Minecraft Username: DanPMK Brief Description: There is an LWC bug allowing you to protect signs that are on either public or already protected items, and exploit these mechanics to potentially (unintentionally) grief or to lose locks. This leads to a situation where LWCs can 'disappear', as well as the ability to lock unlockable objects. Instructions: 1. Do /climits and note the number. (eg. 0) 2. Lock an object, for example a chest. Do /climits again to confirm (eg. 1) 3. Place a sign on the chest using shift, and lock it. (This can also be done by a second person who has access to the chest via cmodify). /climits should show 2. 4. Have the first person (you if you're the only one testing) destroy the chest. Result: The chest is broken and the lock on it is removed. The sign is also removed, however it is not unlocked! This leads to the lock being "lost", taking up a lock in /climits but not actually existing. My friend JTE assisted me with this to prove it works either with yourself or with a second party. This is important as that second person can unknowingy lose a lock when you destroy the chest their sign is on. In addition, if you re-place another object, even a non-lockable one like a piece of dirt at the location of the previously locked sign, it will 'inherit' the lock, being already locked the moment you place it. This allows you to lock any block without using a sign on it, which isn't the main issue of course but more of a small side effect. If you break this lock-inheritor object, sign or otherwise, the lock will be returned. This is important, as it is a way to recover your 'lost' lock without having to unlock everything. Expected Result: I expected either: a) Removal of the chest and sign and the removal of both locks (in the event I own both locks). b) Refusal to remove the chest until the sign is removed (in the event that the chest and sign are locked by different people). How many times did you recreate this bug?: I did it about 5 times, and confirmed with a friend, worked every time. I am able to reproduce this bug consistently.
