Bitcoin Forum

http://www.coindesk.com/code-bug-exploit-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes/

Let this be a reminder of what happens when you try to pass the development of a 20 billion dollar project into a bunch of idiots instead of sticking with the time-tested, world-class coders with a conservative mindset that have guaranteed our holdings stay safe for 7+ years.

https://media.coindesk.com/uploads/2017/03/CD-768x358.jpg

This also proves most BU nodes were single entities with big pockets, probably the work of none other than Bitcoin Jesus himself.

If Jihan Wu, Roger Ver and Gavin Andressen still promote this garbage, we all know they don't even care about their holdings and have ulterior motives beyond the idea of naive good intentions.

This is great news. I was getting a bit worried a hard fork would actually happen, but looks like Jihan's little nerd dream to be the emperor of bitcoin will not happen. Sorry, Core wins another day, and now $3000 are actually possible in 2017.

Probably should add to the title: "BU node exploit, exploited".
So that users know that something occurred, as opposed to just another flame thread.

Normally, when something like this is discovered, it should remain secret until patched.
Surprised that it was added to the GitHub for the public to see, if this is true.

Looks like about 200 nodes have stayed online which are probably mostly patched clients, though it could be very persistent users repeatedly restarting their node (and least less likely sybil attacks.)

they'll be back in some form. it's not something that's gonna go away. they're already trying to spin it.

next time guys make sure your technical prowess outweighs your agenda.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  Im sure the bug will be fixed and BU back up and running.  It's not like Bitcoin never had a serious bug before. 

#keepinitreal

do you honestly think the majority would be inclined to take it seriously again? they weren't all that convinced before.

if they want to persuade people to make the change then they have to be perfect and then some. even before innovation, it has to be rock solid. bitcoin is no longer a weird little project to tinker with and no amount of obfuscation will compensate people if it blows up.

BU is winning.  Go over to https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/ and get some unfiltered reality.

OP - I think a better title would be that "Bitcoin Core/Blockstream dev exploits BU nodes, patch quickly released"

uh, no. i gave up on that hole ages ago. r/bitcoin isn't much better but at least you can get some vaguely rational discussions still.

i'm not a big core fan. i'm really, really not a bitcoin unlimited fan. it's like an operation run by a small bunch of toddlers.

if that faction wants to succeed then deliver a solution that works, is elegant, thoroughly vetted, doesn't need ridiculous amounts of spin, accusations, psy ops and gaming to get anywhere and is as dependable as the current bitcoin implementation.

is there as much bullshit coming from the core side? more than likely but they can point to something that's doing its job right now.

if unlimited's version is good enough then a hard fork might follow naturally with most people getting behind it. they have to be better than core, they have to let the code do the talking and they have to extinguish doubt.

http://www.razor-forex.com/2017/03/more-than-400-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes.html?m=1

#dontforkbitcoin

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/841812883109511168

Looks like all those BUcoiners are on suicide watch. Very sad!

I feel bad for the idiots that felt so deep into the Jihan Wu + Roger Ver propaganda that they will not see the obvious.
Sorry, BU lost all its credibility forever. Nobody without an agenda will risk their wealth and business in the hands of amateurs.
Time to think about the next powergrab attempt.

i'll be here giving free hugs when you're crying over BU having taken control from Blockstream.  :-*

Since when nodes count matters? it's not like if a version has most of the nodes it can dominate the network, only mining power can speak for the entire system just like 1CPU 1VOTE but now is 1ASIC(or TH/S) 1VOTE. nodes are not generating bitcoin miners are and miners are not generating bitcoin blocks larger than 1MB why is that? because Core version(main version/original version/base code/source code) says blocks should be only 1MB maximum size.
BU was never alive to begin with.

This is so funny. It's the fault of the Bitcoin developers now, isn't it!? :)

FYI: that bug has been sitting there for over a year. If the BTU takeover would have been successful Bitcoin would be dead now.

Pleeeease can you now go and just do what the usual procedure is for untested ideas and flawed code and just make an altcoin out of it and go away?

Thank you!

We all know that the Bitcoin Unlimited codebase is garbage.  8)

Bugs have been in other software packages, it is unreasonable for any software to not have any bugs in it.

