I agree. The fact the percentage of 2.0 votes decreased so quickly is a strong indication that the bug did happen in 4.0 too.
We lost some time but the development of the other parts continued during that time.
I agree. The fact the percentage of 2.0 votes decreased so quickly is a strong indication that the bug did happen in 4.0 too.
We lost some time but the development of the other parts continued during that time.
hereâs macosx build of v5.0.1:
https://rbfi.io/dl.php?key=/hEYk/bcexchange.dmg
sha256:
ef3b3fe9924ec9e3d505ec0f6c922ca699b049400d745e8e269006b67c7c2654
Awesome.
I wish youâd find someone to discuss this with. It seems interesting.
I will discuss it and in fact Iâve been talking this for 18 months.
Oh, Iâve seen you talk about it, but is there anyone else here into the idea?
There are some, but not many. l"ll try it.
@tomjoad, I know you said that you wonât be an active participant in our current crisis and will be more of a silent observer. What do you think should be done with control of B&Câs Twitter account? We need somebody in control of it that is willing to keep it updated with the latest news. For example, we have yet to announce the newest version release on Twitter.
I run Peercoinâs Twitter and would be willing to do the same here if shareholders wanted me to. While I might not be the best at creating advertisement tweets as you do, I can at least make sure that major news announcements are posted about.
Also, it seems that B&C Exchange can find a way to go on and potentially still become successful, especially now that we realize the protocol upgrade delay was more likely due to a bug rather than apathy from shareholders. As a large shareholder in B&C, will you still be actively participating in its final development, launch and operation? I can see taking a silent observer approach with Nu, not knowing how the situation will turn out, but I think there is still hope that the B&C DAO can come out of this. Will you at least be participating in trying to finish and launch B&C?
I posted in-thread and sent @BCExchange a message on Bitcointalk to update the original post and website to reflect the release of v5.0.1. Hopefully they are still paying attention.
How could I assure I am minting on v5.0.1? I guess after "2016-07-18 14:00:00 UTC, there will be a big competition of forks.
{
â2.0â : {
âblocksâ : 435,
âblock_percentageâ : 21.75,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : ââ
},
â4.0â : {
âblocksâ : 452,
âblock_percentageâ : 22.6,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : ââ
},
â5.0â : {
âblocksâ : 1113,
âblock_percentageâ : 55.65,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-07-18 14:00:00 UTCâ
}
}
Run bcexchanged getinfo
. If it returns "version" : "v5.0.1-beta"
then youâre minting with the 5.0.1 client and fully supports the upcoming protocol.
If you want to know whether youâre voting for the 5.0 protocol (to make sure the bug is fixed for example) you can find a block you minted by looking for the last ânew block found
â in debug.log
. Itâs followed by a line giving the hash of the block you found. Then you can run bcexchanged getblock <the hash>
and in the vote
section it should show "versionvote" : "5.0"
.
Still no version release updates to the website, main thread or Twitter account. How do we take these over so we can update them? @CoinGame @tomjoad Do we need to talk to this Angela? Who controls these accounts and how do shareholders update things?
Do we need to pass a motion of hand over the dev fund, website, twitter account to reputed signers?
Iâm not sure about the social media accounts. I may have access to them but Iâd have to do some digging. The website itself is open source and anyone can submit a pull request to update it. https://github.com/BC-Exchange/bcexchange.org
{
â2.0â : {
âblocksâ : 75,
âblock_percentageâ : 3.75,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : ââ
},
â4.0â : {
âblocksâ : 275,
âblock_percentageâ : 13.75,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-08-01 14:00:00 UTCâ
},
â5.0â : {
âblocksâ : 1650,
âblock_percentageâ : 82.5,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-07-18 14:00:00 UTCâ
}
}
what does this mean?v4.0.1 forked ?@sigmike
Recently, number of connection always = 5.
There are no apathetic miners for B&C, LOL
{
â2.0â : {
âblocksâ : 15,
âblock_percentageâ : 0.75,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : ââ
},
â4.0â : {
âblocksâ : 283,
âblock_percentageâ : 14.15,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-08-01 14:00:00 UTCâ
},
â5.0â : {
âblocksâ : 1702,
âblock_percentageâ : 85.1,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-07-18 14:00:00 UTCâ
}
}
It means the protocol â4.0 or moreâ reached 90%, so a switch to 4.0 would happen on August 1st. But it wonât. Itâs an unusual case that was not anticipated in the RPC command.
What will happen is that the protocol will switch to 5.0 today, and then it wonât check anything about 4.0 anymore (because we will already be beyond). The RPC will probably continue to report the 4.0 switch time though.
Any user running a version below 5.0 will start to reject blocks created by 5.0 after 14:00 UTC today. If they mint they will run on an isolated chain and end up banned.
{
â4.0â : {
âblocksâ : 278,
âblock_percentageâ : 13.9,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-08-01 14:00:00 UTCâ
},
â5.0â : {
âblocksâ : 1722,
âblock_percentageâ : 86.1,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-07-18 14:00:00 UTCâ
}
}
V2.0 disappears in these 2 days, I guess some mines are not apathetic, but lazy.
Less than 6 hours to mint for âany userâ below 5.0
@sigmike, is there something wrong
{
â4.0â : {
âblocksâ : 242,
âblock_percentageâ : 12.1,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-08-01 14:00:00 UTCâ
},
â5.0â : {
âblocksâ : 1758,
âblock_percentageâ : 87.9,
âswitch_to_date_timeâ : â2016-07-19 14:00:00 UTCâ
}
}
âswitch_to_date_timeâ has moved 1 day ahead but my client reports âprotocolversionâ : â5.0â