 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]
|
Today has been amazing. While I would have preferred that the fork gone smoothly, it provided an outstanding additional entry point. I didn't come close to bottom ticking this move which I'm upset with myself for (more on that below), but in the long run, my entry points today will look excellent.
There are multiple reasons I decided to increase my investment:
1. Excellent price.
2. The issue appeared minor in scope.
3. I thought we were going to see a stronger selloff than we had which is why I didn't come close to bottom ticking the market. There were a couple large panic sellers, but there were plenty of people buying the heck out of those drops. There is serious capital utilizing prime opportunities like this to enter the market. I want to ride that capital wave.
4. Evan showed once again what an incredible dev he is. He stood strong and did what was best for DRK in the face of what would be insurmountable opposition to most people. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in IRC was saying not to revert. I didn't see a single person supporting his decision yet he stood firm because he knew it was the right decision. I guarantee you this, should Evan ever decide to start a company after DRK and needs Venture Capital, VC's will be throwing money at him.
Buddy, I am sorry, but concerning 4/, I still can't fathom with the fork could not go ahead ESPECIALLY since it was apparently caused by a minor and rare issue - 2 blocks simultaneous with different MN votes. We will never know, but it seems to me it is preposterous to pretend it was the best decision. The code must be able to account for freak results, even if they happen rarely. You can't have your coin at the mercy of random forks due to a known bug. well hot fixes exist, but what is done is done anyway, no point arguing. I guess I am a little upset about this 2nd botched fork - I am going to bed now and get some sleep |
|
|
|
Today has been amazing. While I would have preferred that the fork gone smoothly, it provided an outstanding additional entry point. I didn't come close to bottom ticking this move which I'm upset with myself for (more on that below), but in the long run, my entry points today will look excellent.
There are multiple reasons I decided to increase my investment:
1. Excellent price.
2. The issue appeared minor in scope.
3. I thought we were going to see a stronger selloff than we had which is why I didn't come close to bottom ticking the market. There were a couple large panic sellers, but there were plenty of people buying the heck out of those drops. There is serious capital utilizing prime opportunities like this to enter the market. I want to ride that capital wave.
4. Evan showed once again what an incredible dev he is. He stood strong and did what was best for DRK in the face of what would be insurmountable opposition to most people. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in IRC was saying not to revert. I didn't see a single person supporting his decision yet he stood firm because he knew it was the right decision. I guarantee you this, should Evan ever decide to start a company after DRK and needs Venture Capital, VC's will be throwing money at him.
Buddy, I am sorry, but concerning 4/, I still can't fathom with the fork could not go ahead ESPECIALLY since it was apparently caused by a minor and rare issue - 2 blocks simultaneous with different MN votes. We will never know, but it seems to me it is preposterous to pretend it was the best decision. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder if some nodes have been disbanded to sell the massive DRK dumps
|
|
|
|
If it takes more than hours or days to implement this hard fork then I'd say it'll be months before the coin see's 0.02 again.
Hopefully we don't have another few weeks wait on our hands, although I know what has to be done, has to be done.
problem is you could test for years on testnet; but within a hour after production release a new problem never seen before suddenly appears. They really should revise their testing protocol. I mean the issue here has apparently nothing related with version differences across the network, it is just a code oversight breaking the consensus by not considering the votes in the hashes computations. |
|
|
|
Im kind of curious to know if the dev's trade around this info or halt their trading activity day of patches? It can be dangerous to play in these games when this is the case. I have no reason to believe but have the dev's assured anyone that they don't trade off the knowledge?
Kinda seems well played for those in the "know"
you are in cryptoland, pal, anyone could potentially do anything - not making specific accusation, but given the total absence of regulations here, it is a wishful thinking to hope for that insider knowledge will not be used in the markets |
|
|
|
|
I am somehow surprised that no one thought about modifying the hashes after introducing the MN voting system, especially since it impacts consensus, but hell ...
|
|
|
|
[01:03] <GNULinuxGuy> curious: new issue that doesn't seem to be as serious, but still no official word
[01:07] <evan82> GNULinuxGuy, working on it
[01:07] <evan82> GNULinuxGuy, doing research atm
Thanks Alex for the feedbacks I do hope they will find an issue to justify the reversal  |
|
|
|
Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish. His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully. He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.
