’s block. This is likely because Ixcoin is done mining. If we add I0Coin’s tx fees to the Devcoin output, we do not find a match at 12.91 BTC. That number is too high. So we should try something else.
Ixcoin has 2 transaction fees collected at the same hex prefix and suffix “788ac” as I0coin:
"value": 0.00828309,
"n": 16,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 d0606e14a2151479c5a9f4e669db23e1ec3e6327 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a914d0606e14a2151479c5a9f4e669db23e1ec3e632788ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"xre2wxfpNMhiQb4Gv6XAC3dCHr6sgT9KaP"If we add this Ixcoin tx fee (with the same “788ac” suffix as I0coin’s tx fee) to Devcoin’s output we get:
12.81725394 (Devcoin output to Bitcoin) + 0.00828309 (Ixcoin tx fee) = 12.82553703
The method here is that Ixcoin and I0Coin are one in the same. They are “Index 0” of merge mining as I have said all along. The 12.82553703 total is closer to one of the “Newly Generated Coin (no inputs)” on the BTC address we get from Devcoin, but it is not equal.
This address does receive “Newly Generated Coins” in the total of
12.83478717 BTC which is close enough. Ixcoin has note of transactions with many suffixes in addition to one’s we mention above. Two lettered suffixes we can add in addition to I0Coin’s (a88ac and 788ac) and Devcoin’s (b88ac) are “c88ac” and “e88ac” … So there are other possible additions here that could match a Bitcoin output at the address Devcoin is sending to. In other words, there are other coins being merge mined with Devcoin and I0coin.
What We Found Has Never Been Said Before…
Conclusions Are Mindblowing
I have written many reason’s I believe before Bitcoin, we have I0coin’s and Ixcoin’s. Neither of these mention “AuxPow” — therefore, they are the coinbase for Bitcoin newly generated coins. They both are Index: 0 and I0Coin, which is still not fully minted, is producing a block reward of just over 12.6 coins. Ixcoin contributes some sort of tx fee to the process before Devcoin sends off the coins to the Bitcoin address we found.
The auxiliary chain, Devcoin, makes notes of its “auxpow” in its blockheader and uses the same OP_DUP Hash160 opcodes as I0coin and Ixcoin to send the total amount (via merge mining) off to Bitcoin’s blockchain at address “1Hz96kJKF2HLPGY15JWLB5m9qGNxvt8tHJ”.
Bitcoin’s blockchain falsely identifies these as “Newly Generated Coins (no inputs)”…
Bitcoin also cannot “decode” this address — so the coins are not spent. Unspent coins can later be sent back to the source of the funds. I believe this means eventually all coins sent in this manner and falsely identified by Bitcoin’s blockchain will be sent back to the source, Index: 0, which we identify as I0coin and Ixcoin, through the Devcoin auxiliary chain. Think of it like a long overdue refund.
What this also means is that in addition to reversing these transactions, we have now found a true source (input) for these Bitcoin transactions. This also means the hashing power put into the source “Index: 0” of merge mining is reflected in Ixcoin and I0coin. Since they are one in the same, we will see 42 million 99.99% minted coins this year. The 0x and Null Protocol’s can trigger this reversal as I have previously written.
Remember that the hashing power expended on mining is where a coin gets its “store of value” and thus, I0coin and Ixcoin are about to explode in value through the absolute roof. This will come after the Null Protocol and 0x Protocol for state reorganization.
I0Coin’s parent hash for all Auxpow is equal to the first chainmerklebranch address of the 7 addresses listed (including Devcoin) for merge mining:
(“0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000")
0x Protocol is for Ethereum reorganization. We can now match that to the problems at Ethereum Classic Block 0 because the I0Coin parent hash is read wrong with the added “0x” prefix:
We discussed how the development of I0C and IXC would eventually merge the two together to solve hex prefix problems like this. I believe all we have to do now is switch the process backward through Ixcoin and the proper coding will translate into Ethereum Classic block 0. All trapped funds here will shoot back to the parent hash. This goes the same for Bitcoin’s Genesis Block. This block is not the true genesis block once the hex codes are interoperatable between Ethereum/I0C+IXC/Bitcoin etc.
The coins trapped at Ethereum address “0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" will run back to “Index:0” as well:
And through the zerocoin process, there really will be no direct link to transactions between either chain in the future. Nor are these 42 million zerocoins ever truly destroyed because of op_dup codes. However, this also gives us the “root” of Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and Ethereum Classic.
I said all along that Coinbase (which has never been hacked) is a secure “Coinbase” for generating new Bitcoin’s, Ethereum’s, etc… They are launching an Index fund which includes Bitcoin Cash as well. The use of these zerocoins as a root of true value reflected on all chains makes perfect sense for I0C/IXC being “Index:0” and the fully minted source of the new Index Fund. The volatility of the Index fund would be a non-issue since the “Index coins” are 99.99% minted. Is your mind blown yet?
I0coin = no input, 0 input
I0coin, Ixcoin = Index (0), thus I0C = IXC
Index (0) = Coinbase Index Fund
Remember Coinbase is where Newly Generated Coins come from… It was all right in front of everyone in the unaware public all along. This is because of open source code. That is how I traced my findings back to the root. It isn’t easy, but it also hasn’t compromised blockchain security. Now 99.99% minted, I feel no harm in sharing.
This is simply how all the value from cost of mining will go back to the source, in addition to the power that is properly attributed to both I0coin and Ixcoin at the moment. The source of Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and all forks/tokens is I0coin as well as Ixcoin.
One may assume that “Satoshi”, whoever he is or whoever he represents, planned this to happen until the minting of new coins for I0Coin and Ixcoin were all but finished. State reorganization is coming.
There are exciting times ahead, and now we have proof.
It is undeniable.
Daniel R. Treccia
Donations Are Welcomed & Will Be Put Towards Future Projects:
IXC: xYWFvHhN8kDCuAoKytyQupWSawXjnoEKxj
I0C: jXnrLkdpY6t9WuQ94bUcQoecRHnBtwieyr
BTX: 13qofNRgFsKr5VL9RKoW1k13sz2vPuYTnp
BTC: 1NCAkNWHwgf9C7irWdcXEGHiabVghNRyYj
B2X (Segwit2x): 1EM9Nrf8s1xfL5fmJwDL87kUQ77VS9EeDx
ETC: 0xace05ed5c296616aab1f35741803e887fb36f7e0
BCH: bitcoincash:qz6jlw7x2wnjfzfrhyglmqrlgdrlpwashcnkd8nul6
LTC: LNLL9GknH56gJF7T7UmGk36z5LBHAuJo8H
