Bitcoin Forum

https://coin.dance/nodes

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/8533/aXHsQK.png


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img911/9066/oaDOZi.gif Shit hit the fan ! http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img907/205/fjG70T.gif

You should read:A date with Sybil (https://medium.com/@laurentmt/a-date-with-sybil-bdb33bd91ac3#.w9c44pamc). I wonder how come this isn't obvious to everyone; i.e. why some believe that these are genuine nodes run by many users (they're not).

Funny try. Stats sites got tricked again! Is the attacker already known?


That's why the OP probably named the thread "virtual server" because that's what they are :D

 ;D thank to http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/ to have added somes graphics about the IP nodes hosting.

how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?

because they pay you to do this.
but after 3 months, all nodes will evaporate ... and the 2Mb switch stay.

job done.

If core wanted to discredit classic, thius would be a great tactic. :) Nobody in their right mind would want to run with Classic if they really are playing these games - makes you wonder how they intend to recover the costs in the future.

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

it means that bitcoin users are pissed off with laying down and taking it in the ass from the blockstream overlord.. waving a carrot infront of users but then ramming the stick right in there..

so people noticed that core started sybil attacking bymaking lots of raspberry pi nodes and dotting them about. throwing incentives to get people to run nodes to try sticking with the blockstream agenda.

and now other implementations want to expand before blockstreams agenda. to show the world that we should not be controlled by blockstream.. blockstream fanboys see it as an attack.

i see is as a revolt,

now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.
by not even providing code to be part of the network is them sticking their head in the sand being left behind holding the clams

dont be fooled by the doomsday scenarios. they are all blockstream creations.

How do you know? It doesn't take much for a small group of people to spin up thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service. What does that have to do with bitcoin users?

My node isn't reachable, but it's Core 0.12.... do I not exist? ;D Node counts are beyond dumb.

Classikkers are in for a rude awakening when they realize that none of this blatant fuckery is going to make us fork onto your network. Even if you claimed a majority of users (as if, haha) based on these McNode counts, that won't force anything on me. The handful of friends I have in bitcoin think the idea is just funny. Why would we let you force this kind of bullshit on us?

Yawn. More bullshit FUD.

What's wrong with Blockstream?

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules. If these people can do that, anyone else can do that to. They should IP block all <fake> nodes being run on these services and subtract them from the totals. Someone should also notify these services that a attack is being launched from their services and they should take action to prevent or stop this.

There has to be something in these services ToS that prohibits people from using their services to attack / hack or sabotage other services.  ???

Basically. That's why we call it a Sybil attack. A couple entities controlling thousands of nodes through a few datacenters isn't what I'd call "p2p." They won't even have any economic activity since they are not operated at home (I bet a good deal of their donators probably use Coinbase as a wallet LOL)...pathetic.

If fork goes through, what are they gonna do, keep donating to spin up nodes that they can't run at home? Sounds sustainable. Amazon running over 800 Classic nodes, Choopa LLC just brought over 1000 Classic nodes online in the past 1-2 days.

LOL. Not falling for that crap. Running my Core node. :)

That's a good question actually. I don't see a valid reason for somebody to support such foul play.

False. Core has nothing to do with this. Even Brian Armstrong is promoting the service that let's you join in on this for 10$ a month (IIRC).

Nothing. Ignore it and stay with status quo.

Currently, nothing. Basically if you simplify the problem you have two groups with different views on how to approach scaling. Blockstream is part of that one group. The other group wants something else. Blockstream disagrees with us, ergo Blockstream must be evil. This is foolish reasoning at best.

Fork only happens if miners want to, it doesn't matter how many or which nodes there are.

You been told that running a node is important and if block chain grows too much there will be few nodes, but the truth is nodes don't have any real power in the network, it doesn't matter if there are 10000 or just 100 huge ones.

Actually you are very wrong. Nodes make the rules. Hashpower doesn't. Miners can point hashpower at another invalid chain if they want. That doesn't force the users to follow them onto a forked network. If users do not follow, miners will simply go back to the original chain, where the network remains and where it is profitable to mine.

Miners are nothing without the users.

in theory it's impossib le to stop, who can stop someone that have multiple server all across the globe that are node in the system?

it's not like there is something that can idenfity the owner(not talking about the ip...) of those servers

you are wrong with this. Nodes is a very important part of bitcoin ecosystem and the last defend in malicious attack from miners. For example in 51% malicious attack nodes can prevent the miner to destroy the network. In a hard fork scenario again nodes can block to relay the the new blocks and transactions.
The other danger think with such a sybil attack is that someone can easy use all of this nodes to get some informations from bitcoin transactions like to identify from where this transactions came from

In one of my nodes which i had 115 connections atm about 20% is Classic nodes.

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity. :D

It's an attempt at a power grab. Nothing more.

yeah if you have 5 developer from blockstream among the 80+ core developers is an attemp at power control of bitcoin. Instead if you have 1 of 3 Classic developers from Bloq is nothing more but a revolution :D

How can anyone support those idiots who sign backroom deals with 3 chinese people who control 70% of hash power?

