I'd like to ask a probably stupid question, as a non-miner: for weeks we've been discussing the issue with Nitro1. Is there anything technically different about Nitro1 that makes it superior? If so, is there a reason its superiority hasn't been replicated elsewhere? And if not, and it's success is based on having a higher hash rate than any other pool, would it be feasible to just take it down entirely, and level the playing field? You could give miners plenty of warning and they could move elsewhere. As I said this is probably a dumb question, but I am really concerned that this issue has not been addressed adequately.
Stuhlman has found a bug in the wallet that is making his wallet very large (becasue he is a pool) he has to spend over 7000 dollar for a new server from his own money...
Because he is a friend and ally of UTC he never posted it and only told me in the back channels...
I think it time people know that now.
Yes, Nitro is to big, but please note that stuhlman has no mallicious intent what so ever.
I have been told there is a thing called leveldb that needs to be implemented in the wallet,as i have been told by stuhlman and biodragon.This has to be included into the next wallet update.
I am also talking with somebody about making the code more p2p mining friendly, but then he needs a newer bitcoind, and ziggy told me that would be a complete recode of UTC, and not a patchjob.
Ziggy has agreed to do the next wallet update but he is very buisy now with his education,this is also why i want to attrackt a primairy coindev for such things.
I am a bit hesitant to hire somebody i dont know , since its like letteing somebody mess with your engine....I must know they are extremely capable
