when we hit the ltc coin caps
What does that mean?
Although ltc could stand for something else.
I'm referring to this
Code:
/** No amount larger than this (in satoshi) is valid */
static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 84000000 * COIN; // Motocoin-FIXME: max amount
inline bool MoneyRange(int64 nValue) { return (nValue >= 0 && nValue <= MAX_MONEY); }
static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 84000000 * COIN; // Motocoin-FIXME: max amount
inline bool MoneyRange(int64 nValue) { return (nValue >= 0 && nValue <= MAX_MONEY); }
This section of code (and some related control flow changes elsewhere, also) affects, in relatively small ways, things like fee calculation, transaction validity, network work statistics, and more. They are all minor problems, but a lot of the things that "just don't work quite right" in the wallet/daemon (and in particular the rpc commands) hit this particular group of changes relative to upstream Litecoin.
(EDIT: I should also point out that the set of things that don't quite work right increases quite a bit if you do something like give yourself 100million coins on a testnet!)
Quote
When will you release the compiled client with all of the patches all of the current patches that you've completed? Or are you going to work on it more and add in the N heads or whatever it is?
I don't think it is my place to release reference client builds, so for now I'll defer to WIlliam on this. Right now the patches are not entirely broadcast quality, but they are not far off. I've made a few more tweaks and will push a new set of patches out shortly, after I clean a few things up with the last merge..
Once there is a patch set that everyone seems happy to go ahead with, I'll be calling for all of the bot operators to make the switch at around the same time. Although I would think it likely that the majority of the miners will adopt the changes outright, some might disagree with the changes and may try to "vote against" the soft fork. Possibly some might even try to apply the attack vector "post mortem" and warp the old-rules branch to keep it perpetually longer (even after it would not be accepted as valid by the majority of the upgraded network) to confuse/trick old clients. This is why I think we would be wise to bump version number in block header soon, so users who are not following the situation get prompted to upgrade. If this is a particularly serious concern to anyone, we can enforce a hard fork, but I don't think the user-base is likely large enough to really necessitate it.