It was the concern for the other developer who contacted me first with the issue. I addressed this issue and helped to solve this problem.
I have your PM and I answered it immediately. I just checked it. Your concern was also "When CleverMining hops on NLG, we see difficulty swings and periods of no blocks found". I addressed this issue and solved this problem for your community.
Again, thank you so much for your help with taking 50% of our blocks. It was very generous of you. I promised to drop our hashrate to solve inflated block times problem and I did exactly that. Our NLG mining share in September was 85% mined blocks, then 65% in October, then 55% in Nov, 51% in Dec, and 53% in Jan. These numbers are coming from your own mining stats at http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/historical_mining_stats.html. You see, I did what I promised, I decreased our NLG hashrate and I kept that promise and never increased it back again. How close minded are you to think that you were solving our problem? You didn't solve anything. You created the original problem, then "fixed" it with another problem. Did we need to continually ask you to work with us? Should we have outlined exactly what we needed? I'm sorry we didn't simplify it enough for you. As you write about "50% ... common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin" I assume you are taking about 51% attack.
Then you probably lack understanding of 50% issue/attack. It really doesn't matter if someone mines 50% blocks or even mines 80% blocks or doesn't mine at all. The coin has the same problem even if someone doesn't mine it at all, but has enough hashpower to mine 51% blocks. Anyone who has enough hashpower can jump into your coin at any time and execute a 51% attack. It doesn't matter if they were mining 51% blocks before the attack or if they didn't mine your coin at all. And with 14 GH/s network hashrate there are at least dozen entities (mining farms and pools) which have enough hashpower to take 51% of your network. An entity which mines 51% but doesn't attack is better than entity that doesn't mine but plan to attack. Your problem isn't with CM. Your problem is with having a coin which uses the same mining algorithm (scrypt) as another coin which has 85x higher network hashrate (Litecoin). I can't help you with that (some coins solved this by switching algorithms to non-scrypt, but that made them even more niche coins, other solved this by implementing AuxPoW and becoming merge-mined coins, other decided that they didn't care that much and accepted the fact of being little brother to LTC). What I can do is to promise that you will never face a 51% attack from CleverMining. This is much more than you get from the other dozen entities which control over 14 GH/s of scrypt mining power. You don't even need to believe me to believe that we won't attack - as we don't hoard NLG, we don't have coins to double-spend and 51% attack is useful only for double spending.
No, not 51% attack. Owning 50%+ of the network, as in centralization of mining. You should know a lot about that with those silly Clever Hashlets. Tell me, Terk. How many blockchains do you control? I seriously wonder how many there are, and how many you just don't give two shits about. Hell, I doubt you give a shit about any of them as long as you keep getting paid. That's why you can walk away from your pool and go silent. That's why you can pretend that you're going to "work with coins" and then continue to rape the shit of their blockchains. Another issue which you might have is that we sell blocks which we mine. But this is simply a market mechanism and this is our business model. What you would like us to do is to cease operations and close the pool. This is not going to happen. I can cooperate to don't inflate your block gaps to several hours - which would cause inconvenience for users and merchants and would kill the coin in the long term - but I won't let my users down and I don't close the pool. Coin-switching pools are reality and you need to learn to live with that. I've done as much as I could to limit inconvenience caused by CM to your users and I expected only a little bit of friendliness in return (and I got it from other NLG developers).
Again, thank you so much for working so hard to cooperate with our coin. You're right... I'm completely wrong for being upset about half of the coins mined daily going to be sold on markets, and not going to users who will actually use the coins. It's not like we don't around 80 merchants that accept it, and users who use the coin on a daily basis. No, you're right... it's better that those 50% of the coins went to turning profit for you instead of going to their wallets. Thanks for showing me the light... I've been wrong about you all along. If I were, then I would probably like to show you my "power" - after you started offending me and shitting in my thread - by removing all limits which are limiting amount of hashpower sent to NLG. This wouldn't inflate your block times to 560 minutes as before because of your improved algorithm, but it would inflate them to 120~180 minutes which is high enough to cause painful inconveniences to users and merchants. I won't do this. I am friendly and I won't hurt intentionally entire community because of one of their members.
