Hi Graham,
I've withdrawn the 0.16.3 release and deleted the repository as it's clear that supporting this particular upgrade is beyond my skillset.
I've done the protocol upgrade on another network from 0.8 through 0.14.3.
This should be something we can collaborate on to complete for Datacoin in time to bring 0.16.3 or whatever you like.
Apologies for the delay in my responding to your kind words and positive suggestions.
Do you feel that it's worth the effort?
I feel like once bitcoins are a ubiqutous currency globally and the hurdles El Salvador is facing with the IMF and World Bank have been overcome, it will be a short time thereafter where new faces will surge into many of the original communities which still have the will to live.
I don't think we need to go the scenic route here but its certainly a possibility we can entertain as well.
I have spent some time thinking about this in depth but I just can't convince myself that there is sufficient residual interest in the Datacoin chain to justify the amount of effort required for a migration.
I like to think of network maintenance and protocol upgrades for the Satoshian derivatives which are closely linked to original Bitcoin sourcecode as heavily modular.
In the case of Datacoin we really have just two differences making us more unique than the myriad Scrypt altcoins.
We use the Sunny King pieces for proof-of-work and retargeting and we have added an additional field into the transaction.
So when I imagine what it would look like for me to start building a new client to usher in the next protocol level - I see myself making commits which nearly mirror my prior work and then only have to "think" when it comes to the part which makes us distinct (the proof-of-work, retargeting and patching in the additional transaction field).
That is to say, most of the effort would be textbook processes and procedures where the work product is much more refined and elegant, yielding a more controlled network upgrade.
Is it worth the effort? I don't know, but I tend to like the older less perfect networks more than the newer more experimental projects which are not based on tried and true upstream Bitcoin code.
There isn't even enough interest to protect the chain against the current exploitation by just one individual of the emissions rate/difficulty modifier relationship.
This is a real problem. The other issues are less important than the actual network security which is quantified by the proof-of-work mining the emissions.
We could potentially pivot to auxiliary proof-of-work and seek out the goodwill of some merge-mining pool operators.
This would at least keep some of the smallest fish from abusing the chain continually and trade it for potential abuse from a bigger fish taking in nearly all of the rewards (but almost always certainly putting them up for sale) [which makes their share of the pie more manageable].
I'm certainly interested in your philosophy about long-term maintenance for mostly dormant network communities.
Although I see myself as merely an occasional technical contributor, I can see why public perception may prefer a caretaker interpretation.
My mistake, you used the word curator years ago in reference to leadership here and I couldn't remember 100% and wrote caretaker when I meant to use the word you gave in your self-defined role.
The community seems to have evaporated leaving a few isolated individuals remaining. Communication ranges from terse to non-existent.
Even though y'all in this thread aren't a daily part of my life -- I still like you more than the prospect of getting involved with any other flavor-of-the-day project which has less favorable politics.
I like Datacoin because it provides a medium to preserve free speech.
What's the point of continuing to support the remnants of a community that don't appear to want support?
Once network security is solved we will be able to transform from preserving free speech to protecting free speech - and in my mind this justifies continuing support.
Best Regards,
-Chicago