How can anyone support those who place 95% of their nodes in tech clouds that can be eliminated with a phone call?

I remember that the same attempt has done before from Classic team and they proudly post their mining supporters to their site. Then you dont have a problem with this heh? And the deal if you remember was not only with miners but and with the biggest exchanges in the world and has and the user support the most part of them.

Yes, a pity to Bitcoin, but not to the altcoin trolls here who profit from this unspellable stupidity of the miners.

its not about power.
Core can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitcoinJ can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitgo(btcd) can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000

and then everyone is on an equal playing field with a BUFFER to protect themselves for the future when MINERS decide to slowly make blocks slightly more than 1mb.

its just a buffer. just like the 1mb us a buffer when miners were only making 0.3mb blocks in 2012 0.5mb blocks in 2013 and 0.7mb blocks in 2014

the "POWER GRAB" is those causing contention by not releasing code to protect people. and forcing a contension hard fork, instead of every implementation having the code.

the "power grab" is those wanting to control when users get to have more buffer space and vetoing any natural growth because they have an agenda to push people offchain.

so if you are supporting anyone that refuses to expand the buffer. then you might aswell be stuck in 2013 making 500k blocks because someone you admire tells you not to upgrade

EVERYONE should be protected against any change. and with 2mb buffer everyone would be.
core still gets to do its segwit agenda. the 2mb buffer doesnt eradicate cores ability to create segwit.
because thats naively and ignorantly believing that getting passed the 2013 500k DB-bug was bad and by getting passed it no one can make new features again

what it does do is free users from needing to rely on core. and be free to use any of the 12 implementations available

avoiding adding the buffer hurts the community

I am very sure that whining and this drama from a small group and especially from Armstrong, Gavin and Garzik hurts bitcoin. we all see this all of the recent months and you must be blind to not see this.
How can anyone trust and give power to only three developers and to a small group community that act like a religious secta with no technical background.
And is obvious that and you have no tech background with what you just write. There are much more problems with the block size increase than a simple switch that it seems you dont understand at all. Like you is all the Classic supporters unfortunately.

ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.


good job, still...

~not tonight dearies... :)

This is where their logic starts failing. They're claiming that Core is trying to restrict the network because of Blockstream. However, if you look at the people who signed the Core roadmap (as an example), you'd see 23/25 [1] agreement (where those two represent Gavin and Garzik). Both of them have not been significantly active in the Bitcoin development in recent times (coincidence?). Additionally, it makes zero sense to claim that development is centralized and then try to push it into even a smaller team. Armstrong is a separate story (promoting a Sybil attack and such).

Stall Bitcoin development by giving the keys to inexperienced people and stoners. :D

---

---

[1] - Arbitrary number used to compare the amount of people that support it and those that don't (it was in some recent interview). I haven't counted the exact number of people.

Why is this an attack? It is not.
No one is forced to install a classic node, and even miners aren't forced to switch to 2MB.

The main reason so that there are so many nodes on cloud is that before this situation all local classic nodes were under DOS attack.

i really can't understand how a staff legendary member of bitcoin community has so poor arguments

The backroom deal by Antfool/F2Fool/Bitfooly with BlockstR3eam/Core/PWC/AXA is either founded by suicidal stupidity of those pool admins, or it is collaboration with TPTB.
No third possibility.

and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes :P

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdq30sgUsAA2TTz.jpg:large

what a crap :D

I don't get the point of all this talk... now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.

I don't understand the mindset: "I don't understand this thing, but let me tell you how it should be.". Blockstream has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Core code; they are working on their own solutions/products. From what I see, you don't have any knowledge about the development/consensus process.

By far less dangerous than if the BlockstR3eam/PWC/AXA/Core collaborators behind the Great Firewall decide to switch off the machines.

and i ask you again. I am very sure that if miners was white ppl in zyrich or Usa i am very sure that you will not have problem at all. Do you vote and Trump?

the answer is you dont give power to ANY developer.
instead you find a non classic codebase and you put in the 2000000 buffer

there is no power grab.

there is no problem with increasing the buffer. and like i said you dont have to fall for the classic crap to do it, even core can do it even btcd can do it even bitcoinj can do it.

its not a situation that only one corporation can lead.
it has never been a core vs classic debate. its about having independant code that no one controls.

so fill free to grab the 2mb code and the segwit code and have it all.
its not a one or other debate its an everything together debate

its not a choice of feature a or feature B. its all features together so that your covered for any future change and then you have the freedom to choose which one to use.

by the way im not a classic fanboy, or a blockstream fanboy.. im just a bitcoin needs more buffer capacity to allow for natural unhindered growth without begging a corporation for more porridge (oliver twist reference: please sir can i have some more)

In Switzerland we have direct democracy. USA, China and Bitcoin Mining are still feudalist regimes. Revolution (regime change) still pending:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDSRP3yNPo

lol :D hahahahahahahaha Ok man. Tell to your direct democracy dont be so much racists. Xenophobia is something that historical had north Europe.

