Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin XT nodes are outnumbered ~ 6 to 1 by bitcoin core nodes and are ~13.5% of total.
Due to how easy it is for XT nodes to be faked, I'll stop updating the above numbers as frequently.

The number of XT nodes seems to have increased shortly after a scandal (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h4fth/purportedly_satoshi_posts_to_bitcoindev_mailing/) involving someone attempting to fake an email pretending to be satoshi¹. r/bitcoin currently seems to be infuriated by the moderator tactics enforced in the subreddit. Snapshot of what the subreddit currently looks like here (https://archive.is/7mMNs).

1: Theymos on Reddit (https://archive.is/9Mjh5#selection-2273.0-2277.220) added his view on the incident of the email. Maybe it's still unclear if it's genuine.

Tools used:

http://xtnodes.com/

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/

---

Legacy text from June 12:
That's just one or two weeks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1PH693_3EU) before Gavin submits the block size increase update. Meanwhile bitcoin core nodes have even increased after Mike's statement on June 8th from ~5900 to ~6040 today.


Full block size debate video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w

Interesting numbers.  The problem is that if no one updates then we will have some problems.  However Gavin said that he wanted to start early because if it is going to happen, it might take 6 months or longer to get switched over to the new version.

Miners are also going to play an important role into this. While Mike claimed to have spoken to several service providers, we know that he was into disagreement with Chinese miners not too long ago. It's surely going to be interesting watching this.

What Chinese miners arguing about so hard? This change is not something radical like making fork 20MB instantly. It is like they want to have block bitcoin evolution and keep progress at bay.
Change like that is the middleground and I think everybody should be happy about it. Only a fool would think that bitcoin won't be changed in the future.

We have time to track these kinds of numbers. While the initial adoption of clients accepting bigger blocks will probably show the direction in which we will be going in the future, it will be long until the day we switch to bigger blocks... And that's where we really to see numbers, so we can see if we have 90% on "the other side" :)

I'm a noob when it comes to mining.

What counts as a node in this situation where the software a node runs gets a vote in the big blocks/little blocks argument?

For the big blocks argument is a node a pool or is each miner connected to a pool counted as a node?

When I look at blockchain.info it's mostly the pools that show up as solving blocks, not the individual miners. Here's what it shows for the last few blocks.

F2Pool   
AntPool   
AntPool   
Eligius   
121.43.197.95

I think that you've made this thread a little too early. I would like to see the numbers starting from July.
The opposition might actually turn on more nodes on Core.

Currently:
XT nodes: 125   Total nodes: 5922
This is what I'm talking about. We've yet to see what happens when Gavin pushes the changes. However another worrying fact is that 36% of the nodes are in the USA.

Gavin and Mike won't push XT. They know it wouldn't have a chance to reach a supermajority. Apart from that they would take the risk of being responsible for any break of the Bitcoin system and loss in value. That's a personal risk far too high to take.

The only reason why Andreesen and Hearn mention XT is to pressure the other developers to agree in implementing their proposals into Core. I'm very pleased to see that the other devs are not following this plan.

ya.ya.yo!

How can you really know that? I mean a lot of things are possible. I saw somewhere today that Microsoft is running XT software (didn't verify) already.
I guess people that don't have much influence should just follow the money for their own sake.
We will see what will actually happen in the upcoming weeks.

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l488/IristheVirus17/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif

Oh wait, I just realized that the submission of the block size increase update does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the block size.  This change will start tracking "votes" for the change in mined blocks.  That's it.

This isn't entirely about mining. While miners are going to play a significant role if Gavin and Mike move on with their proposed fork, full nodes are clients running a bitcoin client with the full blockchain. Bitcoin XT will have a voting mechanism implemented inside it, that's why the number of nodes is significant. It shows how accepted Mike hearn's and Gavin Andresen's work is, as well as how likely it is for the blocksize increase to happen according to their terms. However, as of now I haven't seen any pools publicly stating they wouldn't or would support bitcoin XT. With the possible exception of BTC China's pool, since their exchange publicly stated that they don't support the block size increase.


So why not observe the votes in the meantime?

