Network Monitoring Continues -- Important Sentinel Update Forthcoming | DASH: Detailed

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
WTF, not only must we be happy with payment enforcement being off, we should now be glad that bugs are appearing after testing so that enforcement can remain off.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,720
839
183
Thank you for this video update Amanda. I'm looking forward to the new Sentinel update, so we can squash that bug and move forward again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGCMiner

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
@qwizzie is also happy if more miners choose not to pay him because in the long term it's good that MNs produce bugs in their "stable" upgrade. @qwizzie appreciates that MNs are continuing the testing phase, it reasures him the security is top notch. Long live payment enforcement being switched off!
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
In typical @qwizzie style, I agree with him that miners should not pay MNs, yet he still chooses to mark posts as dumb
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,720
839
183
Congratz GrandMasterDash, you are the very first person that i put on ignore in this dash.org/forum. Not just for your endless negativity and not just for your many trolling posts
but mainly because reading your posts seems like a big waste of my time. Time i feel could be better spend on other things.
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Team
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
First ever bugs-free software in the world was not our goal. The "good enough and no known bugs" was. Testnet was running fine but mainnet is another beast - it's 40x times larger and it turned out that some things were not robust enough.

As for enf: the choice is a) some MNs have longer period of payouts b) network forks unexpectedly. What's the point of using sporks if you would achieve the same result (fork)? We prefer to fix all discovered issues, let network stabilize and then enforce the rules. Thanks to miners (who understand that long-term profit is much more important than a sort-term one) 95% of MNs are being paid correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tungfa

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
First ever bugs-free software in the world was not our goal. The "good enough and no known bugs" was. Testnet was running fine but mainnet is another beast - it's 40x times larger and it turned out that some things were not robust enough.

As for enf: the choice is a) some MNs have longer period of payouts b) network forks unexpectedly. What's the point of using sporks if you would achieve the same result (fork)? We prefer to fix all discovered issues, let network stabilize and then enforce the rules. Thanks to miners (who understand that long-term profit is much more important than a sort-term one) 95% of MNs are being paid correctly.
"95% of MNs are being paid correctly" means 5% are not. And the keyword you used is "we" - clearly I'm not your "we". I think you meant to say "we, The New Geek Bankers"... a minority unwilling to hand over control to the majority... what with all those centralized sporks.

Unfortunately, I don't believe dash core will ever trust it's MNOs to anything significant, let alone it's end users.
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Team
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
... And the keyword you used is "we" - clearly I'm not your "we" ...
If you prefer unpredictable forking, then clearly you are not.

... I think you meant to say "we, The New Geek Bankers"... a minority unwilling to hand over control to the majority... what with all those centralized sporks ...
I think you are wrong. Having sporks control is indeed a point of centralization but it gives no direct control over miners or masternodes. If it would, we wouldn't ask and wait for them to upgrade. "unwilling", yeah, right... Implement decentralized version of spork if you think it's that easy and we'll merge it.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
If you prefer unpredictable forking, then clearly you are not.


I think you are wrong. Having sporks control is indeed a point of centralization but it gives no direct control over miners or masternodes. If it would, we wouldn't ask and wait for them to upgrade. "unwilling", yeah, right... Implement decentralized version of spork if you think it's that easy and we'll merge it.

Sporks is not a bad idea.
The flaw with sporks is the way they are ignited.
The sporks should be ignited by the vote of the masternodes, and not by a single developer or by the core team.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
Sporks is not a bad idea.
The flaw with sporks is the way they are ignited.
The sporks should be ignited by the vote of the masternodes, and not by a single developer or by the core team.
Precisely, I couldn't agree more.