Also, if BU had already been active, then there would likely be other implementations available, such as bcore 

Well that ended quite quick.
Like my daddy use to say:
When something ain't broke don't try and fix it.
Looks like they tried to do just that with this mutation of what the blockchain has been doing from the beginning. And not too badly either.

So BU wants to "take control" of Bitcoin, huh?

That's just the kind of talk I like to hear when it comes to open source projects... o_O

If you honestly believe that Blockstream "controls" Bitcoin (which is ridiculous, no one has ever forced me to install specific software, anyone else?), maybe your argument would sound better if you said something like, "gives control back to the users". Just sayin'. Try it out next time some spin is in order!

Till now the system worked in a better way and now people need to make it under their control or need to be the emperor as quoted. Days back Craig tried and now it's Jihan Wu. This time through BU he decided to make a win. But now this has not gonna happen which is expected to make a large change in this year.

Hello jonald_fyookball  ;D

BTU is trash lol, seriously, please stop championing it.

um...no?

I don't think Bitcoin will succeed unless it can be the digital cash it was originally envisioned to be in Satoshi's whitepaper. 
 

Some of the nodes have come back online, presumably patched, but it's still under 400 on coin dance. I wonder how much time is needed to know how many have patched their clients and restarted them or have abandoned BU after this. It will probably be many days before we know since not all nodes will be attended to or monitored daily.

So are we going for the segwit solution ?
With BU suffering a major bug looks like the last hope for bitcoin community is Segwit.
The people behind BU must be thinking "hopes and dreams turns to ashes as bitcoin Unlimited falls"
I think as long as the community is divided whether to use BU or Segwit to be implemented in bitcoin scaling problem nothing is gonna get solved.

Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day.  ;D ;D ;D

Go ahead folks, it really is good for a laugh.

you're SLIPPING jonald.

Thats a really bad rep for Bitcoin Unlimited developers. But if the miners support them then what will stop BTC from doing the hard fork? The supporters of the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited have said that the network will not split into two. I think it will. Core developers, miners and supporters will never give it up.

Is there a guide on how to split your coins? I think we will need that now.

diversity is good.

imagine(shoe on other foot) if the network was just core only and they had a bug..
...
(2013: AKA Sipa's big leveldb boo boo) caused more real damage than just a few nodes going offline

however by having many different implementations and being diverse. means the network continues and people can just run a different node until a bug is fixed.

devs need to start acting independent and helping eachother out.
but if core want to kill(rekt) the network to become sole dominant kings. then users wont have diversity to protect them, expect another 2013 Sipa boo boo

You know franky1, leveldb was rnike heam's brainchild, right?

Well - continue then, but with the shitface in your avatar pic you're doing a great anti-job. Almost Rawdog class.


Rico

It is not a first time when we have major bug in Bitcoin Unlimited code.

I remember not that long time ago, month or so, BU pool mined an invalid block which was rejected by the rest of the network due to its invalid size.

As a result Core nodes banned BU nodes for 24 hours and it could have been much worse. I wonder how many more bugs BU has.

Maybe the nodes number dropped but I see nothing changing on the the miners signalling , they are almost at 33%. If that continues, It will get activated anyway. Also, since It's a programming bug, can't they simply make a commit and fix it or It can't be done at this point? If this is a fork from "Bitcoin" original repository, how come that Bitcoin core don't have it while they do?

you know the issue was about something not fixed between berkely and leveldb, where by it was not (prior to bug) seen that going for the more efficient LevelDB(which we use today) would cause issues for the berkely locks. and wuille did not see this when he helped migrate to leveldb that the locks would cause issues in his many 'efficiency additions' to 0.8.0

---

separately why did you intentionally write mike hearns name using RNike heaM (lower case looks like.. rnike heam)
i have noticed a few people play with this. you and it seems icebreaker likes to spell it heaM too many times to just be a typo

i have also noticed that certain people use certain buzzwords repeatedly that it became obvious there must be a reason.
BTUcoin, conservative. ad-hom

im guessing there must be a REKT competition going on where certain words/spellings need to be used to be picked up by search

Agree so much i can't write this enough.
Especially this part: "conservative mindset that have guaranteed our holdings".
This is more needed than rush decisions in matter of blocksize. This is everything, conservative mindset and approach is a must!!

