Quote from: RenegadeMan on August 28, 2014, 01:18:00 AM

Quote from: eduffield on August 28, 2014, 12:58:32 AM

Quote from: salmion on August 27, 2014, 11:48:04 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on August 27, 2014, 11:42:27 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on August 27, 2014, 11:39:41 PM

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem Lips sealed

.

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

+1

I think everyone has to continue to remind themselves that this is beta software being worked on in a series of Release Candidates. There will be set backs as well as great leaps forward.

What I like about your approach Evan is that you're demonstrating a higher overarching concern for the integrity of the network than for specific features to be focussed on with a "do or die" attitude. This is what's really important for DRK. Better that we miss out on small amounts of DRK because of this issue now than risk a major unexpected fork resulting in a big mess that will bring the whole thing to its knees.

I'm sure Evan knows how important payments for MN operators are. Without the MNs being well supported, much of the architecture will come unstuck. Let's just await the turn of events before getting all too carried away. Enforcement will no doubt be part of the mix soon, but I think Evan's exercising considerable wisdom in his approach and we should just let him handle it in this most appropriate way.

The protocol based enforcement is better than nothing (which is what we have now) and thus is a decent intermediate step. However, if it can't prevent people from forcing payments to 0% while using the rc4 client or protocol version hacks then in the long run we need something better.

As camo said, hardening is very hard... but it MUST be done. Especially for a coin aiming to be the #1 anon solution. In the future there will be tons of people, governments, and other organizations trying to destroy what Evan has built... there really is no reason to "groove" a pitch right in the middle of the plate for them.