They think that a 20 MB jump is too big because their bandwidth is not large enough to support 20 MB blocks. Since there is the possibility, however extremely unlikely, of suddenly having 20 MB blocks, the Chinese miners are afraid that they will be unable to mine because they will not have enough bandwidth to both receive and transmit blocks to the rest of the network. The current proposal that most people agree on (including Mike and Gavin) is to change the block size limit to 8 MB which the Chinese miners also agree on.

It will be interesting to see if this race creates an incentive for more nodes to come online thus helping secure the network and decentralize it further.

Nothing will happen. It all comes down to the majority. There will be no hard fork unless the status look basically the opposite in favor or XT. It's a way of voting by running a node. Honestly im still with Core because im too lazy to download the other client and I think both solutions aren't definitive anyway.

they said that they are willing to change their mind if the proposal, new limit, will not be 20 but something smaller like 8-10

still their reason for not accepting it is a bit selfish, they should look at bitcoin by tech point of view, and not only from a point of view of profit

You obviously don't understand English as supposed to. I wasn't asking for possibilities, I was wondering how many nodes would jump over to XT once Gavin pushes changes. There is a difference.
Core has no solution right now, however there isn't a problem present yet either.

They actually "changed" their mind once again. From what I can understand, if we don't have reach consensus (90%) for XT they are going to introduce "checkpoint blocks" to ignore the longest chain.
Update: I know that it is. However people shouldn't waste 1 hour of their time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

how checkpoint works? it seem also something that can prevent a 51% attack

what will happen to their coins, they will mine air? or they will just continue to mine into their own fork

I try to understand as much as I can bitcoin XT.

Quick question, what will happen if a block is more than 1mb and bitcoin XT accept it ??
There will be 2 chain? So problem with these 2 chain ?

Thanks

I don't think that he was talking about traditional checkpoints in that video. Usually when they create a checkpoint it is a block that the network can revert to if things go the wrong way (e.g. 51% attack).
Just watch the video.

A block can't be more than 1 MB until we fork to Bitcoin XT. Once (if) we fork to Bitcoin XT there will be 2 competing chains.

This, uuh... Is from the same video linked in the OP. Published on June 8.

Good to see that the number of XT nodes is increasing. I plan to spin a few in the coming weeks. How soon till it hits 1000?

Maybe we should look back at this in 2016

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/

Topic updated to include new developments.

keep in mind that regular users of node of Bitcoin (dedicated machine) ... restrict the number of connexion (like 16-20) to kill the overhead in Upload bandwidth.

so, the "get nodes" (headline on debug.log) feature can not identify (and count) all the nodes.

i will also update to bitcoin xt, but only if i see at least 60% of the nodes have done it before. that for me is enough confirmation to update my client.

for all of them that has short memory this is one fo the two dev that try to fork bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=429264.0

Let me quote you one of your "leader" who posted right in one of the threads you linked:



Now shut your mouth and tell you master to take his own words

I dont have a master and i try to protect bitcoin to became a one mans rule system

http://content-mcdn.ethnos.gr/filesystem/images/20150517/low/assets_LARGE_t_420_54506157.JPG

Speak loudly about your maturity.

Frankly most anti-XT shit heads are just like you.

For everyone else that this fork

Not Bitcoin XT


https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

i think i will setup a node like this :P

Except majority miners are not idiots like you. Go ahead with your " USB miner"

i agree with that. They are not so stupid to destroy their business and take part in this not logical fork

If you even understand what economic majority means, you would have seen how dump your post is.

Let me explain to you like a fcking 5yrs old

Miners dont give a shit about bitcoin network. They need to mine coins that has market value. To have market value it must be available on global exchanges. If the exchanges support XT, so will miners. They need revenue to cover their costs. 

That is the concept of economic majority. Fucking kids like you can go ahead and exchange your worthless coins among themselves.
 

Hey now meono... Don't rely on personal attacks when reasoning. I really can't tell if you're serious or trolling as your history indicates you did frequently but the least you could do is try to prove your point in other ways other that acting in such a manner.

