Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 5120. (Read 9723733 times)

XC is a dead coin that was pumped and dumped by people looking to make a quick buck that missed the Darkcoin train. Don't mistake p/d'ers chasing a quick buck for innovation. Fuck they can't even come up with their own branding! Darkcoin didn't simple copy paste the another coin's code and launch "AnothercoinsAlgocoin". Then turn around and talk shit about the originalcoins devs. In fact, I haven't personally witnessed any of the DRK devs degrade another coins development team; In fact, it's quite the opposite.. They've been working with other developers from other coins which is how the crypto community should ACTUALLY be functioning - not against each other.

Any person that goes into another coin's thread and spreads bullshit to promote his or her coin is trash. Same goes to any coin developer - if you need to talk shit about a coin you copied to make up for its lack of innovation it translates into you and your coin project are trash.

Could you please people discuss your coin in its thread ? It is embarrassing now.

What does "no masternode payment yet" mean?

- masternode payments don't work?
- masternode payments not activated?
- masternode payments working/in progress but still need time for first MN payment to go through? (if this: Why?)

Current Rev 1.5 uses trusted transactions. Multisig is an easy implementation and will fix this. This is set for the first week in July, knowing dan though, it will be earlier.

Hi all, I have been been following todays events closely and I have few (maybe controversial) remarks:

First, the hardfork implemetation went perfectly as far as I can tell. The network never became forked at any point. Immediately following the hardfork a couple of the pools were 1-5 minutes behind the highest block, but at no point did any of the pools ever fork - despite repeated claims to the contrary by people that should know better ::cough cough::. I believe Evan mistakenly interpreted this 1-5 minutes of lag on certain pools and masernodes as a fork, when in fact it was not (probably due to the differences in blockheight reported by the pools and those reported to him by masternode owners). As others have suggested, the reason for this lag is probably because the solved blocks were just taking longer than usual to propagate through the network because there were a lot of old clients on the network, something not entirely unexpected.  

This minor issue solved itself approximately 15-20 minutes after the hardfork took effect, and the network hummed along perfectly fine for another 30 minutes before the reversion was released on github.  During this time masternode payments were also working perfectly.  In retrospect, the decision to revert the code was probably a mistake, but I understand the decision as Evan was acting out of an abundance of caution and that bit of lag spooked him.

If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.

If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.