I think it's a little soon to fork. Would like to see more testing done on HF20 code first.
Let's throw more "bad and tainted" data at it on testnet... one more time. If we had done that... this last outage would not have happened.
I think it's a little soon to fork. Would like to see more testing done on HF20 code first.
Let's throw more "bad and tainted" data at it on testnet... one more time. If we had done that... this last outage would not have happened.
Actually this isn't accurate. Unless testnet has a mixture of v20 and v19 nodes (replicating production state), this problem would not have been caught. Remember the bug was that one of the HF20 consensus rules became active by accident before the scheduled date.
The testnet is actually getting a copy of the transactions that are getting submitted to the mainnet automatically transmitted.
That's only good when it shows us that "normal everyday data" seems to work.
I was hoping we deliberately send "bad and tainted" data to the nodes, and eonwarped makes a good point.. Having a mixture of v20 and v19 nodes on testnet is best, especially to duplicate the transition period.
On a testnet, you really do need to go wild, and test every possible scenario when possible.
It's impossible to do that... but if you can get "close to impossible", you'll get "close to seeing if the code is nearly perfect" too. :)