XT is on the rise. In the meantime there's still a lot of frustration surroundings /r/bitcoin. Redditors have started migrating to other subreddits and some are urging people to message Reddit's administration in an attempt for the community to take the /r/bitcoin subreddit from theymos.

I've updated the OP with the newest numbers.

no god no master...
hey! u wot mat? this is NSFW and you just shown to kiddies!
anyway, there are no true master ever, it is depends on the people believe in.

First bip 101 block mined

https://btc.blockr.io/block/info/370434

Seems like it was thanks to Slush's pool that this block was mined.

https://www.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294

They're giving miners the opportunity to vote.

 ::) version ... 127 ?
why they don't use the real number (v4) ... ?  :P

(v3 = BIP66)

I fixed your post to reflect the reality of spoofed nodes/version numbers.

This is why that's important:

https://i.imgur.com/C3wqKf3.png

Well done! This bticoinXT going to destroy the "trush" in bitcoin ecosystem. The first block was mining and the bitcoin crash. We see more drama like this in the next days. I think we will see after many years the bitcoin price below 100 dollars.

So true.

When is XTnodes.com going to acknowledge they have no way to tell genuine Gavinista nodes from NotXT and Pseudonode spoofs?

I guess they like misleading the public, just like Gavin and Mike Heam.   :-\

Big businesses and miners that relies on bitcoin scaling won't read your silly posts on bitcointalk. Infrastructures are going to switch unless Core moves its ass faster than this. I'm not gonna bet on the later though.

I dont know what you have in your mind guys. This is not a video game this is all about trust in the real world... :P

As if the spoofed node count wasn't bad enough, now it turns out XT is designed to spy on/blacklist users.


The wheels are coming off Gavin's Panopticoin, no matter how much you love its yappy-yay manifesto.

Bitcoin-XT is a new Scam, for withholding the real bitcoins

I believe you quoted MeniRosenfeld last night, but you deleted it. Let me remind you of the shaky foundations you stand on:

You forget that the people who are smart enough to run a node are also smart enough to read the release notes and set configuration as they require.
If they want to hide where they are coming from, they set IP priority off.  Its really that simple. But keep up the "control every bitcoin user" rubbish - its pure comedy gold.

Right up there with your Mani Rosenfel quote!!  ;D

Frap.doc (given sufficient technical support from the forum's geek squad) is "smart enough to run a node."

But he's in no way "also smart enough to read the release notes and set configuration as they require."

Remember when he was pestering gmax to explain why his XT swap file was bloated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11812792;topicseen#msg11812792)?  Yah, that was good times.

Classic Frap.doc.   :D

The point is, hiding XT's NSA phone home/blacklist BS is not the proper way to go about FOSS.

well spoken. in the meantime we reached 13% XT Nodes.

^FTFY

Pretending 100% of self-reported node versions are genuine instead of spoofed only shows how dishonest you Gavincoiners are.

Is there anything you won't do to mislead the public?

Lets say your litle scam works and instead of an ordered fork to XT there is a slight back flap and miners loose money, where would you or Adam Back ( its joint promoters) stand on liability? Have you taken out a policy on it? Or is misrepresentation not insurable  ???

In fact, even if it didn't work, I reckon Miners/Exchanges/Nodes would have a case for the risk of loss it exposed them to.

I've only seen it promoted twice ( apart from your signature): once on reddit, and that article Back did for spectrum. I guess you reckon Back has deeper pockets than you.  ;D




wirdeseinegabelsein

Second BIP101 block

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000001416a613602d73bbe5c79170fd8f39d509896b829cf9021e

blocktrail is now providing statistics on how many of the last blocks are in support of 8Mb blocks or BIP101

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

Time to fire up some more Core nodes at work. {After all, I own the company...} I have some idle equipment laying around doing nothing, so I might aswell use it for something good.  ;D

This is getting absurd, and we need to support the network that puts the food on the table. I will use any and all resources to support Core, because I think they have the purest incentive to make a success

out of this whole experiment. We cannot allow a small minority of people with hidden agendas to sabotage everything we have worked for years. Join me and fire up all that old equipment laying around

gathering dust.  ;)     

agreed, added 3 new ones this week :)

Slush pool mined a third BIP101 block making the total amount of mined blocks in support of BIP101 3

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000900403773e45b3225f054b0c09c1ee65cf015f3a2305ff1

Purest incentive? you tell me

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

And i agree, we cant let a small minority of ppl to decide the future of bitcoin. Only bitcoin , the network itself, can decide its future.