Then stay off of NLG. There are literally hundreds of other coins. At this point your return to NLG is just in spite. And I'm not the only one who wants you off our chain. We made a decision in response to your pool. The community wanted you gone. Your pool was a cancer that we lived with for 5 painful months. If you want to help us out, as you like to think you are doing, then don't help us out. Just go find another coin. One that has no community, and no purpose. Leave ours alone. This only shows how hostile you are, while I have been cooperative and friendly.
Also, by the way of your "whole changeover", I would like to remind you, that I was recommending you DigiShield algorithm when you were brainstorming what to use instead of KGW back in September. I told your developers that coins with DigiShield readjustment behave the best with coin-switching pools and that it will be better for NLG to adapt it. I did this because I wanted to help. I really prefer thriving coins than coins with problems. You went with DGW3 despite my advice and you saw only little improvement (which would be zero improvement if I didn't decrease our hashrate). Now you finally switched to Digi readjustment, which is something I recommended from the start for the good of your coin. This is another example of me being helpful, caring and cooperative. You try to paint me as a villain but the truth is I really did everything I could to help your coin. Perhaps you didn't use my advice on readjustment algorithm out of suspicion that I try to sell you something which was good only for me, but I was recommending something which was good for the coin (and in effect, also good for me, because CleverMining can profit only from healthy coins). I wish you could learn to recognize a friendly pool operator and learn to work together peacefully, because coin-switching pools won't disappear - instead of sending only hate my way despite my efforts to cooperate and help.
I already came to the conclusion of DIGI before we knew who you were on the chain. Your suggestion, at the time, was just another in a long line of suggestions. Here we go again with the "I only tried to help you" mantra that you have been trying to sell me. If you were trying to help, where were you in the 5 months of discussing how to mitigate your pool's influence on the coin? Where were you when people started asking why you had no input on what was going on? You weren't helping anyone. You're not a friendly pool op. The fact that you continue to think that you were helping this whole time is honestly mind-boggling. If you had any shred of decency and compassion for doing the right thing, you would have done the right thing. You didn't though. I'll say this again- you didn't help us. You caused a problem with our coin, pretended to help "fix" the problem you created, and in turn caused another one. You didn't help. This is EOT from my side. You wrote your thing, I wrote mine. There's nothing to add. If you still think there's anything to discuss, please PM me to don't pollute this thread - which is about CleverMining, not about Guldencoin. Please respect this.
Go find another coin to rape for 5 months. Go "cooperate" with someone else. If you leave us alone, after 5 months of putting up with your "cooperation", then there is nothing more to discuss. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Either I have no idea what you are writing about or you have no idea what you are writing about.
Then you obviously don't follow your own thread or the threads of the coins you mine. Here in your thread, we've asked why you continued to consistently mine 50% of the coins everyday, after saying that you would reduce mining power and ease the burden on the coin. In the NLG thread, we've talked about how we were going to make changes to the coin to prevent your pool's influence for the last 5 months. I hope that helps you understand what I'm talking about, because I'm crystal clear about what it is. I've been in contact with your developers since October. They contacted me and asked for help, because your faulty difficulty readjustment algorithm at that time couldn't cope with our hashrate and difficulty jumps were causing as long as multi-hour gaps between blocks. I investigated the issue and I significantly limited maximum hashrate which CM was putting into NLG. This reduced most extreme block gaps from 160~520 minutes in September-October to 20-60 minutes starting in late October (with most blocks having short times and these are times for longest blocks in a day). While I agree that 30-minute blocks are not ideal, this was a working compromise between your coin interests and our miners interests.
