Quote from: danbi on May 12, 2014, 11:08:52 AM

Quote from: HR on May 12, 2014, 09:59:09 AM

Add:

With all the previous talk about "hacking" things to adapt Diamond that created the impression that Diamond was deviating from the common standard, it's important to know that Diamond is not deviating from the original algo, at least in this case anyway. IMHO, these things need to be prominently reported in periodic status reports.

"hacking" is how we creative types refer to the process of investigating something that is not behaving properly and guiding it to behave. This is applicable to any thing in life, not just software. At least, this is how I understand this English language word. Wink

What you propose is good practice. However, it is very difficult to implement in forum formats like this. Here is a place for collaboration, more or less.

That's correct. That's what I understand "hacking" to mean, and you also clearly explained it earlier in this thread where you were discussing what you were doing . . . where phrases like "changing the code" and "the fact that DMD's implementation is not exactly like GRS's" along with questions about this "unique" implementation and doubts about whether something similar could happen again were also expressed. Putting the facts as we now know them front and center in "bold" (and doing the same with everything else - as much as possible) should help to alleviate at least some of those legitimate worries and fears.

Hope I am finding different ways of explaining how important direct, accurate and timely updating is and that I'm not just sounding like a broken record.

Below I repost part of that discussion of yours with other contributors:

Quote from: ninja registrator on May 09, 2014, 01:23:52 PM

Quote from: danbi on May 09, 2014, 01:13:07 PM

Quote from: ninja registrator on May 09, 2014, 01:00:32 PM

Quote from: danbi on May 09, 2014, 12:40:14 PM

Quote from: morrisonsa on May 09, 2014, 12:18:43 PM

Danbi,

If you can take ANY other groestl coin (what..all three of them?) and have it work in a heart beat, which they do, its not the stratum, its the coin.

True, you can make other groestl based coins work, but this is only part of the game. There is other hashing involved besides groestl in DMD and the other coins.

Still hacking, but so far, we have two choices:

1. make DMD hash like the other groestl coins and fork (!) again.

2. Modify both stratum AND the miner and avoid the fork. I am currently working in this direction.

in my thoughts? if the stratum is already working for other coins? even if its only 3 with this algo..... why would someone insist on changing and trying to fix something that isn't broke?
afraid of the fork? but the fork would solve the problem! also if your changing the code to change stratum and other then who says that this wont happen again ? instead of using tried and true ?
just my thoughts on breaking something that is working or not?
sure I understand the challenge of making it work and wanting to prove that your good coders but make this work like the other groestl and if we all have problems then its solved with more then just a single coin right?

The ralationship between wallet (getblocktemplate) - stratum - miner and wallet (getwork) - miner is very, very different.
In the later case, it is the wallet that controls block construction/verification etc. In the first case, it's all three parties.
In the case of the other coins, it "just works", because the neccesary work to support it has already been done. We will do it for DMD as well, don't worry.

The choice to fork again is no an easy one, at least not in this moment. Sure, the fact that DMD's implementation is not exactly like GRS's has been overlooked, but this is done thing, in the past. We need to look in the future, where we have precisely the above choices.

I for myself don't care much about any recognition, but am not feeling easy to have operated a pool and it suddenly stops because a bunch of people insist they don't share any knowledge. This cryptocoin stuff exists on the basis of community trust, which only exists when everything is open source.

common trust? well every moment that goes by and every proprietary and not open source change they make to make this "unique" running the road alone doesn't offer trust.... take a look at the entire world not just a small part of it!

the dev said" Still hacking, but so far, we have two choices:

1. make DMD hash like the other groestl coins and fork (!) again.

2. Modify both stratum AND the miner and avoid the fork. I am currently working in this direction.

taking the fork would solve the problem and number 2 is simply taking on a doubt full approach on coding that may or may not succeed.

I would think more of trying to get this working as others are working and not simply hack stuff to simply make it work for the moment then later it happens again. or not? but who knows?
with taking the fork it would get this coin back in the running trying to recover some of its credibility and would have several "devs" working on it not just this team