Topic: [POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦ - page 132. (Read 920138 times)

He then retracted here. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12309521
After looking at the code they realized that they did do exactly that.

Exactly THAT!

They could also be much more devious and thoughtful than they appear to be. All of this could be a long game to shake out some weak hands and make sure there is a crash when the markets finally come back online, this would let them and others buy up some cheap coins. Once the crash supply of coins is drained, then you resume focus on strengthening the network and growing it.

Crytsey Responce to me,
[–]ny2cafuse 1 point an hour ago
Crypsty is pretty cautious when it comes to wallet updates. They are offline under the premise that the entire network isn't updated, and there is a chance for a fork if enough hashing power was put into a POW wallet version. Fact of the matter is that the devs should have included code that blocked older wallet versions. This would have blocked the POW wallets from connecting to other nodes, and Cryptsy POT wallets would have been online a long time ago.

I'm going to retract my position now.  I'm looking at the code now, and it looks like they did add the min protocol version to the new wallet.  They changed the protocol to 70420.  This was done 10 days ago.  So I'm arguing an invalid point.  I was going with the assumption that if they were going to make that change, they would have addressed the pull request.  I went ahead and closed the pull request for the devs.

the dev's are prob buying up a bunch of cann right now. hehe

I haven't run my POT wallet in forever, so I can't remember whether I did a reindex or not.  I just know that I haven't done one in the last few months.

I'm going to retract my position now.  I'm looking at the code now, and it looks like they did add the min protocol version to the new wallet.  They changed the protocol to 70420.  This was done 10 days ago.  So I'm arguing an invalid point.

So if that isn't the issue, then maybe the seg fault is.  I'm lost at this point.  Maybe I'm starting to lose my mind  .

-Fuse

You had to reindex when upgrading from 8.6 to 8.7.x, that is what I am talking about, you can't wreak havoc on a chain that the wallet doesn't understand. So long as the exchanges are running the latest wallet, which they have to be able to operate, they shouldn't have any risk of seeing POW blocks from the 8.6.x, seeing as we are now officially way past the # that is in 8.7.x for the transition.

If you really think that its possible, please do it in proof of concept and then reality, then show the devs what needs fixed so we can move forward.
Bittrex said they would bring theirs online when the upgrade error went away, it did. Now there is something else that is holding them back, I doubt its still the older versions on the chain.

I AGREE.. can't one of you brain'iacs just become a volunteer dev for a few day's and fix it? 

Will the devs not let anyone like you guy's who seem to know what the hell is going on have access to mess with the code?

I didn't need to reindex.  I just started up the new wallet, once they added the difficulty algorithm.  No bootstrap or anything, just a clean start.

Your theory is incorrect.  The new wallets still consider the old wallets a valid node.  As such, there are conflicting code rules on which blocks to accept.  The old wallets say that POW blocks are correct and the new wallets say that POSv blocks are correct.  Whoever controls a majority of whatever version is the winner now.  From Cryptsy's standpoint, keeping the wallet offline is the right thing to do, just like CartmanSPC said.  If Canna or Weed or any other MJ based coin wanted to cause havoc with the chain, they could, and Cryptsy would be setting themselves up for a big glaring hole.  Just because the new version named a final POW block, it doesn't mean that it's written as law.  Old versions, which are still accepted as valid nodes, say that things should have continued past that block.

Until the code specifically blocks out all old versions, the blockchain will still believe those versions are correct.

This is literally a simple number change that effects nothing else with POSv transition.  It won't change staking, sending or receiving coins, or anything else.  It will just block old wallet versions and plug the security hole.  Patch it and move on.

-Fuse

entertaining show...

Now fix this shit.
FFS

I am pretty sure all of this is moot. When upgrading to POSv we had to reindex, the older wallets shouldn't be able to send coins to this chain even if they can connect, in theory it shouldn't accept any POW blocks because we are past the POW final block #.

They would use the wallet version before PoSv to do the attack. It would not be all that hard to do. The wallet before PoSv had no idea about the accelerated halfing and the switch to PoSv. I imagine it is conceivable that some miners could still be mining to it and if that chain is longer it would win....that would be tragically funny. Not everyone monitors these threads 24/7 or even monthly. Some people take months off at a time and leave their gear running on autopilot.

Cryptsy is doing the right (responsible) thing in my opinion.

Edit: Thinking about it more...since the PoSv chain was stuck on 974999(?) for days I'm sure the other chain is longer and technically the "correct" chain if it has ANY hashrate still...also seeing as the PoSv chain is going slower than expected it will have a hard time surpassing it.....that is if the other chain still has anyone mining to it.

Edit2: Just restored wallet version 0.8.6.4 from backup....think that was the version right before 8.7.1...maybe I will get some time to see if there are any wallets still running...just curious to see what block they are on and how much hashrate (if any) it has.

honestly I don't know who I'd believe cryptsy or dev... 1 thing I do know is that Poloniex has been around for a long time and is 2nd or 3rd in trusted altcoin exchanges in my book I use cryptsy and bittrex a lot more lol but thats probably more out of habit than anything else. So if Polo thinks POT is safe enough to run the wallet I have no problem giving them my business. cryptsy chronically has tons of wallets in maintenance like MINT and AC as well (and MINT is also up and running on polo) but Bittrex is normally pretty good about keeping up with wallets... so I don't know what to think, I don't know code so wouldn't be able to look for the issue if I tried so a big THANKS to those trying help and sharing their opinions.

for someone to want to waste the time and money to try to fork it, wouldn't there need to be something to be gained by it? wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

then again this is the "wild west" and if someone had enough of a competing pot themed coin they might be crazy enough to think forking it would hurt it enough to make the other weedcoins look better... so I guess the possibility of someone trying is there but would cost time and money and the more people staking and gaining weight the more expensive it would be to overpower it with pow (if I understand it correctly)

 lol now to Polo to see if anyone sold into my lil buys 

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M