Bitcoin Forum

....

What after the trial period? If Bitcoin community split into two and Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT run on different nodes - due to this coming fork, many people may lost their Bitcoins in their wallets.

So stick for the One, and my vote is for Bitcoin Core.

How exactly is that going to happen?

Indeed, that's the opposite of what will happen. If you have 1 BTC pre-fork, then post-fork you have 1 BTC on Core + 1 BTC on XT.

What does mining have to do with full nodes?
You, again, fail to understand fundamentals of Bitcoin.

If you look at http://xtnodes.com/ you see, that "Bitcoin XT nodes" and "BIP#101 mined-blocks" are two different characteristic numbers.

How many of the "normal" full-nodes are virtual servers? Have you researched that?
I don't see any problems with virtual servers. In my company every server is a virtual server. That is nothing unusual. It means, that you can scale them better for their purpose.

That's why you are avoiding XT?
Because of bs?

I don't know if I want to slap or laught at everyone that didn't understand what is a fork.

Many of those could also be NotBitcoinXT nodes (Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0 )

Those are disguised nodes that appear as BitcoinXT but don't actually support the blocksize increase.

You wrote:
Which doesn't make any sense at all. Most miners are not even full nodes, since they just connect to their pool, which is a full node.
I don't know, why anybody would think, that full nodes and miners have much to do with each other, but you suggest, that that is a common belief.

Which is another retarded thing in this whole discussion.
Why would anybody run a NotBitcoinXT nodes, other than to trying to hurt Bitcoin at all? Miners for sure wouldn't do that, since they are revenue oriented and it would just hurt themself to cause such a confusion.

There are 100% of non-XT (Non-BIP101) blocks. They have zero hashing power yet.

Interesting, but what will happen when the trial ends and the nodes shut down ? Will the transactions need more time to proceed ?

This data is meaningless if you don't compare it against the stats of nodes running Bitcoin Core. Even with that, your conclusion seems to be silly: The fact that a node runs on a VPS does in no way indicate that the respective node has been obtained for free and for the sole purpose of increasing node count.

Apart from your shoddy reasoning, you ignore the fact that cloud-based infrastructure is just a very normal fact of today's businesses. Also, only a very small percentage of cloud servers have been obtained for free, for most of them clients are paying real money (else the providers would go under, no?) We certainly run all of our infrastructure on cloud-based systems, and we pay thousands of $ per month for that. And yes, we are running bitcoin nodes on these servers.

Additionally, I doubt that the servers that you can get for free are even capable of running a node due to their limited resources (although I am not sure whether this is true for all providers).

Which has nothing to do with running a node. Also, I don't see any particular relevance of receiving block rewards in this context.


Again, node count does not say much. Have they been added or just existing nodes converted from Bitcoin Core to XT? Maybe these are just people voicing their opinion.

I am not discounting the fact that these nodes are shills, I am simply saying that your way of measuring/judging this is useless. Which makes this FUD.

and why they are runnign xt , they should support Core if they do not want those changes to take place, there are perhaps some good other features in XT that they are looking at?


but if you spend this bitcoin, the other bitcoin from xt or core it will be spent too right?

That depends on if the transaction is also propagated to the other fork. As far as I understand Bitcoin, everybody could just take your transaction from one fork and but it on the other fork(since it signation is valid on both blockchains)
If you wanted to keep them separated, you would have to make some kind of double spend, sending your Bitcoin on both forks to different addresses, but that still could mean that one of these transaction would appear on both blockchains, depending on which transactions lands in the blocks.

I run my full node on a VPS and it runs core.

Most free trials for VPS's are not going to offer the RAM and HD space necessary to run a full node, XT or not.

Also the number of relay nodes that are running XT does not matter because XT will not fork until two weeks after 75% of blocks (out of the last 1000) have been mined with a XT flag. It would be possible that 99% of relay nodes could be running XT and (according to the current plan), the network would not fork.

This is bull. If ever we see xt nodes being run on free trials on virtual servers, we will see bitcoin fall to the ground. Why fake the stats? Desperation, I think.

for now, 10% of all nodes are on XT...

11%!

Since I got in this train, never a dull day. :D

I remember talking to people about this, online and in physical life but I didn't expect to see it, it's exciting!

If we are in a situation where hosting nodes can break bitcoin, i think something went wrong a long time ago. If hosting nodes can break bitcoin, then so be it. Let's do 'er up guys.

This is isn't as much of a "win" for Core as you think. Any new technology option is served well by a free trial - it allows people a no-risk or low-risk point of entry, it generates good will, and it serves to build a base of first adopters.

