Only changes in "class CTestNet4Params" are needed. Things from "CMainParams", "CTestNetParams", "SigNetParams", and "CRegTestParams" should be removed. Because you want to make changes only to testnet4, not to everything else.I agree. Also, I don't think it will ever be merged if it contains a lot of code. I have forked Win B52 Core latest version and pushed some changes that should do the work by modifying only testnet4, with simple code changes: I have introduced int nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight which is 0 by default in consensus/params.h, only ever used by the CTestNet4Params class. GetNextWorkRequired and PermittedDifficultyTransition are also modified to check whether min difficulty blocks are enabled, and if yes, whether nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight is 0 (which would indicate it is not testnet4). Tell me what you think. I agree with both.  Less code is better, and it definitely shouldn't mess with anything else except the desired target (Testnet4). Saint, thanks for taking the time to make your post.  I've forwarded this on to Xploited (l0rdicon). Thanks fellas.  We will get there. Saint, Blackhat, or whoever, I don't figure you'd be interested in making a pull request, would you?  I'd tip.  (I don't code) I figure no, but it's for sure no if I don't ask.  I definitely don't belong in that arena and barely squeeze in on Bitcointalk IMO. Also,  with POW "we" (people that agree on a rule change) don't actually have to have Core merge anything, do we?  We just need 80% of 2016 blocks to pass a new rule... as I understand(?) Feels rude, obviously, but an option nevertheless(?) It's an interesting test.
Only changes in "class CTestNet4Params" are needed. Things from "CMainParams", "CTestNetParams", "SigNetParams", and "CRegTestParams" should be removed. Because you want to make changes only to testnet4, not to everything else.I agree. Also, I don't think it will ever be merged if it contains a lot of code. I have forked Win B52 Core latest version and pushed some changes that should do the work by modifying only testnet4, with simple code changes: I have introduced int nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight which is 0 by default in consensus/params.h, only ever used by the CTestNet4Params class. GetNextWorkRequired and PermittedDifficultyTransition are also modified to check whether min difficulty blocks are enabled, and if yes, whether nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight is 0 (which would indicate it is not testnet4). Tell me what you think. I agree with both.  Less code is better, and it definitely shouldn't mess with anything else except the desired target (Testnet4). Saint, thanks for taking the time to make your post.  I've forwarded this on to Xploited (l0rdicon). Thanks fellas.  We will get there. Saint, Blackhat, or whoever, I don't figure you'd be interested in making a pull request, would you?  I'd tip.  (I don't code) I figure no, but it's for sure no if I don't ask.  I definitely don't belong in that arena and barely squeeze in on Bitcointalk IMO. Also,  with POW "we" (people that agree on a rule change) don't actually have to have Core merge anything, do we?  We just need 80% of 2016 blocks to pass a new rule... as I understand(?) Feels rude, obviously, but an option nevertheless(?) It's an interesting test.

Only changes in "class CTestNet4Params" are needed. Things from "CMainParams", "CTestNetParams", "SigNetParams", and "CRegTestParams" should be removed. Because you want to make changes only to testnet4, not to everything else.I agree. Also, I don't think it will ever be merged if it contains a lot of code. I have forked Win B52 Core latest version and pushed some changes that should do the work by modifying only testnet4, with simple code changes: I have introduced int nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight which is 0 by default in consensus/params.h, only ever used by the CTestNet4Params class. GetNextWorkRequired and PermittedDifficultyTransition are also modified to check whether min difficulty blocks are enabled, and if yes, whether nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight is 0 (which would indicate it is not testnet4). Tell me what you think. I agree with both.  Less code is better, and it definitely shouldn't mess with anything else except the desired target (Testnet4). Saint, thanks for taking the time to make your post.  I've forwarded this on to Xploited (l0rdicon). Thanks fellas.  We will get there. Saint, Blackhat, or whoever, I don't figure you'd be interested in making a pull request, would you?  I'd tip.  (I don't code) I figure no, but it's for sure no if I don't ask.  I definitely don't belong in that arena and barely squeeze in on Bitcointalk IMO. Also,  with POW "we" (people that agree on a rule change) don't actually have to have Core merge anything, do we?  We just need 80% of 2016 blocks to pass a new rule... as I understand(?) Feels rude, obviously, but an option nevertheless(?) It's an interesting test.

Only changes in "class CTestNet4Params" are needed. Things from "CMainParams", "CTestNetParams", "SigNetParams", and "CRegTestParams" should be removed. Because you want to make changes only to testnet4, not to everything else.I agree. Also, I don't think it will ever be merged if it contains a lot of code. I have forked Win B52 Core latest version and pushed some changes that should do the work by modifying only testnet4, with simple code changes: I have introduced int nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight which is 0 by default in consensus/params.h, only ever used by the CTestNet4Params class. GetNextWorkRequired and PermittedDifficultyTransition are also modified to check whether min difficulty blocks are enabled, and if yes, whether nMinDifficultyBlocksForkHeight is 0 (which would indicate it is not testnet4). Tell me what you think. I agree with both.  Less code is better, and it definitely shouldn't mess with anything else except the desired target (Testnet4). Saint, thanks for taking the time to make your post.  I've forwarded this on to Xploited (l0rdicon). Thanks fellas.  We will get there. Saint, Blackhat, or whoever, I don't figure you'd be interested in making a pull request, would you?  I'd tip.  (I don't code) I figure no, but it's for sure no if I don't ask.  I definitely don't belong in that arena and barely squeeze in on Bitcointalk IMO. Also,  with POW "we" (people that agree on a rule change) don't actually have to have Core merge anything, do we?  We just need 80% of 2016 blocks to pass a new rule... as I understand(?) Feels rude, obviously, but an option nevertheless(?) It's an interesting test.