Pretty sure you will die before that ever happens. Don't worry, we rich BTC holders with extended life via high tech will attend your funeral, we'll be there to put some flowers.

No doubt, there are and will be many other bugs in unlimited. Some of them because of ignorence of unlim devs, some will be put intentionally to compromise Bitcoin, because all unlim shills and roger ver are altcoiners and they are trying to destroy Bitcoin.  :(

Let me give you a glimps into the crystal ball.... BU team will say, "Nah, this is nothing and we openly admitted to this mistake and fixed it." The

hardcore BU supporters will "patch" and go on as if nothing happened. Let's not throw stones, when we know Bitcoin Core also nearly dropped the

ball a few years ago. Bitcoin "holes" has been fixed, by the same guy that are now behind BU. {Gavin}  ::)

haha... you made my day because no one ever bothered to comment on my avatar pic before...so thank you :)

That's "Brian" (Jim Breuer) from the movie Half Baked with Dave Chappelle.  Pretty good comedy.

Bitcoin's marketshare has dropped below 80% for the first time.

Bitcoin businesses are dropping Bitcoin as a payment method left and right.

Yeah, bitcoin is fine. We don't need any competing implementations. All we need is Blockstream Kore. Their leadership is perfect and ONLY they know the true way forward  ::)

Lightning Network will solve ALL our problems when it's finally released 5 years from now! /s



The truth is that BlockstreamKore are a fucking cancer that need to be removed with some kind of laxative.

If they aren't removed, then bye bye Bitcoin as the #1 Coin - Either Monero or Dash or Ethereum will take over the majority of marketshare.

Meanwhile the price keeps going up because people value bitcoin as a store of value outside of the system rather than a way to buy shit that can be bought with fiat anyway.

Sorry but the killer bitcoin app is digital gold. Bitcoin will never be optimal for payments until LN is operative.

Core wins and you keep crying with your BUchinacoin while thinking alts are taking over when it's just DASH pump by Roger Ver which will collapse as soon as money stops being pumped on it.

but it was when the value was really low man, now the value is very high having a bug like that could seriously compromise the integrity of the bitcoin market, the coders of BU didn't test ti right they are seeing now this bug because antpool joined their network

I disagree with this a little.

Bitcoin (at today's exchange rate) works fine with the type of merchants who accept it anyway: online shops that mail the goods to you. For that, instant confirmations, or even confirmation in the next block just isn't needed, the goods will take a day or more to arrive anyway.

With LN, I think IRL bricks and mortar merchants are the most appropriate use case. It requires a fair amount of trust to actually route the payment through a merchant's own personal Lightning node to pay them, they could try and exploit that in a couple of ways (Lightning isn't perfect). With in-person merchants, they're incentivised to be co-opeative with their customers, one can get alot of information about whether the merchant will still be selling from the same spot the next day, or the next month. This would reduce the risks of using Lightning to virtually zero, IRL shops have a powerful incentive to behave themselves as a result. With online shops, you can't always be so confident that way.  And of course, instant transfers will be far preferable with IRL purchases, so it seems like a perfect fit.

What you people fail to understand, is that as Bitcoin loses its utility and number of use cases it will also inevitably lose value, making it a poor store of value.

"Blah blah blah Chinacoin blah blah blah Roger Ver,"  that part of your post is just stupid FUD as usual, which is all you have for logic. No brains.

We should have the ability to choose between on-chain and off-chain scaling ourselves, or at-least have both, not have the solution forced onto us by people who think they know better (hint: they don't)

This is just ignorant. The high fees are causing havoc for both merchants and customers. Merchants don't want to send an order unless they know 100% that it is going to confirm. This is causing huge headaches for businesses that accept bitcoin.

Some people feel merchant adoption isn't even importance and that widespread use isn't important...they think Bitcoin can be used as a store of value regardless.  See my other thread about that. 

Well, I send merchants less than 100 satoshis per byte right now, and it confirms pretty quickly (<10 blocks most of the time)

Not sure why it could be such a big problem for anyone else, there's nothing special about the coins I'm sending.

Bitcoin is as quick as ever for me with the recommended fee and even a bit lower.

In any case only nerds and geeks use BTC to pay for stuff, the rest is all for hedging against the collapsing fiat system and speculative purposes.

