[PASSED] Motion to modify terms of custodain grant

I’m not able to reproduce the hash, neither with the websites you posted nor with hashlib. Maybe because of the list formatting?
I’ll set the hash since apparently the community agrees that this is the hash we should vote on to get this motion passed, but I’d love to be able to confirm it. Can you help me? How does the raw text you’re hashing look like?

EDIT: fyi, I am getting 05df242e4521b9da6c40d2a2cc45ad1e76ca221f using carriage return + line feed (like on the websites you posted) and 260cd8b79fc3c4a5ebf1e96ca8e44734c0affe19 when using line feeds only.

1 Like

Thank you for reporting this, @creon. When I generated the hash, I copied from the beginning of the word ‘Passage’ to the end of the word ‘custodian’ in condition b).

Is anyone else having trouble with this? If so, I will reformat the text and resubmit.

@jmiller - At this point, it may be worth leaving it as ~250 votes have already been cast for 4C1FA7B6B7B435BB215B93A771681232F1FD6237.

We need to work on a better method for posting motions, but it isn’t something we’ll be able to get done today.

I am returning the correct hash using both of the linked hash generation tools.

@jmiller Yes that’s what I am doing too :disappointed: But as Ben already said, the voting process started and it wouldn’t serve anyone to resubmit this proposal. I also believe you and pennybreaker that you are getting this hash, but I think its worth figuring out how to reproduce it on every machine.

@pennybreaker Could you do me a favor and create a pastebin with whatever your machine pastes into the text fields of those websites?

@Ben I really think its a browser / OS related problem in combination with the interpretation of the html produced by this forum. There are motions where I get the correct hash when replacing the newline characters. And there are other motions, where at least in my browser some newlines are inserted, which aren’t actually there (but will be copied), and which also don’t show up when quoting the text (e.g. Grant to provide 50,000 liquidity to Exco.in for 60 days).

I agree. My hypthoetical solution looks similar to a Github gist’s “raw” output. That way, browser differences don’t matter because all characters (visible or invisible, including whitespace and line breaks) would be captured in a copy/paste.

soon, thanks to @assistant this won’t be a problem for long

Hi desrever

I didn’t recognise your command

Send me a PM with the first word ‘help’ to see a list of available commands

Well, this doesn’t look good. I created the pastebin here but when I run the text from the line numbered text as well as the raw data from the pastebin, I get two completely different hashes. 966d0f3a0952d5961e5322640eea2c855c80fe4b and F6EFB54913520D6D5057057483D5AB95CE7C553F

I’m not sure if we should agree to let this stand. I think that the ability to verify in the future is more important than cutting it close on a deadline.

I am getting the correct hash now with your pastebin and carriage returns :smile: The problem was that my Chrome here ignores html paragraphs when copying, while your browser apparently translates it into 4 spaces. Likewise the list tag gets also translated into 4 spaces on your end, which isn’t the case on my machine.

EDIT: F6EFB54913520D6D5057057483D5AB95CE7C553F is correct if you don’t strip the string, both websites do this.

I agree that this is probably a browser issue. I’m used Firefox.

I think we already can reach a lot of consistency if we say:

  1. Copy the text from the forum to a text file
  2. Remove all trailing spaces and tabs of each line
  3. Remove all newline characters
  4. Calculate the RIPEMD-160 hash

This hash should be equal on most machines, at the cost that motions that only differ in newlines or trailing spaces/tabs would result in the same hash, which is ok in my opinion.


I confirmed that the hash matches what @jmiller posted using both hashing sites listed when the content was copied in from the forum and the browser was Firefox (v35.0).

1 Like


This motion has gotten 52.74%. Therefore this motion is passed.

EDIT: Not yet passed.

No, it has not passed yet. It needs > 50% of the blocks AND > 50% of the share age. Right now it meets the requirements for the first part, but it is still ~3.5% under the required share days destroyed.


Sorry for the mistake. Share age is still used but that won’t be the case in the near future, in my understanding.
How can you check the share age btw?
Does it correspond to CDD?

Exactly the same thing. CDD (“Coin Days Destroyed”) is just a term that carried over from Peercoin.

Got it. Tks.

This motion has passed. The changes will go into effect immediately.

"4c1fa7b6b7b435bb215b93a771681232f1fd6237" : {
"blocks" : 6313,
"block_percentage" : 63.13,
"sharedays" : 1741600271,
"shareday_percentage" : 56.27961303

Thank you for your continued support.