TanteStefana said: What a cool idea, had no idea you could do that! Exciting! Ready to go, just say the word!



I'm assuming when you're ready to start masternode payments, we'll update again? And also, the network will still keep the blockchain properly checked, right? It's only the masternode payments that won't be enforeced, no? Thanks for explaining Click to expand...

As I understand it masternodes will be paid. Furthermore, the network will be checked and bad/forged blocks will be flagged, BUT the network will not reject these blocks so long as "enforcing" is set to off.This means that this will be a soft fork.The disadvantage is that pools that don't update their clients won't pay masternodes and, of course, they could modify their clients to do something fraudulent to the MN payments. This will get flagged in the debug log, but the block will still be accepted.The advantage is that this will not cause unwanted forking so whenever this update does go in MNs will finally start getting paid without having to worry about any more reverting. Also, the debug log will be studied and the bad blocks that are getting flagged can be compared against expectations. Any blocks that are getting inappropriately flagged means that there is likely a bug which can then get fixed without have to revert.Once there are no unexpected flagged blocks for a length of time, we will then hardfork to allow the network to not just flag but also reject bad blocks. Assuming that due diligence was done using the debug logs, this fork will go smoothly.I was one of those who argued against a voluntary MN payment system even for a short time, but given how hard this is proving to be to successfully implement while only testing on testnet and the fact that we can't keep testing on mainnet then reverting -- I think that this is a wise way (maybe the only way) to proceed forward.