Mainstream usage is not viable without LN, think about the trillions of transactions we would need per day for a global mainstream economy, doesn't scale onchain.

In any case bitcoin as a store of value alone is highly underrated and worth more than gold, since it is a better gold already, and will only get better.

How dare you! (guilty as charged ;D)

Sooner or later we will find a way to properly scale bitcoin for global mainstream success, as of right now it is a good censorship resistant tool to store and move value. Unfortunately, this does not come cheap, as opposed to centralized payment networks which the average joe uses.

As Andreas said, as long as we struggle to scale, we are making progress (as in an analogy to how the internet is always struggling to scale)

In other news, looks like Roger Ver already patched his botnet and nodes are at an all time high. Too bad the damage is done already and BU's credibility is shattered forever.

What do you see scales for bitcoins in the future? I'm already tired of proving that bitcoin will not replace real money. For bitcoin, in my opinion, a different future is prepared.

What you fail to grasp is the fact in terms of nodes, wallets, businesses, exchanges etc aka the economic majority wants Segwit. Technical improvement, trust, security and innovation outweight more what UB can offer. 

Nobody cares how Blockstream gets his money, only BU people seems having a problem with it :-\ You need to make consessions, i did that and i belong to that 'economic majority' untill BU can impress me.

This supposed "economic majority" is just another Ridiculous term invented recently to help push through Kore's propaganda.

The reality is that people want a blocksize increase. Some people have swallowed Kore's propaganda and think a blocksize increase is "too dangerous,"

You can't quantify any support in real, actual, tangible numbers based in fact.

Which means your "economic majority" is just more hot air.

We were getting a bit too close for comfort with me thinking a hard fork would actually happen and that I'd have to do something relating to my bitcoin, be it buy, sell, or pick a currency to stick with cause you don't know which one is going to end up winning out.




What do yall think the sub reddit for r/btc is looking like right about now? Anyone think they're in full damage control to attempt to show this is all bullshit and they'll "fix this" asap.

This is going to end BU forever, RIP that and it looks like Segwit will be able to pick up all the undecided and maybe even someone from Campaign BU.

i would class the economic majority as people who don't want the bitcoin network to be thrown away by a reckless feud. i want something that scales of course, but i also want something that most of all works without any problems.

put everyone on here in a room today with two buttons, one says 'core', the other says 'unlimited' and tell them this vote will decide which chain becomes bitcoin. i don't think the unlimited button is gonna get alot of action.

Abandon the big blocks rhetoric if you believe that.

The bigger blocks approach is no different in scale irrespective of how big the size is, the rate of transactions increases 1:1 with the increase in blocksize. Not scaling is not scaling.

Looks like the number of nodes is back to the baseline of ~800. Both the second showstopper bug that was exploited and their embarrassingly bad attempt to cover it up by alleging core nodes were affected, and trying to fake the number of core nodes in existence look like less than exist have not perturbed them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/
The fact that the number of BU nodes is unchanged in light of the above speaks volumes for the type of people running them...

10 blocks is an hour and a half on average, and 10 blocks is probably closer to the lower bound of what you will need to wait for a confirmation at this fee rate currently.

The problem with waiting 10 blocks, or longer is that there is the risk that you will be able to double spend the transaction when (not if) the mempool gets too large very quickly, and your original transaction drops from the mempool.

I assume you mean that they were able to quickly identify an outtage, apply the correct fix, and bring the node back online swiftly was good?

Welcome on my ignore list, FUDsters like you are a disgrace for Bitcoin.

ideally we shouldnt have to "trust" any group of developers.  This is supposed to be decentralized and trustless.

Think about this for a second, wasnt it all an experiment from the very beginning? Didnt Satoshi say that there will be lots of transaction volume years from now, or there will be none? What if in 10 years BTC was really going down anyway? The only problem is it could come earlier than expected.

Wise words.


You should rather trust what you see.

I see (next to lots of FUD) reactions like bug was fixed very quickly - more nodes up now than before.

I still hope that since we have 2 groups in hard competition they will help each other in the end  - and I don't mind which way they do (hacking, helping, ...) - finally we will all benefit.

You can't argue any of one of my points, you can't prove anything wrong. So you just put me on ignore. Brilliant.

