Zach Hyatt

I see, thanks for clarifying @RickiNano

So the original send blocks were already confirmed, all pointing to a single account. Then on Nov 23rd while the network was on V23.0DB3 you published those 300k receive blocks...

@MajorChump Found that 99.9% of returns from `nano::confirmation_solicitor::add` were true , which indicated an error and prevented `confirm_req` from being sent. And [line 73](https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/blob/develop/nano/node/confirmation_solicitor.cpp#L73) is where it was evaluating the...

@clemahieu Prefers to leave the `accounts_balances` as is with `0` in the response. But updates for `accounts_representatives` should be done to return an empty string for unopened accounts and on...

@clemahieu After discussing with @thsfs there are two cases that came up and the first seems like the right way to do it, but we'd like your thoughts on the...

@dsiganos For the cases where the account is unopened, do you suggest we return that new error format with [Account not found](https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/blob/develop/nano/lib/errors.cpp#L33), so `"nano_3e3j5tkog48pnny9dmfzj1r16pg8t1e76dz5tmac6iq689wyjfpiij4txtd1": "error: Account not found"` for consistency?

Thanks, this is being considered for future release. There is good discussion in a forum topic from last year which includes some suggestions for better shaping bucket distributions: https://forum.nano.org/t/election-scheduler-and-prioritization-revamp/1837/26

I am in favor of the suggestions for a new `votes` option to enable these additional responses and expanding it to include all vote types and more information about them...

@dsiganos The `account` field is not listed as optional in the docs instead it is required and my node is not allowing me to omit that field in the call....

No worries, I adjusted the title and description here so we can use this issue to cover the changes for release.