HCLivess (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1090
=== NODE IS OK! ==
|
 |
July 21, 2015, 12:35:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Jungian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 930
Merit: 1010
|
|
July 21, 2015, 12:40:37 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! |
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
July 21, 2015, 12:48:01 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The dynamic blocksize limits are probably starting to look attractive to bitcoin. Speaking of which ... have any of the bitcoin clones implemented a self adjusting blocksize limit? Might be a good move for darkcoin if it hasn't been done yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
sdmathis
|
|
July 21, 2015, 12:48:29 PM |
|
That's interesting, but irrelevant and has nothing to do with his latest comments concerning DASH. |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 21, 2015, 12:52:23 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. |
|
|
|
|
rdnkjdi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1256
Merit: 1009
|
|
July 21, 2015, 12:55:30 PM |
|
The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue.
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate what you guys are accomplishing. |
|
|
|
|
|
sdmathis
|
|
July 21, 2015, 01:04:20 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 21, 2015, 01:15:26 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? Broken (possibly left that way deliberately as an exploit), but also very obscure and undocumented. It was fixed by rewriting it. |
|
|
|
|
RajRambo
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
July 21, 2015, 02:15:02 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? Broken (possibly left that way deliberately as an exploit), but also very obscure and undocumented. It was fixed by rewriting it. I call bullshit. Probably Smooth never rewrote anything. Most of what these guys say is 100% bullshit trying to make it sound they are doing lots of work and Monero is really different to cryptonote. Except the wallet is 8 months old as everyone knows so i cant be that different can it. Notice, he didn't say which code he 'fixed', or ya know link to the before and after code, so everyone can go back to sleep. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 21, 2015, 02:41:51 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? Broken (possibly left that way deliberately as an exploit), but also very obscure and undocumented. It was fixed by rewriting it. I call bullshit. Probably Smooth never rewrote anything. Most of what these guys say is 100% bullshit trying to make it sound they are doing lots of work and Monero is really different to cryptonote. Except the wallet is 8 months old as everyone knows so i cant be that different can it. Notice, he didn't say which code he 'fixed', or ya know link to the before and after code, so everyone can go back to sleep. As I said on the other thread where you are spewing the same nonsense, GTFO https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/2ef0aee81d20c002ed50d6dec4baceee1ac40b44https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225 |
|
|
|
|
RajRambo
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
July 21, 2015, 02:45:46 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? Broken (possibly left that way deliberately as an exploit), but also very obscure and undocumented. It was fixed by rewriting it. I call bullshit. Probably Smooth never rewrote anything. Most of what these guys say is 100% bullshit trying to make it sound they are doing lots of work and Monero is really different to cryptonote. Except the wallet is 8 months old as everyone knows so i cant be that different can it. Notice, he didn't say which code he 'fixed', or ya know link to the before and after code, so everyone can go back to sleep. As I said on the other thread where you are spewing the same nonsense, GTFO https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/2ef0aee81d20c002ed50d6dec4baceee1ac40b44https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225Like I said on the other thread, he said the code-base was atrociously bad. So what else did you change in the code-base to fix it? Answer: Nothing, because Smooth is a total bullshit artist. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
July 21, 2015, 02:53:21 PM |
|
This is from a year ago. It has been cleaned up very much since then. But nice try! I'd say "Process of being cleaned up" is probably more appropriate. The specific C code he was referring to has been entirely cleaned up, either by rewriting it (in the case of tree-hash referenced above) or documenting where it came from (a well-known crypto library) and verifying that it is unmodified. The rest of the code base was never that bad, but of course can nevertheless be improved, so that process does continue. Just curious, was the bad code that you guys cleaned up just "ugly", or was it bad in that it was unstable or broken? Broken (possibly left that way deliberately as an exploit), but also very obscure and undocumented. It was fixed by rewriting it. I call bullshit. Probably Smooth never rewrote anything. Most of what these guys say is 100% bullshit trying to make it sound they are doing lots of work and Monero is really different to cryptonote. Except the wallet is 8 months old as everyone knows so i cant be that different can it. Notice, he didn't say which code he 'fixed', or ya know link to the before and after code, so everyone can go back to sleep. As I said on the other thread where you are spewing the same nonsense, GTFO https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/2ef0aee81d20c002ed50d6dec4baceee1ac40b44https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225Like I said on the other thread, he said the code-base was atrociously bad. So what else did you change in the code-base to fix it? Answer: Nothing, because Smooth is a total bullshit artist. GTFO 1. Read his (almost year old) tweet. He referenced a specific file, which was rewritten (as cited above) 2. Sure, "nothing" except 1059 commits: http://pastebin.com/fSJM8m0v |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