I contacted you as well. I have the PM's if you need a refresher. Our block gaps were caused by our broken algo, and as a direct result of your pool's influence in that algo. So you "helped" by reducing the problems you caused. The block times weren't the concern though. It was the fact that directly after telling us you would reduce mining power, and dropping down to 20% of the block mining in a given day, you went up to 90% of the blocks in a day, and then back down to around 50% for the last few months. You're telling me that mining a majority of the blocks in a day and insta-selling them is a compromise? I want to repeat, because you seem to don't understand or don't appreciate it, that the only reason for lowering times from 160~520-minute blocks to 30-minute blocks was cooperation from my side and my willingness to treat your coin gently. I have no reason to destroy coins because I and my users benefit from thriving altcoins, so I always cooperate with coin developers, within reason, if they contact me. NLG developers who contacted me via PM understood that I cannot leave the coin entirely, because our miners expect CM to mine coins which are profitable at any given moment and because if not CM, then some other pool would mine the low-difficulty blocks - and they appreciated my help.
Oh thank you, oh supreme CM pool op for graciously helping us get rid of 50% of our coins everyday. It's so kind of you. You say though that you cooperate within reason. So is asking that you not take 50% of the blocks in a given day, a common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin, a unreasonable request? Help me wrap my head around that, because no, I don't understand that. Oh and the other pools that could mine the low difficulty blocks... yeah, they could have been any pool. They could have even been dedicated pools and miners who actually want to see NLG succeed. It's only you who come to this thread and accuse of "raping", while I was nothing but gentle and caring towards your coin. It's also you who is happy and who gloat because of the fact that CM didn't update their daemon and that our users wasted a tiny amount of their hashrate on a wrong chain. And it's you who spread FUD about "losing days worth of mining", clearly with the intent to scare our users, while the losses were at a level of 0.00000397 BTC per 1 MH/s or $0.00085752 per 1 MH/s (total, not per day). This is malicious from your side towards me, towards the pool and towards our miners and the only hostile person which I can see here is you.
You're delusional if you think your pool was gentle and caring towards our coin. And the entire community was happy and boasting that you weren't on the chain anymore. You've been a thorn in our side for 5 months. Your pool is the primary reason we changed algorithms, and that should tell you something. Truth of the matter is that you continued to mine NLG on a side fork. Your failure to identify the issue, or even plan for it, was a nice little bonus to the whole changeover. I won't apologize for my enthusiasm with that. One more thing, before CM comes back to mining NLG tonight. Longest block gaps of the day were 160-520 minutes (yes, almost 9 hours) before CM reduced hashrate towards NLG to help this coin. They went down to 20-60 minutes after we started cooperating and they have stayed at this level since then. Fast forward to February. We have NOT been mining NLG for the last four days, and these times ARE still 20-60 minutes (30, 64, 22, 26 minutes in the last four days respectively). Two conclusions:
1) It was CleverMining's help and cooperation which caused reducing 160-520 minutes block times to 20-60 minutes (you're welcome).
2) It is NOT CleverMining's fault that you have 20-60 minutes times between blocks because you still have it the same after CM stopped mining the coin.
Again... delusional. Yes we still have higher block times, but that wasn't the primary concern here. Your 50%+ insta-sell everyday was. We'll get back to better block times with future updates and tweaks. I'll tell you now that we will continue to mitigate your pool's effect on our coin. So you can threaten CM mining on the coin with your big bad pool, but the community isn't having it anymore. Go ahead and mine NLG... we'll be watching the results and planning future updates accordingly. Considering the above, I expect you to apologize and stop trolling our thread.
Sure... I'll apologize. I'm sorry you're a power hungry, greedy multi-pool op who doesn't give a shit about anything besides his bottom line. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence. Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.
My guess is that he at least will test the new NLG Digi blockchain. I'm afraid we will see Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c popping up soon in the explorer. Luckily though, CM should be competing with gazo for those lower blocks. They shouldn't run away with the chain again. "Shouldn't" being the key word. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
Terk, you said you are going to answer some questions that were posted.