They are mining both versions, are the miners the ones who choose which version to mine?

They let their miners choose.

Nice, hope more mining pools adopt the same principle.

Thats the way it should be.

But except Luke-JR's pool  ::)

after three years in slush pool i have drop my mining machines from there. I dont want to be part in this BitcoinXT nonsense

Nice table but 8Mb support isn't the same as XT (BIT101). More miners support 8Mb blocks than BIP101.

See here:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools

But only BIP101 actually proposes the increase to 8mb blocks.

You can go back and forth all day with this, and if you think there will be a BIP that propose 8mb blocks, you're gonna wait until eternity.

In summary, support 8mb blocks now means BIP101. And BitcoinXT is just a subset of BIP101 wallets.

Because choices are bad!

no because we are in a middle of a political reform of bitcoin. I am not accept to take part in this and to break the freedom of cryptocurrencies in favor of the banks.

But you're taking a part, you chose Blockstream Core instead of Gavincoin and you think if a pool gives that choice to its users that's a bad thing, because people should not be able to have choices...

i respect your opinion but i dont think is right. Take a moment to read what is Mike Hearn and what he believe about bitcoin.

I've been following Mike since I discovered bitcoin, what are you talking about?

give me one good reason why we must give such power to only one person to rule the code and fork it whatever he think is "good". If he want such a power and if he think that his opinion is above all of others then he must create an altcoin asap.
For the Mike hearn you can read this

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

Just been an explosion. Now the nodes are nearly 1100.

we all can see that this movement is organized not from the people but from group that really have to much money to spent. You cant gain 300 nodes in some hours only from the hype.
Guys wake up! we are in a middle from a organized attack to bitcoin

That was just me, spinning up more NotXT and Pseudo nodes.   :D

Thanks to Amazon's EC2 (+ VPNs), we can deploy unlimited numbers of FakeXT nodes with the click of a mouse!   8)

But there is something I do not understand very well  ???

Why choose between mining XT and core? It is not that XT will preserve the coins in core after forking? I mean, to mine XT or core is exactly the same right now isn't it?

Nodes are not very relevant anyway are they?

If XT had 10 000 nodes right now but 0 miners were using that version it would be useless. It's the % of miners running that version that count, correct me if m wrong

Yes they're both on the same chain now. But having bitcoinXT ready incase large bitcoin services like exchange and miners need to avoid the blocksize limit issue due to natural growth or spam attacks

All sides of the debate acknowledge that Bitcoin will ultimately need additional scaling solutions built on top of the protocol layer, and possibly a revision of the funding structure to reward miners. Bitcoin is still an experimental work-in-progress, with no clear-cut solutions.

Evidence of node number manipulation & large numbers of nodes deployed by a single person.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hh7fz/50_new_xt_nodes_added_more_coming/

Archives:
https://archive.is/cKD3i

https://archive.is/HlGms

Yes that's right, a Pseudonode which reports as RealXT is (functionally) the same (for hard forking purposes) as spoofing one with NotXT (only much cheaper).   :)

Seems like you were right. I hadn't thought that manipulation would happen to such an extent.

ftfy  With people like this defending the Core cause, there will always be hope for a moderate majority.

xtnodes.com DDoSed

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i2yvf/xtnodescom_request_for_ddos_protected_hosting/

and what is the 'hope' to destroy bitcoin ecosystem and make Gavin of new altbitcoin? To run one two person so many BitcoinXT nodes is simple sybil attack.

So how much nodes there are now of XT?, it is limited to 900 or what?

I see there have been zero donations (1FzYqngLKUV13ywYTDq7f2pq8P4GFitbkg) for a new host.

Such is the entitlement mindset of the Gavinistas.  They are entitled to fork Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.

They are entitled to DoS proof hosting, payed for by someone else.

