Bitcoin Forum

Articles of Federation of BU :
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/BUarticles.pdf


BU's current solution to the latest bug :
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/60rmir/updated_binaries_for_bitcoin_unlimited_for_linux/df8s90n/

..WTF!?

You want me to run closed source code which has access to MY Private Keys  !? Right.. err.. just sooo wrong on sooo many levels.. (And don't start with this ZERO day attack crap has to be closed source.. either you're ready for PRIME TIME.. or you're NOT.. Which is it?)

..

COme On gUys.. PLEASE WAKE the F**K UP!!

This BU as a Separate Code Base - IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

Either write the TINY patch file required to make BU work (for TINY it is), on the VERY latest version of CORE - OR PISS OFF.

It's getting embarrassing now..  :'(

Any good will you had from me.. is slipping away fast.. (BUT not as fast as the price of BTC will tank if this madness continues)

In before "many-eyes fallacy" ;D

It only took 2 pairs of expert eyes to exploit the BU bugs. Sufficiently expert coders need the chance to look at the code, that's the real point of open source.

And who knows, it might've been the same person, who happens to be blind in 1 or both eyes, lol

Are you mentally damaged? This is how a trojan horse looks like. CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE BITCOIN WITH A PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL.

I don't believe people are running all those nodes anymore at this point, it has to be Roger's Ver botnet.

Bitcoin unlimited using hard fork in its code is having many troubles and will experience many bugs and that is why many are staying with the core developers. Exchanges are also planning to treat the btc from using HF as a new altcoin. I wonder if Bitcoin Unlimited or BCU in Bitfinex was the XBU that is being mentioned by the exchanges.

so you admit the core developers are not independent.

because if they were independent they would not be "staying" with core. they would happily peer review other implementations.

bu problem is kind of like an infinity loop

implementation A not independently peer reviewed.
independent peers wont peer review A, because they are staying with central Tier group B
implementation A not peer reviewed.

do you see the problem of where the centralisation actually is

core refuse to get out of their cabin fever box and be diverse to be on the same level playing ground with other implementations
they don't want to be independent peers. they love the dependant Tier model much better

Franky, please don't be so partisan you lose common sense. Core is not compelled to collaborate with and assist factions dedicated to destroying them and their work. That takes the notion of peer review and cooperation into the realm of absurdity.

There is no way to spin this for BU. It is another major screwup, and their approach to fixing it with a closed-source patch, even if they LATER release the code, destroys the trust that is vital to bitcoin's survival. One can criticize core/SW/LN etc. without being in cahoots with such insanity.

how many people do you think actually read every line of cores code and then compile it themselves. or just rely on "trust" that the binary is ok because other people supposedly have read every line

but if truly independent then there are no factions.
but by people saying bitcoin is
dependant on core devs - bitcoin weakness
core devs are not independent - bitcoin weakness
bitcoin should only function with one codebase - bitcoin weakness

my personal opinion is that there should be a dozen different implementations wrote in atleast half a dozen different languages. that way if one has an exploit.. only a few % go offline(like this month)... not 1-2 codebase where big orphan chains and lost transactions and double spends occur(like 2013)

where by consensus (real node and pool consensus) settles on features to improve the network. non of this go soft then blame pools. then blaack mail pools with bilateral splits bull crap


p.s
im not in cahoots with any brand. i kiss no asses. and i think thats what people do not like about me. i am frank about what i say, and i dont kiss asses.. devs can come and go. but thats why a diverse open decentralised network should remain higher priority than sucking up to Gmaxwell.

but i laugh when people confuse my desire for diversity and other options that are not just core.. by trying to pigeon hole in whatever latest REKT campaign cor try to do to keep them ontop.. because it just digs them people into bigger holes by admitting they want centralism

Another FUD post from Franky1, i wonder how much you get paid for each post you make. It contains a lot of nonsence.

Do not shoot people's opinions down and point fingers to shilling every time they have a opinion on a subject. If you check my post history you

will see I am not a big BU supporter, but rather warming up to the idea that Bitcoin Core might work.... but I still debate the issue and discuss

the matter from many angles. We sometimes have to step back a little to see the bigger picture... you get caught up in your own opinions and

you leave no room for other ideas and proposals. We should have ONE goal and that is to find a way to scale Bitcoin in the safest manner

possible and I think the Core developers are up to the task. I will still entertain other people's views and opinions.  :P

There is more: the closed source binaries weren't signed, which means, any hacker could hack the bitcoin unlimited website and perform a man-in-the-middle attack infecting your computer and stealing your BTC. Pretty simple actually, with the morons in charge of BU.

Closed source patches are a disaster. Nothing but PR nightmare from a technical point of view. BU released buggy code and  was criticized.
So their answer is to this problem is making development process hidden from the pubic eyes? LOL
Instead of earning trust of the users they want to usurp it by forcing everyone to accept their code unconditionally.

BU IS DEAD FOR ME AND MANY SMART PEOPLE! Have no idea who made this panic with this shitty BU!

agree its a PR nightmare but spare me the vitriol.  you know damn well it was closed source as a temporary patch while it was being reviewed and then released as open source the next morning.

::sigh:: once more, into the breech ....

There was exploit code for this latest crasher posted on the 13th, and people on the BU forums pointing to it... the "new" vulnerability was just above the old one in the control flow.

What was there to protect when almost all the reachable BU nodes were already down?

I can't think of a single piece of free software that has done this in the last decades, including highly critical software like OpenSSL. It's absurd. What BU did was also technically a license violation of some of the libraries.

I think the only thing left to debate is if they're trolling or if they're really that clueless. :)

'Almost all'? Can you be any more specific on the number?


Of which specific libraries was this a license violation?

Isn't it amazing , Greg?
 
Users and miners hate your Blockstream roadmap THAT much...BU hashpower still rising even after 2 node crash events.


 

QT.

FTFY!

last time I checked, miners can choose any pool they want.

Last time I checked hash rate providers would provide hash rate to a pool that charged a fee because it had less variance instead of earning more bitcoins at a smaller pool with less fee or no fee.

I spent 3 years on this forum trying to get hash rate providers to make better choices in order to promote a healthy Bitcoin network. What did they do? All go to one pool until it has > 50% of the network.

So, sorry if I don't really expect great things from hash rate providers.

They must be pretty embarrassed to have been consecutively attack just after launching there software and now they're are closing there source code cause they realize how buggy their code is.
They should really let the experts handle the job, bitcoin's algorithm has become extremely complicated they should really let it open source for the community to help them and find bugs that might cause trouble in the future.

You mean Qt? Isn't that mostly LGPL 3.0? In what way is the license violated?

You may not distribute a LGPL program as part of a single static binary without the corresponding source to the whole thing or object files for the parts so that you could link with a modified version of the LGPLed component.

Well, without providing the source upon reasonable demand. Did you make a reasonable demand for the source? Was it rebuffed?

Do you suppose all those digital toasters available at WalMart, with embedded graphics built upon Qt, ship with a full copy of the source code in the box? Or do the manufacturers just summarily fulfill requests for source in a reasonable fashion?

But in the moment, it's a good thing all the source is available on the repository, hunh?