I'd just like to know why you went back on your word about working with our community, and instead raped the crap out of our coin for 4-5 months? We have been here in your thread talking about it. So even if you just read the posts in your own thread, you would either be in one of two boats. You saw our questions and anger and just didn't get around to doing anything about it... or obvious apathy in what you do. Or you read it and said to yourself, "fuck NLG"... or obvious greed despite your word to work with our community.
Or you just didn't read your own thread.
I just want your stance on what has happened in the last 5 months, and why you had no response to any of it.
-Fuse
|
|
|
|
Already thought about this, the downside is that it will at the same time limit the effectiveness of the algorithm.
I don't think we should do this now, I see some 25-30 minute blocks, that's the max.. Which I think is fine for now.
I agree about being fine for now. As far as the effectiveness goes, we would still be pretty effective with the change, and it could be argued that we would actually be a bit more effective. Again, it all comes back to finding that sweet spot in the difficulty. We're there with most of the blocks, so the change would just help us stay in that range. Again though, I'm happy with what we have going right now. Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence. Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Would this change require a soft fork with wallet updates?
It would require a wallet update. So we can continue along without the change, and if we need to update the wallet for something else in the future, we can include it. Or if the devs decide they want to see a smoother blockchain sooner, we could push it on a faster timeline. But honestly, it's not a necessity, just a suggestion. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Hate to break it to you, mate, but Terk isn't paying attention to his pool. I know for a fact that around 4GH of CM mining power has been wasted for the last few days.
Maybe Terk will pay his miners for his lack of attention... if he even admits it, or he even says something after months of silence.
-Fuse
What is there to say? Apart from the Guldencoin crowd whining, there was not much to talk about, apart from what was mentioned today. In the meanwhile, if you could elaborate a bit more on your facts, that'd be great. PM sent. Up to you what you want to do with the info. -Fuse |
|
|
|
His user profile shows: Last Active: February 05, 2015, 10:43:25 AM But when is the last time he said anything in his own pool's thread? Hate to break it to you, mate, but Terk isn't paying attention to his pool. I know for a fact that around 4GH of CM mining power has been wasted for the last few days. Maybe Terk will pay his miners for his lack of attention... if he even admits it, or he even says something after months of silence. -Fuse |
|
|
|
We have another multipool hitting the chain so the sells are coming through now but I do agree that the digi change is better overall and more profitable for dedicated miners.
Having time to look at the data for the last few days, I would say we are better overall, but we could get better. I know someone said /GJ wasn't going to tweak DIGI any further, but I would like to suggest one change. This: if (nActualTimespan < (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/4)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/4));
if (nActualTimespan > (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/2)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/2)); Becomes this: if (nActualTimespan < (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/5)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/5));
if (nActualTimespan > (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/3)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/3)); Limit the increase and decrease. It's a simple change. It's not totally needed, but I think it would help even things out a little more, and limit the blocks gazo is picking up even further. -Fuse |
|
|
|
So I'll admit that I momentarily gave in to temptation and posted the following post in the CM thread in response to what miners are reporting as "an unusual reduction in profit for the last few days". I left it up for a couple minutes and then decided to delete it. I figured though that it was better not to kick the hornets nest, even after we secretly played soccer with it. I'll share it here for all to see, as it brought me a lot of joy to write. For your viewing pleasure: My "profit graph" just tanked by half and the hashrate (which was "suppressed" for a good while) went back to "normal". I guess whatever we were mining the last few days is not profitable anymore at all, so we switched and the next best coin that we're mining now is not that profitable either.
