Bitcoin Forum

I want lots of interesting graphs and charts.

How come bitcoin.org, bitcointalk, bitcoincore.org, r/bitcoin is censored from the site?

Because they are for Bitcoin Core which they obviously are against (it was previously XTNodes.com, so you know who they are biased towards). Just like how Bitcoin Core isn't even linked or mentioned there at all excepted for their counts.

This clearly does not show all of the different node implementations. It misses the other full node implementations that are listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330770.0

bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org don't censor anything, those are informational websites, not discussion websites like reddit and this forum.

And if they are so against censorship, then why are they censoring Bitcoin Core from that website?

Well it does now after I have pointed out your hipocrisy  ::)

Coinbase has been reinstated on the website for quite some time.

Bitcoin.org doesn't provide links to those wallets, probably because of their hard forking stuff which goes against their hard fork policy: https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy. And before you argue that it is not a contentious hard fork, if it wasn't so contentious, then why all the debate?

Since it is pretty clear that you are the administrator of that site or have direct communication with the administrators, I have a few nits about the links. Bitcoin.org belongs under related links as it provide information for Bitcoin in general. Bitcoincore.org is Bitcoin Core's website now.

Also, if you are so against censorship, then bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin should be under related as those two places are related and are places that people are active and get information.

It gives a nice overview indeed. It does seem that core is still the way most people want to go.

Are these really all the nodes? Only 6.5k or so left? Lets hope some alternative ways if running a node become available soon.

That there's such an obvious anti-Core bias does not inspire much confidence in your data, colinistheman. The site should describe how data is gathered and explain how it can be verified.

N.Korea does not deserve promotion.

Clever new way to get around Godwin. ;)

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/000/681/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg

so basically there is no support, minus for core

then those that were saaying miners are for classic were indeed wrong, based on this graph

Yes pretty sad right?!Although other sites show the count around 5600-5800 nodes.
That's why it is important to not decrease even more.

https://bitnodes.21.co/ (https://bitnodes.21.co/)

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365 (https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365)

It's simple actually. The website itself is biased while appearing that it is not. You could just as easily claim that they are censoring those 4 by not including them just as people complained about Coinbase and Bitcoin.org. Let's also not forget that this thread was made in the wrong section.

Correct.

There's only a single link related to the main implementation. If it was the other way around we would never hear the end of: "censorship, bias, manipulation, etc.". These things are pretty obvious if you pay enough attention.

Might have been another update, but they link 32/64-bit windows/linux, osx and the source code same as with all other implementations, besides unlimited, because they apparently lack a osx version.

IMHO a log scale would be nice, because you can hardly see the other implementations besides core.

https://i.imgur.com/8bQjdID.png

https://coin.dance/nodes

It would make sense to provide better information since that is the purpose of the website.

Yes. Even though the colors help with that, the others are barely visible. It would also be nice to know which version are the users running though.

Well as you said its pretty obvious that they have a specific agenda or stance towards the different implementations.


The pie chart is handy for that, but it lacks the development over time.

Screw nodes. Let's see blocks mined. That's the vote that really counts.

This change made sense... The website ended up not being about counting XT nodes only :D Pretty interesting visual overhaul, much easier to navigate now

Log charts are now present on https://coin.dance/nodes/all (https://coin.dance/nodes/all).

nodecounter and other sites have wrongly clumped things together when they done the 1mb vs 2mb.. so here is a fairer overview

https://i.imgur.com/MDxh0IL.jpg

remember nodes over a year old cannot be automatically classed as desiring 1mb.. they have not shown any direction since the debate has begun, so best to leave them outside in a undecided category

Of course they can. They're enforcing the 1MB limit. If their operators didn't desire to enforce the consensus rules, they wouldn't run a node. And where the hell do you get a year, anyway? You just constantly make up the rules as you go along.

Anyway, this is just meaningless blathering. The fact is, those nodes are enforcing a 1MB limit. So if a miner publishes > 1MB blocks, they'll just fork them off. You can call them "undecided" all you want, but it's not very accurate. They are by definition decided: anything above 1MB is invalid.

Pure propaganda site to boost alternative implementations to Bitcoin Core. If you want a true reflection of all the nodes, rather browse to

 https://coin.dance/nodes .... They not shy to show who the King of the Hill is.  ;D ..... It is actually a joke, that these people are pointing fingers at

other people for censoring information and then they do the same thing.  ;D ;D ;D

i also see it like that, because undecided does not make sense, if they do not decide to go with the new limit, then they are basically saying "we stay with the current limit", since there is no deadline here, they can potentially stay "undecided" forever

which is utterly no-sense

now your speculating.. you just dont know their intentions. so best to treat them as undecided. im not saying they want 2mb or they want segwit.. there is just lack of proof either way. so obviously best to take them out of the equation until its obvious..(by them updating)


so my mindset is

by not keeping up to date. they are not voting for 2mb and they are equally not voting for segwit.. they are just undecided. you cant assume they want segwit, you cant assume they want 2mb

but we can assume that they want to remain with 1mb, if no decision is made it mean that they like to stay in the current situation, until they change their mind, their decision is already settled, which is again 1mb

basically they are voting indirectly, the 1mb limit, by remaining undecided, there is no "no voting" ever, you either vote something or something else, that's my point

lol and in april. when segwit is a thing.. you will switch mindsets. and say, well they havnt voted for segwit. but it doesnt matter lets put them as undecided..

cant have it both ways.. so best to side line that crowd until its obvious what they want.. anything else is just speculation

i'll simply say that they are now with segwit or with classic or whatever, but for now they are with 1mb limit, this because there is no deadline, it's all about personal consensus

if there was a deadline then the whole argument about being undecided would make more sense