Bitcoin Forum

/r/btc strikes back with some obvious paid Bitmain shills to spam the forums claiming how this is a blockstream attack to try to discredit Jihad Wu and BUcoin, based on the amount of people from the "Dragon's Den" (this is how this cult call smarter people than them that support segwit, blockstream and whatever):

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/67rdpo/list_of_twitter_accounts_who_were_following_the/

The insanity has reached a point of comedy, even Andreas has called them out:


https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/857541676784652289

This whole thing is hilarious. We have a single guy that could kill the network at will and they'll rationalize this to end up somehow blaming Core/blockstream. These guys need to be put into a straitjacket.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

draw your own conclusions.

Sorry Billy Bob, this won't change anyone's opinions about segwit, blockstream, or much else.

The backdoor ain't no bug. It is a feature as described by that statement. Everyone who bought these devices is affected unless they patch up. You're giving someone like this too much credibility, but this is due to you being completely detached from reality. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion for you anymore.

---

As I've previously said it, regardless of who you support or which client you run, if you support Bitmain after ASCIBOOST and Antbleed, you're either delusional, a shill or both.

I think it is obvious that the backdoor is purposely included, although most likely there is no plan to use it. However, this is still a betrayal of the trust of everyone using the antminers.

FTFY and now you are talking about the bip9 node bypass backdoor :D

PS even gmax and luke both admit that using the 'anyonecanspend' is a backdoor to go soft. and intent to make it easier to do things soft in the future by opening the backdoor wider which they did exactly that with bip9 and UASF and more things to come

now imagine this
what if hearne did what blockstream devs did.. (the only way to possibly get blockstreamists to think outside of the box)

Jihad Wu's killswitch got caught. What else could Jihad Wu do but to address it as a "bug" and not a feature to save face and patch it?

Sorry jonald, try thinking before pressing "post" next time.

Blaming everything on Core developers have been a thing for a long time now, so I totally expected this. I do not see Core developers trying to

hide this or quickly patching this with some obscure "secret" proprietary code? In the end nothing anyone says will change the others sides

opinion about any of this. This word war will continue into infinity..... a total waste of time.  ::)

it's freaking pathetic to see what r/btc has become. i started off checking there sometimes and then rapidly found myself rolling my eyes at almost every thread. at this point it's beyond redemption.

same goes for r/bitcoin

best advice just stay away from reddit... its just like fox news

From Reddit,"Personally I don't care if bitmain is shady or not. All I care about is the blocksize. " -jonald_fyookball

Most ignorant thing I've seen all day and that's saying a lot.

So, you don't care if bitmain (with 70% of miner production and largest mining pool) is shady BUT you do care if blockstream is shady?

AND you're not a shill right?

proof of claim?
and dont quote reddit / twitter

Estimations based on reasonable assessment of the ecosystem. Does that even ring a bell for you? Almost ALL of your posts don't have any sources, yet you keep asking for them in nonsensical situations. Please give me the huge list of current ASIC manufacturers (who sell to individuals in normal quantities).  ::)

I would support every single word in that sentence. I am not sure what their agenda is but they have a tendency to want to control and shutdown things, and ASICBOOST would give them global control over BTC mining.

Too much power, too easy to abuse, nah-ah.  :P

If you need a 'proof-of-hypocrisy' you can imagine one of the following scenarios:
1) Replace Bitmain with Bitfury (a Segwit supporting pool).
2) Replace Bitmain with Blockstream.

---

Every single BU supporter would be screaming at everyone, even their families about the evil that is Bitfury/Blockstream in this scenario. ::)

Is there any evidence JW used it?

i canaan should mention a few, but ill leave you to ebang your heads against a wall to show your "estimates" and "assessments" claims. also i am not gonna get baited into the loaded questions of useless hardware such as USB devices. so i will just let you get a bitfuryous about me not spoonfeeding you the data, and instead wait for you to show where you lot got your 70% figures from.

too many people are quoting 70% so i want to see your source

hopefully i have not been too subtle

It's been open source for almost 2 years.  I guess that won't stop you from trying to make it sound secretive or malicious, right?

Nobody ever claimed that it was used. The claim is that it exists, and that is a fact.

There is no source. That's the estimate that people believe Bitmain has produced so far. I doubt you could provide a source for any exact number (unless Bitmain publicizes the number of shipped miners, but even that is not enough).

Just because it was open source, that doesn't mean that it's benevolent. Nobody caught on, until now.

so in short you have just seen the 70% nay sayer /abstainer and just named that your 70% "bitmain" estimate... (facepalm)

You don't have any proof that supports any other views. This is a reasonable estimate considering the current state of the ASIC manufacturing industry. The only one who should facepalm is yourself for your own ignorance.

i guess you missed my subtly in the other post where i said i hope im not too subtle. you may want to re-read it

On thing is certain. Bitmain reacted very professionally. They responded promptly and included good, convincing explanations.
There is small problem though, another week and we have more allegations, another discovered bug/backdoor.
How many more bugs are hidden withing their hardware? I wouldn't want to work for Bitmain's PR team now.

gmax is desperate to find directions to point his fingers as to why segwit did not get activated by christmas like most blockstreamists thought would happen.

he cant really blame nodes due to his own back door of going soft, bypassed node consensus. so he has to double down on blaming the pools which HE made the only voters.. as to why they are not 95% yays..

