Skip to content

fix wording in comment#2913

Merged
antiochp merged 1 commit into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
NaN-git:fix_comment
Jul 26, 2019
Merged

fix wording in comment#2913
antiochp merged 1 commit into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
NaN-git:fix_comment

Conversation

@NaN-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@NaN-git NaN-git commented Jun 24, 2019

This PR corrects a misleading comment that seems to mix up primary and secondary proof of work.

@antiochp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm not sure these changes make sense?

Old

Ratio the secondary proof of work should take over the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

New

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

This part no longer makes sense -

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary

@NaN-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

NaN-git commented Jun 25, 2019

I'm not sure these changes make sense?

Old

Ratio the secondary proof of work should take over the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

New

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary, as a function of block height (time). Starts at 90% losing a percent approximately every week. Represented as an integer between 0 and 100.

This part no longer makes sense -

Ratio the secondary proof of work should be taken over by the primary

Yeah, you're right. After reading your comment I understood the original comment. My understanding of the comment was that the secondary POW should take over the primary POW.
Can it be changed to something like target ratio of secondary POW to primary POW?

@antiochp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Can it be changed to something like target ratio of secondary POW to primary POW?

Yes. I think this does make more sense. 👍

@NaN-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

NaN-git commented Jul 25, 2019

Yes. I think this does make more sense. +1

Done

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@antiochp antiochp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@antiochp antiochp merged commit 0d4d98d into mimblewimble:master Jul 26, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants