The final update could include a command to delete them no?
@dirvine, would you reset all test coins after each test and just not the last one? Or keep em all from the beginning, or somewhere in between?
The final update could include a command to delete them no?
@dirvine, would you reset all test coins after each test and just not the last one? Or keep em all from the beginning, or somewhere in between?
I was actually thinking that could be the case - a poison pill in the code. Interesting.
I’m not sure I get you, you disapprove?
I don’t necessarily disapprove. It’s a technical discussion, of technical interest. I like understanding how things work.
I was thinking that with all the code watchers on here, getting a secret poison pill into the code might not be easy.
Why does it needs to be kept secret? I mean, if test coins use a slightly different typeid than real safecoin why would anyone be concerned about deleting them?
True, there are 10,000 reserved ID’s so e can iterate through these until we are happy with a working one. Each new test network could delete the previous to save on space etc. Neat idea, worth considering.
I think having a coin that continually might be the one and deleting it each time it is not, is good because:
The only issue is ensuring that the decision to call time is done fairly, and not in a way that benefits a few. I think MaidSafe can handle that.
Agree although initially some tests will spew out safecoins at a fast rate as a test (of the balance algorithms etc.), perhaps. So yes, but with some caveats, although we may know those tests well in advance. Seems like a good and simple problem though when the time is right.
I like that idea, @happybeing , a kind of reverse Russian Roulette: if you don’t keep playing you might lose.
Also, that game-that-might-not-be-a-game aspect could be better publicity than you could buy.