Forking Megathread

we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
 
camosoul said:
Centralization of voluntary action? Gain nothing forcible. Centralize for no benefit...
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean they can't have a MN if they don't register... Forcing them to fork is more centralizing don't you think? :)
 
I don't see how being on a mailing list will force bad actors to update... Its no different from gun control: it has no impact on the bad guys, imposes burdens on the good guys, helps the bad guys know exactly what to do... seen this pattern before... its been over a week. This isn't an accident...
 
moli said:
It doesn't mean they can't have a MN if they don't register... Forcing them to fork is more centralizing don't you think? :)
Click to expand...
Thats my point. Yay, a mailing list! Still run all the wrong masternodes you want! Solves nothing...
 
camosoul said:
I don't see how being on a mailing list will force bad actors to update... Its no different from gun control: it has no impact on the bad guys, imposes burdens on the good guys, helps the bad guys know exactly what to do... seen this pattern before... its been over a week. This isn't an accident...
Click to expand...
Your conspiracy talk had someone spooked, just sold 7k DRK on Cryptsy...
 
snogcel said:
we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
Click to expand...
It never hurts to consider the possibility and create a plan before there is a problem. I consider it probable. None can deny it is exemplified as at least possible. A stick needs to be built is the least one can take away as even if it is not intentional, one might say that it can happen by accident is even worse... it proves that this vector is not as impossible as thought and the only seemingly effective barrier is to cost more... buy your way to network security?
 
camosoul said:
It never hurts to consider the possibility and create a plan before there is a problem. I consider it probable. None can deny it is exemplified as at least possible. A stick needs to be built is the least one can take away as even if it is not intentional, one might say that it can happen by accident is even worse... it proves that this vector is not as impossible as thought and the only seemingly effective barrier is to cost more... buy your way to network security?
Click to expand...
I'm sure we will get through this stronger than ever, like we always do. If you're right, this is akin to a coder finding a bug, Evan will think of a way for it never to be an issue again. Good that it happened now, before DRK is widespread.
 
snogcel said:
we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
Click to expand...
This! It seems some folks forget that last week saw 6(!) releases, and in the past (v9, v10) it took at least one week for masternode network to catch up. But V11 is the first time people see the stats for that...

Having that said: v10 masternodes are not forking the blockchain, as they are not mining. Only way to fork a blockchain is to create (aka mine) a block which is "invalid" and not handled properly. Masternodes are passive re. blockchain generation. So please stop putting the responsibility for the forks on the masternode operators.
 
flare said:
This! It seems some folks forget that last week saw 6(!) releases, and in the past (v9, v10) it took at least one week for masternode network to catch up. But V11 is the first time people see the stats for that...

Having that said: v10 masternodes are not forking the blockchain, as they are not mining. Only way to fork a blockchain is to create (aka mine) a block which is "invalid" and not handled properly. Masternodes are passive re. blockchain generation. So please stop putting the responsibility for the forks on the masternode operators.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that, bud. Are there any ideas as to what IS causing this, then?
 
flare said:
This! It seems some folks forget that last week saw 6(!) releases, and in the past (v9, v10) it took at least one week for masternode network to catch up. But V11 is the first time people see the stats for that...

Having that said: v10 masternodes are not forking the blockchain, as they are not mining. Only way to fork a blockchain is to create (aka mine) a block which is "invalid" and not handled properly. Masternodes are passive re. blockchain generation. So please stop putting the responsibility for the forks on the masternode operators.
Click to expand...
Flare, thanks for this post. Many people on this forum and IRC keep saying MNs on the older versions caused the forks and I keep saying but the network was stable on the older versions, there must be something in the Core version that rejects the blocks... But I'm a noob, I don't quite understand all this.

What has been causing the forks, flare? and are we out of the woods now? Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top