I wonder what that could be  Hmmm... if I was going to take a stab at it, I would say part of the reason is that CM has been mining on a fork of a coin for 4 days now. I guess the op didn't take the time to watch over his pool and update the client. Sucks for the miners who thought the pool was making them money with their wasted 4GH worth of mining power during that time. It's actually pretty funny running the old client and watching the pool plug away at block after block on the defunct chain. Oh, and in case you needed proof: guldencoind getbestblockhash
4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getblock 4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
{
"hash" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"size" : 249,
"height" : 194492,
"version" : 2,
"merkleroot" : "6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e",
"tx" : [
"6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e"
],
"time" : 1422847904,
"nonce" : 15892272,
"bits" : "1c0116fb",
"difficulty" : 234.90891779,
"previousblockhash" : "b7396a43f6a92e2483b29b4de85cda44c69781b0b7bcc5652630ee2abb513a2c"
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind gettxout 6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e 0
{
"bestblock" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"value" : 1000.00000000,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e88ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c"
]
},
"version" : 1,
"coinbase" : true
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 194497,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 324.09852217,
"errors" : "IMPORTANT: Shut down this wallet and download the new version 1.3.1! Very important and mandatory update!!\nBELANGRIJK: Sluit deze wallet af en download de nieuwe versie 1.3.1! Zeer belangrijke update!",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 4783660604,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
Absent op is absent. Too bad for the miners. I wonder if they op will pay for the wasted days of mining... if he even acknowledges his lack of responsibility for his own pool. -Fuse -Fuse |
|
|
|
Gazo at 22% now. :/
we have a new clevermining? This multipool has been on our chain already before DIGI, but didn't manage to get more than 10%. With the price rise yesterday I think things got more profitable for them (together with the hashrate drop by Frais and me that might even be more). Still, not as bad with Clever (they keep < 50% and block times are still reasonable). Sorry for the double-post, but I wanted to keep things separated. Mike is 100% on the ball with this one. Price peaked over 800 yesterday. It's 750 now. When Digi went live, we were at like 500-600ish. That's a big increase in price. When a pool bases it's mining on profit, a big bump in price means your bottom line is a lot higher than it was before. Combine that with the fact our dedicated mining started a reduction in power yesterday, not an increase typical of a price jump, means that we had an interesting day of numbers. Give the price time to stabilize, and the hashrate to become a little more well defined. Still, if gazo is operating on a system of profit like clever, 20% < 50-90%. -Fuse |
|
|
|
sorry but i just downloaded the windows wallet from the orginal post here from the thread, but virustotal gives me 9 warnings. is it usual and is it safe and what is it all? Avast Win32:Malware-gen 20150204
Avira TR/BitCoinMiner.21452288 20150204
ESET-NOD32 a variant of Win32/BitCoinMiner.BJ potentially unsafe 20150204
Fortinet Riskware/BitCoinMiner 20150204
Ikarus Trojan.BitCoinMiner 20150204
McAfee Artemis!0FAC4881E838 20150204
Qihoo-360 Win32/Trojan.1b5 20150204
Symantec Trojan.Gen.2 20150204
TrendMicro-HouseCall Suspicious_GEN.F47V0111 20150204
It's safe as long as it's from the OP, Gulden website, or the github. Most AV programs will pick up on the mining functions in the code as being a virus/trojan. That's why you see "Riskware/BitCoinMiner" and "Trojan.BitCoinMiner". Hell, even Cgminer used to make my ESET install at work shout like crazy. Something in the built in mining function in the code resembles other trojans. But again, as long as you get your wallet from an official source, you're ok. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Salty, it might be worth it to put the time into cataloging your cards on deckbox.org. They let you list your cards by series and condition, and give an average price from various price sources for each card. It also lets you sell and trade via the site, if you're ever looking to get fiat as well. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
/GJ, It's good to see the change through your data analysis. I was wondering what that graph you posted in IRC was, but I figured I'd wait for you to post the data behind it. I'm glad you did.
Overall, your analysis shows some very positive results. Yes, we are in a longer block time now, but I agree with you that we will probably see this even out a bit with more consistent miners/hashrate.
I also agree that we may need a little more time to get more info, but for now, I'm happy that the team is positive about the change.
Cheers!
