Quote from: efx on August 01, 2013, 04:03:40 AM

Quote from: justin7674 on July 26, 2013, 08:54:02 PM

Someone hardforked craftcoin and went back 50 blocks to reset difficulty.
I had to delete my blockchain for this to take effect.

addnode=199.180.115.100

+

Quote from: justin7674

To be honest. Blindfolded fucked the network. He literally ditched it. I am the developer for the java plugin and he has just up and left. HE IS GONE THIS COIN IS DEAD AND DOESNT DESERVE ITS SLOT ON CRYPTSY

I am removing the java plugin and making it compatible for bottlecaps. Everyone move on from this thread.

+

Quote from: justin7674

There is no risk in testing the client from another computer. But, your loss. There is a pool that has reviewed the code and is agreeing to post a new pool to set the chain in place and unfreeze it. Nobody's transactions or money will be lost!

It's pretty (very) obvious that you do not really know what's going on. Essentially anyone on this forum could have implemented your 'fix', it's a temporary measure at best and needlessly introduces potential risks. Releasing the client and attempting to gain hashrate without approval is definitely on the edge of malicious.

"Your loss." Hm right, because those who do not decide to join your little fork would be left with devalued coins. Nice.

Forgive me if I do not find your references very impressive, especially after your baseless little outburst.

Anyways, as SaltySpitoon already mentioned, nodes with a seemingly better height are going to be seen by the client and they will not be rejected immediately. The lack of node consensus is not going to help anything, as such an insignificant edit means this will not be the last crc fork and the needless division of non-malicious network hashrate is entirely counter-productive.

I say that you should all wait for a *real* fix, not a simple reduction in adjustment period. Empirical evidence has already shown such a simplistic change is not a long-term solution to the problem of highly variable hashrate and introduces new potential risks.

Anyways, I hopefully didn't need to point any of the above out and you are all aware of what highly irregular coin generation can do to small economies.

This is a good springboard for what I wanted to reply. One of the reasons I haven't been quick to apply this fix is because I am unsure of its effectiveness. Simply lowering the max re-target, and shortening the time span for re-target isn't a real fix IMO. A patch? possibly (possibly not)... The simple fact is that this doesn't fix the root of the problem. In fact it could compound it even more if the network gets 2-3 solid days of high hashrate (which is likely to happen).

It's not a "No" but it's definitely not a "Yes" - Lets just say I'm keeping our options open for a day or two.