Perhaps you're being down-voted because this thread has drifted off-topic.
It's a security issue related to bitcoin, which in turn is related to Namecoin, which in turn affects DNSNMC. Seems fairly on topic to me, but others are welcome to disagree (just explain why if you do).
No one has the time to hand-hold each and every person who learns about it and freaks out, especially if they come off as demanding and abrasive rather than inquisitive and helpful.
Sorry, I did not realize that I was coming off as demanding and abrasive. I can see how "demanding" might have been seen now, and I apologize for that. Abrasive though? I don't see that, I was just asking questions and for help understanding the BTC dev's thoughts on this.
Note that I also asked whether there was a document (perhaps on the bitcoin wiki) that had all the explanations on it already. The response was less than helpful.
Your proposed urgent deployment of "fixes" carries enormous risk and so it absolutely will not be done.
I think this was simply due to misunderstanding. It was never my intention that any one "fix" be adopted immediately. I was just looking for reassurance that something is being done about this, even if it's just the reassurance that the devs acknowledge the problem and are investigating methods of addressing it.
Your specific concerns seemed to be mostly related to mining pools engaging in this activity without the consent of their hashers, this particular threat is eliminated completely by hashers that use GBT and submit blocks themselves— as you were pointed to.
And as was pointed shortly out by gmaxwell, that doesn't matter for those who choose not to. If it's a certainty (or highly probable) that the network will adopt GBT, and that somehow implies that the problem is fixed, then that could have simply been explained. Instead, I was kicked from the channel and then my posts here were downvoted out of spite.
In any case, in the future when you find yourself sending demands to volunteer developers asking them when they will solve your pet concern you should first ask yourself when _you_ plan on solving it.
I'm sorry you perceived it as me "sending demands to volunteer developers". For any part of that that is true, I apologize. Like I said at the start of this reply, all I wanted to hear was that something is being done to address this problem, and if not, why not.
As for me solving it, I had pointed out a solution that I thought was helpful (Stephen's), but folks chose not to discuss that in any calm sort of way. I don't know why. Perhaps you may want to re-evaluate the way you (and others) reacted toward someone approaching the community with a concern and asking questions. I am not some type of thing for you to feel threatened by. My intentions were benevolent. I come in peace. ;)
It's a security issue related to bitcoin, which in turn is related to Namecoin, which in turn affects DNSNMC. Seems fairly on topic to me, but others are welcome to disagree (just explain why if you do).
No one has the time to hand-hold each and every person who learns about it and freaks out, especially if they come off as demanding and abrasive rather than inquisitive and helpful.
Sorry, I did not realize that I was coming off as demanding and abrasive. I can see how "demanding" might have been seen now, and I apologize for that. Abrasive though? I don't see that, I was just asking questions and for help understanding the BTC dev's thoughts on this.
Note that I also asked whether there was a document (perhaps on the bitcoin wiki) that had all the explanations on it already. The response was less than helpful.
Your proposed urgent deployment of "fixes" carries enormous risk and so it absolutely will not be done.
I think this was simply due to misunderstanding. It was never my intention that any one "fix" be adopted immediately. I was just looking for reassurance that something is being done about this, even if it's just the reassurance that the devs acknowledge the problem and are investigating methods of addressing it.
Your specific concerns seemed to be mostly related to mining pools engaging in this activity without the consent of their hashers, this particular threat is eliminated completely by hashers that use GBT and submit blocks themselves— as you were pointed to.
And as was pointed shortly out by gmaxwell, that doesn't matter for those who choose not to. If it's a certainty (or highly probable) that the network will adopt GBT, and that somehow implies that the problem is fixed, then that could have simply been explained. Instead, I was kicked from the channel and then my posts here were downvoted out of spite.
In any case, in the future when you find yourself sending demands to volunteer developers asking them when they will solve your pet concern you should first ask yourself when _you_ plan on solving it.
I'm sorry you perceived it as me "sending demands to volunteer developers". For any part of that that is true, I apologize. Like I said at the start of this reply, all I wanted to hear was that something is being done to address this problem, and if not, why not.
As for me solving it, I had pointed out a solution that I thought was helpful (Stephen's), but folks chose not to discuss that in any calm sort of way. I don't know why. Perhaps you may want to re-evaluate the way you (and others) reacted toward someone approaching the community with a concern and asking questions. I am not some type of thing for you to feel threatened by. My intentions were benevolent. I come in peace. ;)