I wouldn't take Hazard seriously seeing how he doesn't respect other people around here and how he's clueless about programming yet he makes topics about code issues, commenting on basic code constructs he doesn't understand (source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204829.0 )
I'm sure many people are still running the 1000000 client.
And it's hilarious that crap like this even gets pushed out. This guy has no idea what he's doing in the code. He's just editing random variables and hoping they do what he wants.
You do realize it is >> right? higher >> means a lower number.
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. Or in a way that you did not understand. Anyway...
Allow me to rephrase it another way. By using an example. On bitcoin testnet, that variable in particular is decreased in order to reduce the minimum difficulty.
You, however, decided to increase it from it's starting value of 20, to an insane value of 1000000. You are in for some nasty difficulty spikes because of this.
LOL, I wonder if you actually know programming.
It was shifted right. Bitops. SHIFTING IT RIGHT DOES NOT INCREASE IT, IT DECREASES IT.
False.
That variable is in place to stop the difficulty from ever getting too low. It serves as the floor for difficulty, basically. There is enough documentation online to prove this.
You have
increased that floor from 20 to 1000000. Ergo, you have INCREASED difficulty by an insane amount.
You've already proven yourself to be incompetent. Don't even act like you know a damn thing about how bitcoin works, or coin creation in general.
Just so you finally understand Hazard, a
>> shift by
1000000* in this case is essentially the same as
dividing by
2^1000000 which would result in an incredibly small number which a computer wouldn't be able to reproduce anyway, hence you can consider it
0. Source: I'm a programmer, relevant programming 101 guide for you:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/510681/in-c-programming-can-i-use-multiply-and-divide-to-shift-bits* Note that I'm not sure why a shift by 1000000 was put in the code in the first place, that's wrong for other reasons which I'm sure the OP has discovered by now and has since fixed.