5 ms·

Weren't idiots? They accidentally hard forked their own currency without realising what they were doing by changing a transaction limit. The developers have no

by nwh 13y ago

Weren't idiots? They accidentally hard forked their own currency without realising what they were doing by changing a transaction limit. The developers have no idea what's going on and it's readily apparent. http://4x.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1ufl1e/much_concern_dogecoin_block_chain_has_split/ http://4x.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1ufl1e/much_concern...

ck2 13y ago
Are you talking about the massive transaction that broke the chain and it forked or something else?
- nwh 13y ago
  Yes. The author changed a value in an updated client that caused half of the network to see one chain as valid, and the other half to make scores of sub chains on the side. The value of the transaction was not the issue, but the developer not understanding how to maintain a consensus over hard forking changes.
  - ck2 13y ago
    If I am not mistaken, I think there was an emergency release because someone was flooding the blockchain with micro-transactions as an attack on dogecoin and they had to raise the transaction fee/minimum transfer. Either with that or around that time they also had to do a patch to raise the transaction limit. Both issues were hard to anticipate and I guess if you have to cause a fork, at least it happens while the chain was "young".
    - petertodd 13y ago
      There was nothing hard to anticipate about the dogecoin fork; literally hours after the commit making it possible was made I heard from Litecoin/Bitcoin developer Warren Togami among others that the Dogecoin devs were idiots who had just set themselves up for a fork. Similarly the micro-transactions flood was something people had predicted would happen well in advance. To outsiders this stuff may seem mysterious and hard, but to people with real experience in this field it's easy to see that the Dogecoin team don't have a clue.
      - jaekwon 13y ago
        I patched dogecoin to fix the transaction limit to prevent dust. What I am realizing is that dogecoin, by virtue of being not so serious, is gaining more developer mindshare who want to experiment and learn. That's what makes it fun, and what gives it potential.
        singularityyy 13y ago
        Exactly. Bitcoin is too big to experiment on, and the arguments of the hardcore-Bitcoin folks who hate altcoins are getting more and more ridiculous.
        petertodd 13y ago
        What makes you think those arguments are coming from the good Bitcoin devs/theorists? That community - I'm a part of it - thinks altcoins are valuable testing grounds for ideas and have used Litecoin for testing out new ideas in the past. But Litecoin has the very competent Warren Togami as lead dev right now; if dogecoin had competent devs maintaining the client they'd get some respect. But they don't.
        melarina 13y ago
        Before Charles Lee started Litecoin he created Fairbrix, a re-branded and tweaked version of Tenebrix. If you know anything about what happened to Fairbrix it is clear he was learning on the job (not a "competent dev" by your standards). Looking down your nose at Dogecoin's devs because they are still learning the codebase is pretty hypocriticial. http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-origins-and-potential-of-the-worlds-second-largest-cryptocurrency/ http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-...
        petertodd 13y ago
        That's why I specifically said Warren Togami - he's taken over from Charles Lee as the main driver of Litecoin development and has done an excellent job at that.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  i think he's implying that since the large transaction was on an old version of the client, and caused the fork, that the Dogecoin devs are at fault.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - DrStalker 13y ago
    The large transaction was on the new version of the client, the problem was old clients couldn't handle a transaction that large (500,000,000 I think)
ihuman 13y ago
The same thing happened to bitcoin, though. http://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork http://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
- nwh 13y ago
  No it did not. Bitcoin has trouble because there was a parameter in Berkeley DB that nobody thought would ever be hit (the number of locks associated with a particular table). They'd tested against this and believed the value to be enough, except that in very rare cases when values outside what they thought possible caused some nodes to reject a particular block. With a portion of the network seeing the block as invalid, the consensus was broken and the chain forked. There were test cases, peer review and discussion about the potential problems. None of those occurred with dogecoin, who had a rabid developer changing values without understanding what they did.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Which is fine, because Dogecoin is not designed to be a longterm store of value. As far as I'm concerned, Dogecoin having more Transactions / day makes it far far more successful than BTC. BTC, despite being a better store of value, is literally affecting fewer people, because everyone is so obsessed with hoarding the dang thing. Dogecoin takes the whole approach and makes a joke of it... and that is why it will be a perfectly fine transaction medium.
  - rmc 13y ago
    And yet there was a fork with a minor point upgrade. Did anyone see the fork happening?
lvs 13y ago
Boy, I really wouldn't want to work with you. The unfortunate situation to which you're referring was the result of trying to mitigate a microtransaction attack that was happening on the blockchain. It was a rock and a hard place situation, and because the community was still relatively small and focused, the devs tried to get everyone to upgrade simultaneously. They chose to risk a fork rather than risk effectively dead-ending the blockchain with dust. There was no good solution that didn't come with risks, but it certainly wasn't a result of "idiocy" as you flippantly imply.
- alttab 13y ago
  If I were to edit this post, I could remove both the first and last sentence and it would still hold its meaning.
  - lvs 13y ago
    No, it wouldn't.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
gfodor 13y ago
so what you're saying is dogecoin is the php of the crypto world. we all know how that turned out.
- OGC 13y ago
  incredibly widespread...?
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Really, really popular and the basis for many sucessful applications?
  - gfodor 13y ago
    yes, that was my point :)
Kiro 13y ago
Why do you hate dogecoin? Jealousy?
rmc 13y ago
As opposed to the fork and "holy-hell-everyone-roll-back-quick-reverse-that-double-spend" that happened with Bitcoin?