Free trial nodes set the base from which momentum could occur. If you're against momentum I'd be weary of considering this a meaningless or trivial fact.

To the OP: Who cares?

The number of nodes running XT has nothing whatsoever to do with the rollout of 8MB block support.  That depends entirely on the blocks mined % crossing 75%, followed by a 2-week delay.  Those numbers can't be faked, and for now are at 0.1%.

And no, the mining of a BIP 101 block does NOT create a fork.  Core reads and understands those blocks perfectly well.  It will not fork until the first > 1MB block is mined, which won't occur until after the rollout, and possibly not for weeks or months after that.

I don't see any issues with that... I've configured nodes both on VPS and on a server of my own. It depends on what's cheaper and on what you feel comfortable with. I'd be more worried with fake nodes than with nodes running on VPS's

Fixed it.

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

Mostly free trials?  LOL, so much for the mighty Gavinista economic majority.  More like broke kids bored because summer vacation!   :D

before XT : 5800-5900
after XT : 6500

problem ?  ::)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img661/4122/yLEaV0.jpg

Oh that's clearly brand new users, enticed in by all the uncertainty presumably.

The problem is you are counting NotXT nodes (and Pseudonodes) as XT nodes.  Let me know how that works out for you.   :P

more then a happy coincidence one would say. replies can twist all they want tis obvious someones faking.

wtf is this notxt thing?

besides i think the guy meant that it is just pure new fake nodes, as in no old nodes migration towards xt. or at least thats how i see it.

I've said it over and over...
the powers that be can't stop bitcoin! they can't simply shut TCP/IP. but they can take over the Dev team..Gavicough... i mean If i recall, the "folks at the CIA" had  a  little chat with Gavin didn't they?
no one knows what the fuck they talked about. I don't trust Gavin, XT, or mike for a millisecond.

FUCK XT!!! FUCK YOU GAVIN.. FUCK YOU MIKE!!! FUUUUUUUUCK YOU

Real mature.

 ::)

Are you contending that you're not acting like a 12 year old?

bitcoin is being taken over right in front of our eyes and i should be worried about being mature?

+1 while we're at it, fuck you USGAVIN and GOOGLEHERAN :-*

and who da fuck is this Tom Harding that i see in their new governance BS?

https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

lol, you just confirmed you're a 12yrs old.

Someone took candy from you huh? Must throw tantrum !

Ever heard the phrase "permissionless innovation"?  The only way that the network is changing is if the majority wants it to.

What you see as a takeover I see as free market principles at work.  No one can take over Bitcoin unless everyone agrees to it.

gotta love the naivety

gotta love conspiracy.

Well, it's a software propagation war and the outside world preceives it as such. Nothing anyone would want to have his own money involved.

Good luck people, i'm on a coin with less issues. Laterz...

so 1BTC = 2BTC soon  :o  ;D  ::)
ouch

Out of the 6000 Core nodes, I am sure a lot of them are on virtual servers and some of them could be just personal wallets. Nevertheless, number of nodes does not matter. Forking is determined by a majority of mined blocks by XT not a majoruty of nodes. While most of the new XT nodes are on virtual servers, I believe some of them are legit people/businesses testing XT. Surely businesses (may be even pools) aren't going to "upgrade" their live Core systems without thorough testing.

no.

If you run a full node and want to block XT nodes you can use: https://github.com/abitfan/xtblock

And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ...
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/animalcrossing/images/2/26/Hypocrites-hypocrites-everywhere.jpg

Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT

Who is blocking coins? How is that even supposed to work?
Do you have any idea, what you are talking about?

Dumb fuck, its not blacklisting coins. You cant even understand the code and just listened to a bunch of FUDsters.


Blocking DoS attacks is exactly what it does. Better ask than make assumption retard.

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

We can freely choose to run those iptables blocking XT scripts, as opposed to the XT shoving anti-privacy code hidden in big patches while shouting it wants a bigger block size.

I have noticed that you resort to name-calling for almost anyone who is not a XT cancer supporter. Please go ahead and to the same for me. I am a dumb retard sheep Blockstream supporter who wants Bitcoin to be destroyed by the tyrannical core devs who stubbornly refuse to accept the perfect patches from the well intentioned Mr. Andersen and Mr. Hearn.  >:(

How can we see the list of all XT nodes?
Just curious to see their originating networks

Have you looked at the date?
Mike Hearn is not pushing blacklists. It was an idea 2 years ago, which was abandoned shortly after

But right now he added blacklists for Tor in their XT client. Didn't he ?

Do you understand how anti DoS attack work?

I expect much better from you Zeroday, i think you should not listen to chanting "blacklist IP, blacklist coins".