They are entitled to subject the network to huge blocks, no matter the cost externalized to node operators and dangers described here:

https://forum.blockstack.org/t/blockstack-community-thoughts-on-block-size-bitcoin-xt-debate/152

Use https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ about 930 true count now

click on Network Map and then red dot lower right hand corner to show nodes with same IP as adjacent nodes. If there are significant PseudoNodes you will see tall red spikes on the graph

Strange request: can you stop quoting hdbuck or if you do just snip out the childish oversized colored letters? I think i speak for everyone on this.

Do they have a way to tell real full nodes from pseudonode and notXT?

No, they do not have a way to tell real full nodes from pseudonode and notXT.

And yet, they do not disclose crucial fact.

We can only conclude that Gavinistas enjoy misleading the public.

Bullshit lie iCE...there is no way to know if they 'enjoy' doing it.  Doing so could be simply their only course of action.

Like I said, Hearn could release closed-source a binary for XT'ers to run which could produce an accurate count (among other things...)  Most of his mininons don't even know what that means so they would likely flock to it in droves.  If there even are 'droves'...one senses that he (or his minders) have a sort of 'virtual minions' of sock-puppeteers as much as anything.

at this point it's safe lettin all them flock to whatever boatchain they want.
the original bitcoin, democratical-fud-resistant will certainly not die.

and as a ex-miner, i'm seriouly considering buying some cheap gear to mine real bitcoins once they gone, maybe making a nice pool too for die hard libertarians - if anyone is interested..

mining shall be profitable again for decentralized individuals that dont fall for the mainstream-socialist-saving-the-world-with-coffee-tips-noobs-fudsters.

At bitnodes the only graphic you have is to click on the Network Map then red dot lower right hand corner. When there are many PseudoNodes (several hundred) you will see tall red spikes.

Right now 925 XT nodes with no significant PseudoNodes. Guess the redditors got tired of the PseudoNode game.

I could be.

I hypothesis that if the blockchain itself forks, each branch will have it's own difficulty.  Therefore the mining effort on each chain will form a ratio which approaches the ratio of the market value of the coins from said chain.

To attack a chain in a primitive 51% mode, an attacker needs to overcome the honest mining effort on a chain, then attack for long enough to cause a problem.  AND hope that the management of the chain is caught flat-footed and cannot take evasive action.

I noticed with delight that Blockstream was smart enough to set expectations of reliable peg operations at something like 24 to 48 hours.  What this mean is that a successfully 'primitive' attack would necessitate giving away any proceeds which could be obtained mining honestly for a fair amount of time. 

Unless, of course, the attack was externally funded which is entirely possible.  If a sha256 miner is already in a idle mode due to unprofitably, it is entirely possible that a sponsor could retain them as mercenary to carry out attacks for not a lot of money.  The long operations cycle means that there is a fair amount of time to mount a defense.

Most importantly, if sidechains were developed under and expectation of the long reliable peg operation cycle, they would be designed to operate autonomously with only a limitation to elements associated with their peg operations.  This means that end-users on various sidechains would probably not even know that an attack on the backing store were underway.  Contrast this with the grief which would be felt by XT users who demand real-time operation of their system with no downtime.  Much more brittle.

In short, mining could become interesting again, and especially if there was a transaction fee reward to those who find valid blocks in a sea of invalid blocks during an attack.  I never found mining to make much sense from an economic standpoint.  Warfare on the mining front could change that, and if transaction fees alternate hash algorithms came into the picture it could become both very interesting and potentially profitable.

http://xt.coin.dance/

Here's a website that at least attempts to weed out the fake nodes. I'm not sure about how automated it is.

XTnodes released a block explorer highlighting blocks supporting BIP101 among the last 1000 blocks. It includes other information like where the blocks were mined as well as what percentage BIP101 is among the most recent 1k blocks.

I hope they got decent hosting to sustain traffic/DDoSing.

http://www.xtnodes.com/bip101_block_version_explorer.html

Did anyone ever mine a >1mb XT block?

No?  I'm shocked.  It seemed like such a popular idea!   :P

Oh well, better try again.  This time with Classic...  ::)