And, for the record, a mod has contacted me via IRC and asked for my debug logs to troubleshoot the issue while suggesting that perhaps I was somehow "seperated" from the network and being the only mining pool would make me vulnerable to such disconnection.
I kindly replied, that I was on the internet the entire time, as was the daemon running neucoin.io's block explorer and even the daemon that is feed the official block explorer, all of which report the same block chain with the same PoW awards for hours before forwarding the logs.
While not part of that response, truth is during the entire time that as everyone else was connected to the "network" known as the internet that all other wallets connect to, the foundation's wallets failed to mine, which are the only wallets with enough funds to mine with any frequency. After hours of not mining, with the pool getting 100k+ in mining rewards, the block chain just ends up entirely being replaced with the foundations wallets earning the interest they would have if their wasn't an outage in their internal network.
I kindly replied, that I was on the internet the entire time, as was the daemon running neucoin.io's block explorer and even the daemon that is feed the official block explorer, all of which report the same block chain with the same PoW awards for hours before forwarding the logs.
While not part of that response, truth is during the entire time that as everyone else was connected to the "network" known as the internet that all other wallets connect to, the foundation's wallets failed to mine, which are the only wallets with enough funds to mine with any frequency. After hours of not mining, with the pool getting 100k+ in mining rewards, the block chain just ends up entirely being replaced with the foundations wallets earning the interest they would have if their wasn't an outage in their internal network.
Hmmm.... Maybe it was some kind of unintentional(?) 51%-attack. ;-)
Looks like we are dealing with some kind of "unintentional" (because incompetence) timedrift exploit:
It seems like a flaw that doesn't affect PPC, but could effect other PPC clones with narrower parms
...to Sunny King's defense, it's a flaw that could exist when Peercoin is redesigned in a clone coin fork in a way that doesn't work the same way Peercoin was designed.
Peercoin is exempt from this problem because of the maturity as you stated and I brought up. Other coins that fork peercoin and start making changes to its code need to understand why the "parms" are what they are in Peercoin. They're carefully thought out and decided before Peercoin launched.
Peercoin isn't written to be idiot proof (industry term) for new coin creation on forked github projects. If some one wants to use the code and make their own forked coin, they need to understand how and why Peercoin works the way it does. Not what file to edit, to change the "parms" and that's it.
Sunny did leave a comment in the code that is very interesting (that I bet a lot of PoS coin devs didn't read or if they did, did not understand)
// The following split & combine thresholds are important to security
// Should not be adjusted if you don't understand the consequences
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2058.0
That's one example. Not necessarily about what we're talking about here. But it's an example how some newbie coin devs just change "parms" numbers, work on a pretty looking gui wallet, and release a forked clone that is a bad implementation of PoS.
https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3931.msg37783#msg37783...to Sunny King's defense, it's a flaw that could exist when Peercoin is redesigned in a clone coin fork in a way that doesn't work the same way Peercoin was designed.
Peercoin is exempt from this problem because of the maturity as you stated and I brought up. Other coins that fork peercoin and start making changes to its code need to understand why the "parms" are what they are in Peercoin. They're carefully thought out and decided before Peercoin launched.
Peercoin isn't written to be idiot proof (industry term) for new coin creation on forked github projects. If some one wants to use the code and make their own forked coin, they need to understand how and why Peercoin works the way it does. Not what file to edit, to change the "parms" and that's it.
Sunny did leave a comment in the code that is very interesting (that I bet a lot of PoS coin devs didn't read or if they did, did not understand)
// The following split & combine thresholds are important to security
// Should not be adjusted if you don't understand the consequences
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2058.0
That's one example. Not necessarily about what we're talking about here. But it's an example how some newbie coin devs just change "parms" numbers, work on a pretty looking gui wallet, and release a forked clone that is a bad implementation of PoS.
Nice find! Most likely it's something like that and they just don't have any clue what to do - incompetence.
There is absolutely no reason that they are completely quiet about that, unless they absolutely don't know.... what to do and how to fix it.
Otherwise: They are completely quiet about a lot of issues. I'm sure that they know since some time that it's done.