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=%2FBitcoin+XT%3A0.11.0%2F

The two pieces of software, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin-XT, are very similar. Bitcoin-XT is actually just a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features added that Bitcoin Core developers didn't deem appropriate, such as a larger block size (BIP 101) and relaying of double spends.

Bitcoin Core is more up-to-date with all of the work that the community doing. Additionally, Bitcoin-XT now has a different consensus protocol regarding the maximum size of blocks. There has been much debate within the bitcoin community about if/how/when to increase the artificially imposed block size limit (of 1 MB), and one attempt to resolve this debate is being done through Bitcoin-XT.

The Bitcoin-XT README.md has these notes on how it is different than Bitcoin Core:

Support for larger blocks. XT has support for BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen, which schedules an increase from the one megabyte limit Bitcoin is now hitting.
Relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core will simply drop unconfirmed transactions that double spend other unconfirmed transactions, forcing merchants who want to know about them to connect to thousands of nodes in the hope of spotting them. This is unreliable, wastes resources and isn't feasible on mobile devices. Bitcoin XT incorporates work by Tom Harding and Gavin Andresen that relays the first observed double spend of a transaction. Additionally, it will highlight it in red in the user interface. Other wallets also have the opportunity to use the new information to alert the user that there is a fraud attempt against them.
Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent.
DNS seed changes: bitseed.xf2.org is removed as it no longer works, and seeds from Addy Yeow and Mike Hearn are (re)added to increase seed diversity and redundancy.
So, if you support these changes and/or the possible future changes on the consensus-block-size-limit, run Bitcoin-XT. The releases are available here: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases

I think im going to stick with core too. After much research, I don't like Hearncoin. They are introducing a lot of fishy as hell stuff that they don't talk about with the excuse of the blocksize raise.

Yes, I know how does DDOS work and can confirm that blocking Tor is stupid and ineffective method.
There are huge botnets around with over 15K IPs each, that you cannot identify because, unlike Tor nodes, they are not listed somewhere.
If someone wants to run devastating DDOs again bitcoin network, they will succeed without help of Tor.

I need to correct this, XT is not attacking the network. If you truly believe that we should never hard fork then the core development team essentially has absolute power over Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be completely centralized, the ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. It is not the core development team that should control Bitcoin it is the masses that should control Bitcoin, so everyone vote with your nodes and help keep Bitcoin free and decentralized.

Very well said.

Personally I'm more and more convinced that Blockstream is the real attack.


 

I agree, if Gavin had continued as lead developer instead of stepping down to work at the Bitcoin Foundation, we could instead have been doing this debate from the opposite stance; given those circumstances I'd be favouring the hard fork upstart that was promoting liberty and transaction rate scaling, and I support the Bitcoin Core people for the same reason in the reality we actually have.

lol no.

forking <=> altcoin.
there is plenty other coins with larger blocks so just go enjoy yourselves with them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768

You could also write some code instead of just keep bitching about it.

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/book_of_body_language/images/144-three_wise_monkeys.jpg

      
I just knew that they were scammers

Someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

We won't know how much of that supposed "super majority" is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (perhaps prematurely) activated.

No its not, Why are you digging deeper?

This post might have worked if it was 3 days ago.

By now, most ppl who cares enough about the topic would have known, XT only forks if 750 of the last 1000 blocks mined by XT


Ofcourse you're gonna say they can be mined using fake XTnodes. Sadly to inform you, majority of miners are not dumb like you to fck around.

A "majority of miners" is not relevant.  The Knights of Satoshi's Core Defense Team only needs to bribe incentivize defection such that XT/NotXT's ostensible fledgling economic plurality is fukkin' rekt.

IOW, just wait until Eligius offers a port for NotXT mining, and upon observation of its success more pools follow suit.

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

Just so you know that these fake XT nodes are being put up by Core supporters. This does constitute an attack on the network and is in fact a Malicious and incredible irresponsible thing to do, trying to make it so that a fork is impossible is the equivalent of hijacking Bitcoin.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Praise the Lord for that. Judging current situation with XT, unknown code properties possible ability to blacklist bitcoin users disguised ad DoS protection system etc.
I think there is no way that XT nodes will ever reach majority. Some serious changes in the code of XT needs to be done before that.

I would also prefer if XT only changed the block size since having several other changes in their just complicates the issue irregardless of what we think of them. There is however another version of XT that does not include these other changes and only increases the block size, and since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork it makes the other changes optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way you would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. There is even an option to turn off these other patches within the standard XT client itself.

Forget your stupidity to believe the FUD ...

If the proposed chain is adopted by majority then thats what it matters. BitcoinXT will continue being an alternative client if majority nodes arent XT nodes.