-Fuse
|
|
|
|
I'm still very happy with DIGI. Current situation is better than the past few months.
Good to hear. Hopefully it puts a lot less pressure on your wallet, mate. Lord knows you've been buying a ton of support for the chain for a long time now. I'm just really happy that pools that haven't seen 1% of the blocks in the last 5 months are now seeing almost 10%. That's a good feeling for me, even as the biggest pool now. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of discussion regarding DIGI. I just want to make some observations/statements:
DIGI is working. If gazo is a profitability script based MP, and they are pulling less than 10% of the blocks(8.76% currently), than it could be argued that CM would be in the same boat. And it could further be argued that gazo and CM would be fighting for that 8.76%. We wanted a response to MPs, and we have it.
Profit for dedicated miners is up. There is no arguing that. When 40% of the blocks are going back to the miners, and not CM's wallet, that's a win in my book.
Block times are off, that is true. When I woke up this morning we were at a 00:03:44 block time for 24 hours, which was a true 24 hours since the change. There have been some longer blocks, but mostly because we've hit some pretty high difficulties. The difficulty isn't overreacting, it's reacting. When blocks are found in less than 30 seconds from difficulty 1000 up to 2000, it's going to go up. The good thing is that it drops back down like it's supposed to though. We come back to a more reasonable follow-up block, rather than dropping too low. Now, if that block isn't solved in time, you're going to go lower. It's just the nature of a single block retarget.
A second point on time is that DIGI is best suited for block times closer to, but not less than, 1 minute. I'm not saying that we're running a broken version of DIGI, but rather I think that Kilo's original suggestion of halving the block time is something worth looking at in the future. Note... not the immediate future, but at some point down the long road ahead.
I just want to know if people are happy with the change, or if we're experiencing buyer's remorse. I'd love to hear an official response from the devs as well.
-Fuse
|
|
|
|
Yep I noticed, posted above. Regarding the mining it appears Clever has build it own chain, but with this pace and diff it will die soon. Problem can be the fact that his 1.3 wallet still is able to communicate transactions with 1.3.1 wallets.
This is part of the reason why a minimum protocol version block was in my original code. It would have essentially banned 1.3 wallets from connecting to nodes other than 1.3 nodes. This would force them to update or stay on their own fork, unable to talk to the correct chain. There's a reason that CM is continuing their fork- there were enough wallets on the 1.3(remember that 30%) that say his blocks are valid. As far as CM mining still, I mentioned that this was probably going to happen. We need to keep an eye on this cross-communication though. This could potentially bite us in the butt at some point. Most importantly, we need to look at the transactions from the CM wallet to Bittrex to make sure we don't see a fork happen. At some point Terk has to realize his precious profit is being sent to the void. In the meantime, a question of ethics comes up. Do we inform CM miners that their pool OP is wasting 4GH of their mining power on a fork because he doesn't pay attention to his pool, or do we let them mine nothing for all the months of raping us? -Fuse |
|
|
|
I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.
-Fuse
We changed the magic in the 1.3.0 release. The magic wasn't changed again in 1.3.1. Cheers! /GJ, what is the protocol magic? I never figured out what it is used for exactly. -Fuse |
|
|
|
If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.
Not necessarily. If the 30% of the wallets that haven't updated are connected to each other, essentially they will still be processing "valid" blocks because their code says it's valid. They will fork off the chain into their own "valid" chain. I mentioned this a few pages back with the possibilities of what could happen with CM. Luckily we have a majority of the wallets upgraded, so the impact should be minimal. The 70% will invalidate the 30%'s "valid" blocks. The blocks will hit the chain but be rejected before they are written. Now if we were sitting at a 50/50 split in versions or worse, or the majority of the hashrate was based on the old code and validating with older clients, we would be in for trouble unless we explicitly stated the MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION found here: https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin/blob/master/src/version.h#L34. That line, combined with a protocol increase, would block connections from any wallet running an older protocol version. I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
