Quote from: NaN_PTS on May 05, 2015, 02:47:24 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 05:26:42 AM

Quote from: NaN_PTS on May 05, 2015, 04:58:35 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 04:49:34 AM

Quote from: NaN_PTS on May 05, 2015, 04:38:50 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 03:46:35 AM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 05, 2015, 03:15:16 AM

Its all good we will follow your lead, as of 2 hours ago i can not get either wallet to sync with the network. I will just turn off my miners for the night or send them elsewhere. One day does not a project make or break. Will be back tomorrow no worries. Appreciate your effort and I am certain these glitches will be ironed out in the next rev. All my wallets at 106630 using the new .7-beta as linked are unable to find the new chain. Could you post an add node for us to manual add to get on the right fork.

fastest way is to connect to 198.52.160.59 and 198.52.160.60.

Also 198.52.160.64 is on correct chain. I've already alerted exchange rep and block explorer owner.

users who noticed that old miner is not working have already switched back to the pool.

My rationale for this hard fork is as follows:- Transaction limit of 1 MB was not useable for planned future expansion, note, it's not a gimmick like other coins, we really will be using up a lot of space in a block with new security measures and metadata for reversible transactions and other innovations.

This update also forced all blocks to contain BN payments, all users must play by the same basic rules for us to have true consensus.

Two known issues are :-

For some reason Qt only working in litemode
And some icons in cleaned up QT are not showing especially for the tabbed statistics and message pages. We'll look into all this and more. Also trying to figure out a way to shorten overall startup time.

Meanwhile, if you have trouble syncing, just connect to the above mentioned noes using latest build for this link: - Windows x64 0.30.16.7b (with blocksize==20MB)

Source is always up to date

LOL, at least you have found the error in your "very straight forward" code https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/commit/00513f15c440d983adc833c4bc3da686587a455e. The specification says 20% of the block value goes to BN and not any more. You even increased the payments! Congratulation, you have introduced another hard fork.
Now you have to mention the 10,000,000 BCR premine (or however you call it) and what shall happen to the bank and reserve payments.
I will update the miner as soon as you have corrected your BS, otherwise you would just scam miners and waste my time. Sorry, I've corrected many bugs in the wallet and in p2pool, but you still do no listen to me; you don't even test your own code.

you are just sour that i closed the loophole you were exploiting. You'll note that you've said nothing new if you even followed the thread.

your miner is your own business and i've told you countless times, this project is not predicated on your miner. if you wish to be a part of the process, that is up to you, but don't expect me to give what you say a second look, your attitude stinks.

Well, then why did you promise to obey the specification? Am I wrong with the specification? Why aren't you able to test a release? Your just arrogant and making mostly empty promises. My last warning was ignored, too, and the scenario became reality. Would you have listened to me this time? No. I don't want to have large influence in this project, if you understand this, otherwise this would have happened after the last fork.

for one, that infographic was not done by me. and when that and other issues were realized, it was resolved that they would be fixed along with the new graphics.

But like i said, you don't follow the thread and only show up to impress your thoughts without catching up. Your motivations are what made me ignore you, which is excatly what was driving you to try and get people back on an unsupported chain.

we can go at this all day and nothing will be resolved. this is a work in progress, and until you start treating it like that, you'll always be complaining.

You're just a liar. I followed the thread, but why should I comment it, if you'll ignore it? Give me a link to a post in this forum that describes the current payouts to BN. We agreed to something different after dragos_bdi's fork (I had nothing to do with that fork), if you can remember. Do you think nobody will notice, if you change the specification as you did with the update https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/commit/00513f15c440d983adc833c4bc3da686587a455e without notifying users? You made the infographic official and that's your responsibility. I told you that it contradicts the source code and you haven't change neither. The community shouldn't trust you anymore, if you keep your behaviour.

Nan_PTS i just want to say I am very impressed by your skill specifically with your miner and the improvements you have made over 1+ year. I am also very impressed by your dedication to working on pool/miner functionality with respect to BCR. Finally, i think its great that you have noticed discrepancies between the specification and the current implementation with the latest release. This is the kind of watchdog activity that leads to successful opensource programming projects.

That being said I have worked on a number of software projects over the years. Discrepancies always ALWAYS arise between documentation and implementation for various reasons especially as the complexity, number of people working, and number of releases increases. These are not necessary malicious in intent, the bcr dev may have tweaked or changed specification and deviated from some posting but this does not mean he is trying to hide or pull a fast on on anyone. I know of code currently in low earth orbit that has vastly more discrepancies and vastly more at stake than here. People sometimes just cant keep 100% of everything straight all the time.

BCR dev, your commitment to this project has been commendable, and your interaction with the community better than almost any i have seen. I understand how hard it can be to tweak code (that is yours) in the presence of outside opinion. You have a lot of things you want to try out and it is hard to make sure that each update does not "break" the network, as well as herding all of us onto the next protocol without leaving to many people behind or upsetting people and making them want to leave the project.

My opinion is that this is a work in progress, that has some cool new ideas and cool new technologies, those of us committing hash-power or nodes to the network understand this. Unlike Bitcoin this project can continually update the code base and make stumbling steps forward; vast sums of money are not at stake, nor should they be. However, when money comes into the picture, and at 2-3k this becomes thousands of dollars for some people, tempers will rise. This is a hard line to walk especially when it could be perceived that someone is trying to gain the system or get an unfair advantage.(in full disclosure of course i run python scrypts that coin hop when the difficulty is low, i really ran up the score on NEOS, DGB and unitus, so ya people will take advantage of a situation if they can out maneuver a code-base)

So I would ask that we not resort to name calling just yet, both of you have brought up good points and clearly know and ply your craft with skill. Sometimes messages on forums seem a bit harsher than intended. This is only one debate, and the first of many to come. I think it might be time to create a issue/resolution system for such issues for documentation-code-implementation.

Might I propose we create some sub threads on the main page (or maybe elsewhere) linking to issues (and we could start with this one) where people cleanly lay out a problem and then interaction with the dev for specific issues can be addressed, this way problems can be isolated as well as documented and closed when resolved, while building trust along the way. I really like they way NaN-PTS clearly used github to demarcate the changes under observation. This way critical points wont be lost in a 90 page long thread. I fully expect with continual releases more problems will emerge, and we cant resort to a he-said she-said back and forth every time, i think were all better than that.