Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Feb 28 19:45
    @Arachnid banned @merkle_tree_twitter
  • Feb 17 00:56
    @jpitts banned @Aquentson_twitter
  • Apr 09 2018 04:14
    @holiman banned @JennyJennywren_twitter
  • Oct 21 2017 19:12
    @Arachnid banned @Musk11
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
Still we can break ASIC miners on ethereum :joy:
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
.... Can we please use the testnet for testing for a few weeks, we have a hardfork coming up
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
If someone rent nicehash we can make the fork today :joy:
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
Let's launch a hashimoto-progow testnet when we've gotten further on that part, that can replace ropsten, but probably not for a few weeks
Before that, I personally would like if we can go ahead as planned
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
@holiman +1 for the suggestion, we need testnet for further implemention like Pool and Miners
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I would like to remind everyone that the fact that teams like Raiden and their users are testing on the public test net is actually good for that public testnet. It is much more likely to get bugs discovered than a testnet without any users (because it was broken for few days and everyone had to migrate to another). I would still recommend to complete pre-testnet testing before pushing for the test net.
I would even say that it makes sense to create a new PoW chain just for core devs for a little while, and once it has gone for a few days without issues, do Ropsten fork
We have to respect the users of Ropsten, because they help us test the new release
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
:thumbsup:
I am a side-chain developer but I still use ropsten to test my contract
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I don't see the point of making a tweet asking for objections to break Ropsten, hear the objections, but then do it anyway :)
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
If we can't make the fork the answer is always "Classic" :joy:
Let them use Ropsten "Classic" chain :joy:
Lefteris Karapetsas
@LefterisJP

@holiman you made the tweet asking for projects to tell you if they use Ropsten. I just did. We would have more work on our plate if Ropsten breaks this month and this is a critical month for us.

It's obvious that our priorities are very different and in the end it's not my decision. From the way my comments here were received it sounds like a done deal, so we will try to plan accordingly.

EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
I propose next version of pow testnet needs to remove diff bomb since it is bothering our workflow, we do not need higher blocktime for sure
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I suggest to launch a temporary testnet just for core devs (like a DEV environment) to just see if there any obvious problems and do a bit of poking there. If that works, move it to Ropsten (UAT environment :) ). That obviously requires delaying Ropsten, and I actually thinks it sends a positive signal rather than negative (if this is a worry). And, if the worry is to start testing as soon as possible - by keeping Ropsten stable, rather than shaking all the users off, the quality of testing will be better, even though it will start later
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
Ok. I'm fine with either. I can live with postponing it, but we need a decision now
We're about to make a release
Wei Tang
@sorpaas
TBH, if there're still miners running older version of Ropsten, then technically we already have two networks after the split.
So as long as people are still mining, I don't think it will actually matter a lot to @LefterisJP's workflow -- there may be higher blocktime variance, and his/her transactions may get confirmed on another chain, but that's all.
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
Yes, @veox pointed that out too
Continuing to run the pre-fork Ropsten is also an option.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@holiman Let me offer you a carrot - I will do more code reviews of CREATE2 before the Ropsten fork if you decide to postpone :)
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
It's not like it's up to me to decide
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
who?
Péter Szilágyi
@karalabe
We need a decision together with @5chdn and Parity
I don't care either way, as long as Geth and Parity agrees on the same thing
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
I agree
@5chdn @folsen call it please
Fredrik Harrysson
@folsen
I'm fine with postponing
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
Ok, not in this release then
Péter Szilágyi
@karalabe
4230000?
or do we want to call it off altogether for now?
Fredrik Harrysson
@folsen
a target is always good IMO
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
how much time does it require to get the tests regenerated and run the new versions of geth and parity in hive, for example?
and aleph, of course
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
Why don't we choose 4,444,444 it is a cool number @5chdn will like it :smile:
Or an alternative 4,567,890
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
it needs to be not too far in the future to start testing ASAP, but not too near so that pre-testnet things can be done
4230000 is 10 days from now, which is 14th of October
Sunday
Péter Szilágyi
@karalabe
pushing it much more forward will start to hit devcon
we really don't want to consensus fix the week before devcon
EOS Classic
@eosclassicteam
And everyone can learn about hardfork at devcon :smile:
Péter Szilágyi
@karalabe
So @folsen , any block number you feel comfortable with?
Fredrik Harrysson
@folsen
I have literally nothing to back this up with, but 10 days from now seems plenty to me

we really don't want to consensus fix the week before devcon

I wholeheartedly agree with this

Péter Szilágyi
@karalabe
Ok, should I make a twitter announcement that we'll postpone to 4.23M ? @holiman @LefterisJP @AlexeyAkhunov seems good to you?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@karalabe It is good to me, from my side I will have some time to do more reviews. Will the hive with the new versions be able to be running by then?