development
  • Stonehedge skipping checks on a single block in a blockchain is like having one weak link in a chain. If you ever find yourself in a situation where the majority of your nodes need to re-sync (as has happened several times in Crown's history), it opens up a few possibilities for malicious activities.
  • Stonehedge 3539949 was the first block that didn't sync ok with 0.22 and we're trying a few options to sidestep that before deciding on the best solution.
  • Stonehedge Besides, you can't just prune bad block data...that would mean a brand new chain.
  • Stonehedge I don't see a need to prune any bad block data, mainly because the CRW chain is actually playing with BTC 0.22 really well at the moment.
  • Stonehedge Sorry guys, I didn't see these messages until just now
  • Alex The Great ish Also disabling checks is treating the symptoms not the disease...
  • Alex The Great ish One of the main reasons I stand behind ditching the chain is that there is so much legacy crap in blocks that can cause issues down the line. (testnet things having been tried in mainnet too early, causing blocks to have some weird data that screws with a new feature i.e.). However I do not stand behind the assumption that snapshotting is the only option. Therefor I think a cleaning would work...
  • Crownfan i also dont know if barrys code will be used at all. altho 0.21 was syncing to chaintip already.
  • Crownfan yes i understand what you mean but i dont know to which extent Dans developers have looked into it.
  • Alex The Great ish I am also aware of my difficulty explaining things, so does the above make things clearer <@!307425756324298752> ?