Ignorance, it's all you people have.

"Economic majority" is a term that has been in use for quite a long time.  Making up "facts" that it was created "recently" doesn't help the BU case.

Even a cursory search shows it in use in 2012:
(
see, e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1154809#msg1154809
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3945/how-could-the-bitcoin-protocol-be-changed-has-this-ever-occurred#comment4983_3948

 )

No, it was just recently started being used by Core supporters.

They're grasping at straws and you know it, lol

The "economic majority" are forced to use 1mb blocks, against their will, for now. doesn't mean they want to, or that most people are even remotely aware what the difference would be

There's no need to trust when the code is open source. Just look at the code of Core, then look at what BU offers, you'll see how BU is objectively shit and can't get anything done without relying on Core's hard work.

ETH, DASH, ... is even more shit.  But ?

Open your eyes - hard work is not all you might need...

As recently as Jan 2014...



Someone is certainly grasping.


I was forced to install Bitcoin Core. <----- Things that happen only in the mind of a BUtcoiner.

Reality check:

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

https://coin.dance/nodes/share

Doesn't mean you read that you will believed on that sometimes the closer we look the lesser we see don't depends on the article sometimes they just want to make money the ads they trying to fool people many people want to believed that bitcoin is already dead or it will not take last long people now are being confused if they will continue to use this currency or just wait for another one to came up.

Yes. It demonstrates that we realize that a sub-optimal implementation of the right principles are more valuable than even an unrealizably- ideal implementation of the wrong  principles. For the former can asymptotically approach perfection, while the latter is doomed to forever head off in the wrong direction.

I think it also depends on the developers who took over the project. For if the develepor have often taken over about it and most of their success in building the project then I would believe it 100% and follow it. Because it's been proven. And if it is not found then it could be the main reference is at the time of marketing such products if it is indeed being 50% then they have a good level of project
 

BUcoin is on the downtrend, they can't get more signaling, it is beneficial for bitcoin, and hard fork will kill bitcoin.

And there is no proper industrial change management process for open source projects / or bitcoin is just too young compared to Linux ...  so its a monster bumpy road we are on obviously.

 

If you what you are saying is true and bitcoins price will really reach 3000$ this year if Bitcoin Unlimited will be out of the picture then I will support the other group that is against BU. Well I just need to change my mindset since BU have cause the price of bitcoin to deflate and I dont like that thus  I will support other means of solving bitcoin problems except for BU.

The same argument can be made against core too you know. The other side will blame them for not acting fast enough for having bigger blocks for BTC. We are all only arguing about it now but the real test will come if BTC will go down to under 1000 again and going lower.

It's very easy to finger point.

Who was and is actually in charge?

Who is 'still' in the driver seat and should care about consensus software = fits to all needs, no brainer features & quality, tested, bug-free, leaving no space for alternative bitcoin dev teams and even alt coins.

Explaining & convincing of features and their needs - marketing, selling ...

Deploying to majority.

Keeping things stable & running

Who you wanna blame for any failure ?

yes a little fluctuation can be seen but i think it is just  for the time being and nto a permanent down fall and very soon we will see the price of bitcoin trading above 1200 USD very soon.

They have done something they were set out to do with the bitcoin price tumbling very hard in the last 24 hours.
This was not seen from the BU attacks on bitcoin and it's technology the blockchain. :-[

Such manipulations always occur on trade exchanges. The fact is that other currencies Under control and carry out unreasonable manipulation is very difficult, although this happens, and in the case of bitcoin, this is a deliberately planned fluctuation of the bitcoin rate, and large holders of bitcoins just so earn a difference in price.

I guess this is due to the glitched that happen the other day (price drop) and since BU is on the lead, FUD spread everywhere that the possibility of fork is inevitable thus making BTC price to plummet.  This is all political agenda and I think neither BU or BC like this.  But at the end they need to make sure they have the upper hand whenever the other is taking advantage resulting to this downward trend.

Here Fixed that for you.  :D

Segwit aka Deadwit is officially dead. ;)


 8)

Did I blame anyone? Maybe English isnt your first language, so read and reread my post again until you get it.

Youre asking who is in charge? No one is. But the soft fork and the hard fork to BU depends on the miners now. According to the latest news, BU is hitting at 40% the last fee days.