Excellent news: an audit of VeraCrypt is being funded by @duckduckgo and @VikingVPN! https://t.co/NcAsCskeVZ
@Truthcoin @bitstein Yeah, I’m receiving multiple responses that ETC will be following their own distinct development road map.
Adversarial food for thought: can cryptocurrency X add code that doesn’t execute in X, but performs malicious actions in target code fork Y?
@avtarsehra Alright; I’m just going by what’s posted on ethereumclassic.github.io pic.twitter.com/jqsrAMoQr0
@masonic_tweets *shrugs* I’m looking at github.com/ethereumproject pic.twitter.com/jRPKcaXTV0
@bitstein Dev team certainly matters. Hypothetical example: a new flaw is discovered - ETC devs will need to be able to address such issues.
@desantis I’m not assuming anything, I’m specifically responding to a claim I’ve seen posted quite often.
6) Can Ethereum Classic easily adopt new features from Ethereum? Sure, if it abstains from ever developing innovative features of its own.
5) Statoshi is only ~300 lines of code on top of Core. More changes introduced into a fork => more complex to merge upstream changes.
4) Even after fixing any merge conflicts so that the code compiles, I often encounter runtime errors that were accidentally introduced.
3) As maintainer of the Statoshi fork, I merge upstream changes from Core for each release. This usually takes a couple hours and is a PITA.
2) Commits behind upstream code fork:
Statoshi: 99
Dogecoin: 322
Litecoin: 3,762
Dash: 3,762
Peercoin: 9,128
Novacoin: 9,128
1) “It’s trivial for Ethereum Classic to copy code changes from Ethereum.†Historical evidence and my personal experience suggest otherwise.
@jefft Italian Pug is not amused by touristi pic.twitter.com/pqXVVWCQ28