What built in "fail safe? What "up stream best practices"?
I'm concerned that you keep coming up with weird reasons we can't use my code, but you won't test those reasons.
Its not like I changed 900 lines of code, added 67 lines with 3 new functions etc. I just tweaked a widely accepted coin (litecoin) wallet to work with our coin.
I'm concerned you're just throwing out hypotheticals about what could go wrong and claiming that means we should scrap everything without even verifying if your concerns are relevant.
DNP raised a point I can't dismiss; he was concerned there wasn't enough time for testing. Fine, fair enough, that's something we can talk about. But you just suggest we should scrap everything and that doesn't make any sense.
I tried for months to get someone to code for this wallet, DaveF tried a lot longer than I did. Most coders want hundreds of dollars up front and will charge upwards of a couple thousand dollars by the time they're done. But no one in this community was willing to pay (sans those who may have paid already). Finally, I started working on it (without compensation) and after months of testing and troubleshooting and coding it, I finally did it. Now you're saying we should scrap the thing we've been waiting for for upwards of a couple of years without even testing it because something you're afraid of "might" go wrong? I find fault with your logic.
Hi number435398,
Thanks for your candor.
I am glad we're getting this all out in the open.
I am sure if it were trivial to perform a non-disruptive protocol upgrade from 0.8 to 0.15 then everybody would be doing it.
I've already seen one reckless attempt for this on another coin where a developer came and went and then left consensus in a broken state.
Its true that after the BIPs activate, none of the 0.8 clients will be viable for mining or signing transactions which will require strict DER signatures.
After studying the code for a year, I have simply arrived at a different conclusion then you have.
The options I see moving forward include a 0.13.0 rebase with a hard fork to improve our difficulty adjustment algorithm.
You can try to discuss actual elements of the code or features in the client, but simply calling my criticisms bullshit will not result in a better network.
Best Regards,
-Chicago
I'm not the dev you referenced. I know old clients won't work anymore. Never hid that; we can't upgrade to the new BIPs to become eligible for exchanges without that. Absolute worst case scenario blockchains can be rolled back, but my testing does not indicate any problems at all. I resolved all address issues I could find.
You've come to a "different conclusion"? All you've referenced are "concerns", not actual issues. I get another dev makes you gun-shy but you still have to ground your concerns in actual measurable issues. If you identified a measurable issue, that'd be completely different. If my wallet was constantly deleting your wallet.dat file, yes, that'd be an issue, but that's not happening.
You are still failing in one point; you have yet to demonstrate any fault with my code. You continue to speak of hypothetical worries you have instead of specifically identifying actual issues.
I've posted the code, I've posted the exe's, its all there. Try it.
Worrying that something could go wrong and saying we shouldn't move forward where we can because of your worries is not productive. It's distracting. Pointing out an actual flaw; that'd be productive.
Think of how many things you could have tested on my wallet in the time it's taken you to converse with me regarding your mere hypothetical worries.