...
What is this? And how to read this info?
As you know, most of the coins have very similar code bases. But any little bug could potentialy damage the whole blockchain. To avoid this, people started to check the code both manually and automatically. As I know ocminer automatically checks code for already known bugs, so his checks couldn't find new bugs. Earlz checks code manually, but he also could miss something, because codebase is very huge. I chose different way. I wrote the script which compare code in one coin with code in other already inspected coins. So if you see something like "Good blackcoin arch " it means that i already inspected this code before in blackcoin's and arch's source, and I think that it's safe. When my script finds new code it asks me to check it manually and tells me which codebases is most similar, so 'CBlock::ConnectBlock Most similar blackcoin, diff=5, codehash=1a0a6fb0d9bc6aefff4e' means that most similar code of CBlock::ConnectBlock have seen in blackcoin and there is 5 places where something was changed.
Currently i check only most important functions in main.cpp.
Thank you very much for using c0c0 in your script analysis. Any third-party validation of code is greatly appreciated and is helpful in several ways.
This also supports/confirms my
earlier post about c0c0.
I will be sharing the news about the C-CEX voting as well as the code review.
c0fferC0in is getting ready to gain some very serious traction.
Show Posts
