Quote from: gjhiggins on November 13, 2017, 03:06:50 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on November 05, 2017, 01:44:29 AM

what graham is trying to do with our emulation of pivX.

Not looking too favourable for bee-as-pivx (work-in-progress has been committed as beep). Going down the PIVX route without a strong technical team could be terminally disastrous.

Max Guevara did call it correctly when he observed:

Quote

Porting over a bunch of complicated features at once is a sure fire way to break lots of things. Trying to implement two big projects like Masternodes and PoS at once is not very prudent. A phased approach where each feature is added and thoroughly reviewed and tested is the way to go. PivX is on a different code base from Quark, this complicates matters. PivX also has an old modified PoS implementation that's different from Peercoin.

In a different context (Slimcoin, a PPclone), I was recently informed: Blocknet (a Pivx/Dash/PPcoin clone) was hacked in early Oct by someone who discovered a way to exploit the staking mechanism for personal gain. Apparently PIVX had discovered and quietly repaired its code some time before. and directed to a reddit post:

Quote

On 27 Sept, we became aware of a critical staking protocol bug inherited from the PPC/Dash/PivX codebase. Furthermore, we noticed a malicious actor appeared to have exploited this bug the very day before. (which, however improbably, was that the code lacked a check on the number of coins in a stake reward).

(The PPcoin code that implemented the check on stake reward value had apparently been lost during the extensive refactoring to PIVX.)

The other route that I'm investigating involves removing the proprietary anon functionality from Navcoin, a Core 0.13 clone adapted to use PoW-then-PoS (work-in-progress has been committed as been). One important feature of Core 0.13 is the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, gateway to the existing decentralised exchanges.

Cheers

Graham

Thank you very much Graham.

I see on this level of detailed communication between the development and the user/big-community side as a very healthy thing.
As for implementing complicated features, I guess we will all agree on choosing the safest path.

Thank you for the update!