What matters is the chain proposal is a success.

BIP101 is what we want you can merge it into any wallet client you like.

You think that  is all? Remember that guy who supposedly walked on the moon?  Nah. XT supporters...   #blockstreamrekt   ;D

The motives of any cause that feels it is justified in advocating the use of a piece of software to subvert a network should be questioned, and questioned closely.

But like all bullies, they only act out of fear - fear of what they cant control.

XT has an unreliable node count because of NotBitcoinXT

XT uses artificial urgency created by Coinwallet.eu 'stress testing' the network

XT relies on manipulative rhetorics and lack of technical understanding of it's supporters

XT plans to divide the network by causing a maximum amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt


This movement of Bitcoin's low intellectual class has to be stopped in it's track before it drives away even more users.
Yes. Stop XT!

Straight out of chairman maos red book. good grief.    ;D ;D

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog2/uploaded_images/mao-715313.jpg

Blockstream - The Gathering

satoshifanclub, beside your need for continued personal attacks, your motives in this debate are clearly visible.

Surprisingly his history is full of shorting Bitcoin, so for satoshifanclub at least, his motive to support XT is obviously to cause as much FUD as possible to increase the chances of a price drop.

It is ironic that you are accusing XT supporters of manipulative rhetoric when that is exactly what you are doing here. Since the only real argument you are presenting here is that we should not adopt XT because of NotBitcoinXT which I consider to be a malicious attack on the network by the supporters of Core. Any attempt at trying to stop a hard fork in this way can be considered as an attempt to hijack Bitcoin from the people to whom it belongs to. A hard fork is the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the core development team in check.

Please present me with real arguments so that I can learn from your perspective, or it would be even better if you attempted to rebuttal some of the arguments I have already presented here in this thread. That would be more convincing and intellectual in nature. Since you are here saying that we must stop this “low intellectual class” by stopping XT? Which is also not really an argument and therefore also not very convincing.

Meh, its a living.  Better than being outed as a duplicitous  fraud though.  8)

Any joy with asking the devs to block malicious nodes? No?  Tool.

Is this post for or against a larger block size? Seems to be for a larger block size to me.

The main argument against larger blocks is that the "community" could not run full nodes if the block size was increased. (Other being smaller blocks force higher fees so pay for miners - but fees even now are less than 1% of miner subsidy - so no miner is going to stop if they dropped to zero).

If however a "free vm" can run the current blockchain seems likely that many in the "community" could afford an 8 fold increase in the cost of running a node.

I knew it, does XT guys cannot be trusted.
There is something fishy going on here.
Thank you for a great post.

If you read the rest of the thread you would understand that there is nothing fishy about this. This is how Bitcoin has always worked, there is nothing wrong with hosting a full node on a virtual server, if anything this is a good thing.

How long till the free subscriptions are up?

What are the proofs of the statement that you say?
how can you see they are virtual servers?

I have the same questions.

I guess you can see if it is a virtual server, when you just look at the IP-address. turtlehurrican isn't known for providing proof, but claiming he made some research and just publish the "results".

If it is really a free trial can not be proven, unless either the trial runs out, or somebody admits to have done it, which already happened from people who thought they could prove a point with that(the only point I see proven is, that they have too many spare time)

There is no proof and even if you would know it's meaningless:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.msg12172863#msg12172863

to get 75% power there are only about 10 nodes that matter, 15 if you want to be really generous.  Either XT gets the support of those 10 nodes or it doesn't.

the other 5000 nodes are just helping to spread out transactions, which is actually what nodes should be doing.  virtual servers or on somebody's box at home with high speed, it is almost always a plus for the network unless they are on some really old hardware and really slow dial up and is faulty in other ways then it hurts the network.  VPNs hosting XT are none of those things.

If the nodes ignored blocks broadcast from the pools mining the altcoin XT wouldn't that increase orphan rate for those pools?

It may, but I would imagine that the XT miners could easily make direct connections to one another to lessen this problem. Besides XT blocks are no longer competing with core blocks at this point in time, and it is best for XT and core nodes to only connect to other nodes of the same kind. After the fork, it would be a waste of network resources for an XT node to connect to core node (or vice versa) because nothing useful can be exchanged over the connection.

The problem is.. if they are running free trial versions {proven or not} it would expire in due time and that would compromise the security of the network that are already devided in two.

You cannot run real hashing power over a fake network that does not exist after a couple of months.  >:(

The strong point of the Bitcoin network was always it's huge total hashing power and it's decentralized nature. To spoof such a network with free trial VM software is just crazy.

You win the race, but you lose the war.  :(