by nwh 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

Are you talking about the massive transaction that broke the chain and it forked or something else?

nwh 13y ago
Yes. The author changed a value in an updated client that caused half of the network to see one chain as valid, and the other half to make scores of sub chains on the side. The value of the transaction was not the issue, but the developer not understanding how to maintain a consensus over hard forking changes.
- ck2 13y ago
  If I am not mistaken, I think there was an emergency release because someone was flooding the blockchain with micro-transactions as an attack on dogecoin and they had to raise the transaction fee/minimum transfer. Either with that or around that time they also had to do a patch to raise the transaction limit. Both issues were hard to anticipate and I guess if you have to cause a fork, at least it happens while the chain was "young".
  - petertodd 13y ago
    There was nothing hard to anticipate about the dogecoin fork; literally hours after the commit making it possible was made I heard from Litecoin/Bitcoin developer Warren Togami among others that the Dogecoin devs were idiots who had just set themselves up for a fork. Similarly the micro-transactions flood was something people had predicted would happen well in advance. To outsiders this stuff may seem mysterious and hard, but to people with real experience in this field it's easy to see that the Dogecoin team don't have a clue.
    - jaekwon 13y ago
      I patched dogecoin to fix the transaction limit to prevent dust. What I am realizing is that dogecoin, by virtue of being not so serious, is gaining more developer mindshare who want to experiment and learn. That's what makes it fun, and what gives it potential.
      - singularityyy 13y ago
        Exactly. Bitcoin is too big to experiment on, and the arguments of the hardcore-Bitcoin folks who hate altcoins are getting more and more ridiculous.
        petertodd 13y ago
        What makes you think those arguments are coming from the good Bitcoin devs/theorists? That community - I'm a part of it - thinks altcoins are valuable testing grounds for ideas and have used Litecoin for testing out new ideas in the past. But Litecoin has the very competent Warren Togami as lead dev right now; if dogecoin had competent devs maintaining the client they'd get some respect. But they don't.
        melarina 13y ago
        Before Charles Lee started Litecoin he created Fairbrix, a re-branded and tweaked version of Tenebrix. If you know anything about what happened to Fairbrix it is clear he was learning on the job (not a "competent dev" by your standards). Looking down your nose at Dogecoin's devs because they are still learning the codebase is pretty hypocriticial. http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-origins-and-potential-of-the-worlds-second-largest-cryptocurrency/ http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-...
        petertodd 13y ago
        That's why I specifically said Warren Togami - he's taken over from Charles Lee as the main driver of Litecoin development and has done an excellent job at that.
hayksaakian 13y ago
i think he's implying that since the large transaction was on an old version of the client, and caused the fork, that the Dogecoin devs are at fault.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- DrStalker 13y ago
  The large transaction was on the new version of the client, the problem was old clients couldn't handle a transaction that large (500,000,000 I think)

ihuman 13y ago

The same thing happened to bitcoin, though. http://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork http://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork

nwh 13y ago
No it did not. Bitcoin has trouble because there was a parameter in Berkeley DB that nobody thought would ever be hit (the number of locks associated with a particular table). They'd tested against this and believed the value to be enough, except that in very rare cases when values outside what they thought possible caused some nodes to reject a particular block. With a portion of the network seeing the block as invalid, the consensus was broken and the chain forked. There were test cases, peer review and discussion about the potential problems. None of those occurred with dogecoin, who had a rabid developer changing values without understanding what they did.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Which is fine, because Dogecoin is not designed to be a longterm store of value. As far as I'm concerned, Dogecoin having more Transactions / day makes it far far more successful than BTC. BTC, despite being a better store of value, is literally affecting fewer people, because everyone is so obsessed with hoarding the dang thing. Dogecoin takes the whole approach and makes a joke of it... and that is why it will be a perfectly fine transaction medium.
- rmc 13y ago
  And yet there was a fork with a minor point upgrade. Did anyone see the fork happening?

lvs 13y ago

Boy, I really wouldn't want to work with you. The unfortunate situation to which you're referring was the result of trying to mitigate a microtransaction attack that was happening on the blockchain. It was a rock and a hard place situation, and because the community was still relatively small and focused, the devs tried to get everyone to upgrade simultaneously. They chose to risk a fork rather than risk effectively dead-ending the blockchain with dust. There was no good solution that didn't come with risks, but it certainly wasn't a result of "idiocy" as you flippantly imply.

alttab 13y ago
If I were to edit this post, I could remove both the first and last sentence and it would still hold its meaning.
- lvs 13y ago
  No, it wouldn't.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

gfodor 13y ago

so what you're saying is dogecoin is the php of the crypto world. we all know how that turned out.

OGC 13y ago
incredibly widespread...?
rodgerd 13y ago
Really, really popular and the basis for many sucessful applications?
- gfodor 13y ago
  yes, that was my point :)

Kiro 13y ago

Why do you hate dogecoin? Jealousy?

rmc 13y ago

As opposed to the fork and "holy-hell-everyone-roll-back-quick-reverse-that-double-spend" that happened with Bitcoin?