LOL. Switzerland welcomed and harbors about 50% of its population with people with migration background. People decide via vote what they want, unlike China, SU, US, EU ...

Hey, all is fair in love and War... right? I think this is ingenious and should be applauded, to show vulnerabilities in the consensus process. We allow for open debate and we should allow anyone to

attack the system from all sides to strengthen our security and our development process. You can only fix loopholes and security holes, when they are identified. The community needs to decide if

spoofed nodes should be accepted or not and then voice their concerns on public forums like this. Let's close these loopholes guys and girls..  ::)

thank you forkers for making bitcoin stronger ;D


http://www.startup-book.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Antifragile-Taleb.jpg

A Sybil attack is a well known attack vector. The real question is why people are falling for this manipulation.

I would disagree with this. Once the masses to come to such a decision, then the chances of damage/destruction increase. Nobody reasonable would support a Sybil attack.

This is why decentralization is important.

mehh, come on now, nobody is falling for anything.

its just couple dozen loud wackos.

Attack? I don't see it as an attack. Stop spreading unfounded panic

OP isn't doing that. This is the very definition of a Sybil attack. Maybe it would be best to get more information about it.

Correct. According to the analysis on medium.com there is less than 300 people behind the nodes.

Many Classic nodes are in tech clouds because of well protection against denial service of attacks which small block criminals rountinely attacking Classic nodes. I cant understand who continue support Core and their BorgStream overlords anymore, all I see are FUDsters and denial of service attack criminals. Or any honest Core supporteer who preffer competetion and dont feed FUDsters left here ?



+1. Small block FUDsters just discredit themselves...

The most strange is that there are still guys that support Coinbase, Armstrong or to transfer bitcoin develop to only three developers.. lol.

Which is 100 times more decentralized than 3 with Blockstream collaborating people in a totalitarian country.

Coinbase is very usefull service to buy Bitcoins, I guess you just hate anybody who support Bitcoin Classic. But Bitcoin Classic is here to stay and estabilishing itselves as viable alternative to Core, thats why the loud support for Classic from some companies who need successfull Bitcoin allowing further adoption for their continued operation.

ok i cant see clear your point now  ;D I think the best playground for you will be /r/btc :P

And new pic. All the Classic nodes admin go for vacation today alltogether..

https://i.imgur.com/R0jtM1R.png

 Choopa, LLC disappear from node count almost completely and from 1000+ nodes today has only (48)! :P

On the pic above I see drop of Core nodes at the same time - something fishy with nodecounter graph, bad data or something - just explain this first instead. Just proves how ridiculous this thread is.

Of course, I prefer the libertarian forums. Only core cheerleaders prefer the totalitarian ones.

how can you keep all this pieces together? You are now in a core control forum that is more libertarian than the Classic control /r/btc/ that is completely trolland... :P

You seem to be someone for the forums run by the owner of r/northkorea (aka r/bitcoin) and bitcointalk.org

In this "northkorea" forum you have much more freedom from Classic forum to say whatever you like. How you explain this if in your theory all core works for blockstream and alltogether want to corrupt bitcoin freedom?

Dumb question: Is the count of these Classic nodes sufficient to successfully execute a Sybil attack? If not, what does that tell us?

It seems to me that if someone with deep pockets wanted to execute a Sybil attack, they'd want to be reasonably sure they would succeed, right? Doesn't that mean they would need a majority of nodes under their control?

I'm just struggling to understand what the point is, of having hundreds of nodes under their control, but not a majority. I don't want to say "false flag attack" without understanding the situation much better, but don't want to rule anything out prematurely either.

Yes, in that forum you have freedom from free speach. Hundreds of free speakers are banned there, and it's the preferred reddit playground of the blockstream/core society.

and why then dont ban you? Our north korea leader left you as a great example of freedom? Men you must grow up.. There is no evil among us. You must look somewhere else to see where is the enemy. And the enemy come out of bitcoin community and is the traditional financial system that bitcoin break it 100 years  rules.
They will do whatever they can to block and destroy bitcoin.

LOL. Do you really think that I am not banned there?

i talked about here..

because they don't host the whole blockchain.
only 10Gb ...  :(

and now you understand that blockstreams code (the pruning) is actually more dangerous because they tell people its ok to not be a proper full node and instead enable prune mode.

i love how core code gets attacked if someone uses it but if core do the exact same thing no one bats an eye

Attack on the network itself - no, bitcoin clients (at least core) tends to grab peers from a wide range of different subnets to help mitigate Sybil.

Attack on sites that count nodes and declare a certain version is gaining acceptance - yes.

This is the democracy you chose, the person with the most tech online wins


Don't know why people are fighting a much-needed upgrade to the bit coin network

 ::)

Username relevant.

Correct. It seems like a lot of people have missed this point. 25% of those nodes are full nodes, the remaining 75% are pruned nodes. However, you can really say that it is an attack just because the number of pruned nodes is higher.

i bet rich classic supporters/fanboys is the one who run thousand nodes.
Maybe i should run a full node in VPS.