Please don't even compare edufield to Satoshi, the DRK developer can't even make a working change to his coin without breaking the whole darkcoin network and promising to fix it the next month... and then the next month... You read too much into my comment. I never claimed edufield was Satoshi. Just commenting that implementing new technologies can be difficult and it is impressive that Satoshi got so much right. But at the same time, satoshi could several, perhaps a whole team of people. I mean, I can't believe all of this was done silently by one rogue crypto-specialist. |
|
|
|
<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now
New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.
waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support? the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money. not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through... I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake. they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks I still don't get how evan could make this revert-decision based on a non-stabilized environment with massive entropy, just one hour after a hard fork. I mean, you devs did expect orphans and concurrent blocks after a hard fork, dint't you? |
|
|
|
<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now
New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.
waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support? the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money. not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through... I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake. |
|
|
|
<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now
New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.
waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched attempt, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support? If he is not qualified enough, he needs to step down. |
|
|
|
Hi all, I have been been following todays events closely and I have few (maybe controversial) remarks:
First, the hardfork implemetation went perfectly as far as I can tell. The network never became forked at any point. Immediately following the hardfork a couple of the pools were 1-5 minutes behind the highest block, but at no point did any of the pools ever fork - despite repeated claims to the contrary by people that should know better ::cough cough::. I believe Evan mistakenly interpreted this 1-5 minutes of lag on certain pools and masernodes as a fork, when in fact it was not (probably due to the differences in blockheight reported by the pools and those reported to him by masternode owners). As others have suggested, the reason for this lag is probably because the solved blocks were just taking longer than usual to propagate through the network because there were a lot of old clients on the network, something not entirely unexpected.
This minor issue solved itself approximately 15-20 minutes after the hardfork took effect, and the network hummed along perfectly fine for another 30 minutes before the reversion was released on github. During this time masternode payments were also working perfectly. In retrospect, the decision to revert the code was probably a mistake, but I understand the decision as Evan was acting out of an abundance of caution and that bit of lag spooked him.
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
+101 +1 The communication is catastrophic, despite repeated demands for more transparence and openess from the community - and still no official comment on what really happened. Really dissapointed. |
|
|
|
Just curious has XC figured out how to handle people that reprogram their wallet to steal the coins ?
So no XC promoter answered this, I will just presume that this issue still persists then. Current Rev 1.5 uses trusted transactions. Multisig is an easy implementation and will fix this. This is set for the first week in July, knowing dan though, it will be earlier. Could you please people discuss your coin in its thread ? It is embarrassing now. |
|
|
|
I don't think there will ever be 1000 MN ... A good portion of the coins are fragmented investments <1k or people that don't want the hassle of managing something as "complex" + all the necessary liquid part used by exchanges and people actually buying stuff with a crypto currency - yes they must exist  My wild guess is between 500 and 800 MN will exist at apex this year. I know there are 800 wallets with at least 1k DRK - even if I do understand there could be tens/hundreds of thousands of DRK inside the richest ones, I expect 800 to be the upper bound for total MN count nevertheless. |
|
|
|
|
Ok let's do this. I can't wait for the fork to happen.
By the way, I also realise that on the top of fixing thousands of coins, the MN will probably also decrease the amount of new coins that are put daily on the markets from mining - since 20% are taken from the miners that mostly instant-sell those on the markets.
What MN owners plan to do with their fees? Holding them for a while, instant sell or sell at a fixed rate that DRK would eventually reach?
|
|
|
|
I used all of my bitcoins last thursday I've held since the beginning of time (~70) to buy some dark, at 0.025. I really feel the cold sweat on my back now - half of my "fortune" just went poof in a matter of day.
I am still holding the coins now, but can't find sleep .. damn
Just think why you ever bought DRK ... yup, but crypto markets are irrational. Myself thinking there are some genuine good ideas behind a coin is probably not enough to make it succeeds. And a couple of whales basically control the crypto exchanges apparently. |
|
|
|
|
I used all of my bitcoins last thursday I've held since the beginning of time (~70) to buy some dark, at 0.025. I really feel the cold sweat on my back now - half of my "fortune" just went poof in a matter of day.
I am still holding the coins now, but can't find sleep .. damn
|
|
|
|
|
