Compet-n new demo format

As stated in my email to fraggle:
I have an idea of using Chocolate Doom for additional section on Compet-n but I'd like to have "special" demos that won't be compatible with Vanilla and wont be easy to break/modify. Is that possible?

I'd like comments on this, is this possible? Fraggle said that closed source is not an option. Any suggestions? I'm not a programmer so this is out of my range :)

Just a few questions:

. What can Chocolate Doom do for Compet-N that prBoom+ won't?

. Are altered demos really that much of a problem? personally I never heard of anyone doing such a thing.

. If indeed a problem, what's the purpose? not that you can make money out of it.

. As long as you're being given proper credit for whatever code you've voluntarily released for free, why give a shit about it becoming closed in someone else's project?

Porsche Monty said:

As long as you're being given proper credit for whatever code you've voluntarily released for free, why give a shit about it becoming closed in someone else's project?

Permissively free software licence philosophy summed up in one line. ;-) Unfortunately most Doom engines are the other kind (copyleft)

fx02 said:

I'd like to have "special" demos that won't be compatible with Vanilla and wont be easy to break/modify. Is that possible?

Well... when recording in v1.9 format PrBoom marks the file in a certain way that is obvious to anyone who knows what to look for and which is hard to remove without the demo going out of sync. However it is not undefeatable, indeed PrBoom+ removed the marking code which probably subverted the whole idea completely.

Porsche Monty said:

Are altered demos really that much of a problem? personally I never heard of anyone doing such a thing.

Short answer, yes.
The reality is that the current demo recording scene seems to be based largely on trust. If someone really wanted to cheat with vanilla demos, they could.

edit:

Porsche Monty said:

What can Chocolate Doom do for Compet-N that prBoom+ won't?

Behave exactly like vanilla.

Thanks for taking up my suggestion, but given that there's already a discussion in progress about this, this thread would appear to be redundant.