maybe he should ask them "how should/should a 0.15 version be changed and what features should be added to make it a community wide full network uniting upgrade

the 'volume' of trying to use backdoors as an excuse, when his team used backdoors, is getting 'louder' in its hypocrisy

Who manufactured the first ASIC and mined with it? maybe we really need to change the POW to make it anti-ASIC and make it GPU compatible? that way no one could control the mining industry and influence it as much as bitmain is doing right now.
If everyone could mine with GPU then we know who is manufacturing them and there are only 5 big companies making GPU and they have the best technology and their marketcap is much higher than crypto combined so they couldn't be bothered to get personal with the network such as bitcoin and other crypto currencies.
But question remains, who will compensate millions of dollars to those already mining with ASICs?

can you prove bitmain control the mining industry. or are you reading the reddit speculation

1. then its just a ATI vs Geforce.. and everyone starts pointing fingers that ATI has a backdoor efficiency gain called openCL
2. if you think hobbyists can mine in their basements. forget it. farms will buy up THOUSANDS of top end ATI's


thirdly. there would then be arguments once ATI gpu stocks dry up of "what if ATI are holding onto stock and starting their own farms to control bitcoin"

I asked (?) for evidence - one generally ask for evidence in order to establish a "picture" of the whole fiasco (whatever).

Evidence that it exists? It's in the source code in GitHub.

So your argument is it don’t matter if bitmain is shady because they don’t produce 70% of miners? What if it was 60% or 50% or 40%, what amount would worry you? Even bitmain don’t dispute the 70% figure so why do you?

You fucking shills crack me up  :D

here is the laugh.

bitmain wont self destruct their own rigs
bitmain cant self destruct other manufactures rigs

if bitmain did, it would only affect their own hashrates
if bitmain did, it would just cause 2 minutes downtime but end up costing them $2k per unit because everyone would ask for refund/comspnsation
if bitmain agenda was to... they would have already

so its just temporary drama of shooting themselves in the foot if they did fire a gun.. logically less important then things like creating a tier network that ruins the diverse decentralised peer network ethos.

you want to scream blue murder about "if's" and maybe of hardware that can cause only a couple minutes drama.. but avoid talking about the bearded elephant in the room that actually has got deadlines but cant meet promises.. that will affect the network if allowed to continue..

you can try distracting the debate away from what core should do as a plan B by trying to make people look in the direction of mining.. but ultimately devs need a plan B

Well I don't have access to reddit(blocked in my area)not that I have no way to access it no I don't even like it much. I barely follow whatever happens here.
I need to know why are you defending bitmain and BU? I can clearly see that you have some understandings of things and are concern about bitcoin but you are always in the other side but I just say what ever I believe is fact or it's just my opinion.

Can we use ASIC machines for other purposes such as gaming or other computational processes other than hashing sha256?
With GPU you could use them for other things and they existed before bitcoin so unlike ASICs they weren't specifically manufactured just for mining.
Bitmain was established only to build machines focused on one thing and I call that control unless they were in computer hardware before and or now are making other hardware than miners?
ATI wont even bother to build their own GPU farms because they manufacture computer hardware and sell to the market while mining requires at least a year to ROI and that is not a guaranteed fact.

We're here to convince the undecided miners to chose the best option to proceed but we have forgotten the very obvious fact that only those with enough knowledge and understanding of cryptography and code are the ones currently mining and they will manage to figure out the truth for themselves and we're just wasting our times keeping a clean image of crypto.

All we need we already have, bitfury and bitmain 2 big manufacturers and they both will keep each other in line though I wouldn't mind to have a third big company/pool to balance the power, we just need a functioning and stable network the rest are just back ground noise.

Is there any evidence JW used it?

Pay attention to the word "used." Not exist/claim/fact.

In another word JW has never used it. Yes or no?

Pardon me? They reacted? They got caught. I am sure this statement would not have been issued if Antlbleed had not been discovered. Yes the explanation is good but that does not mean they are honest. In fact if they had been sincere, this patch would have been issued long ago...

Imagine a CAR MANUFACTURER would do that: car can be remotely disabled. Top secret. When it hits the news, car company claims...this was only to your benefit to prevent theft....and...sure enough...the super altruistic beneficial feature, is removed with a patch the same day it was on the news.

How legit is this?  ??? ??? ???

im not just defending BU or bitmain. i defend anything thats not blockstream(core)
things that gets attacked or used as a distraction (point the finger at) to avoid people seeing or questioning blockstream
because although theres all this temporary drama of point the finger how A, B, C maybe, if, could, might do something that lasts 2 minutes. its just distractions from what bitcoin really is.. the code


if you think it would be year ROI .. thats for end users based on RETAIL prices.
6 months based on wholesale price (bestbuy starting a mining farm themselves with their bought cost stock)
3 months based on production price(ATI starting a mining farm themselves with their manufactured cost stock)

now imagine for every gpu ATI wholesale they can make 2 gpu's meaning pass one to retailer, keep one at zero cost
meaning ATI could start getting returns instantly because the 2nd gpu which they keep is literally zero cost because the retailer covered the cost with the first gpu via the wholesale price

now imagine for every gpu bestbuy retail they can buy 2 gpu's meaning pass one to retailer customer, keep one at zero cost
meaning bestbuy could start getting returns instantly because the 2nd gpu which they keep is literally zero cost because the customer covered the cost with the first gpu via the retail price

this is where ASIC manufacturers are profiting. it does not cost $2k to make a ASIC.

yp and when a dev team bypasses node consensus, and only has 33% of pools vote.. then its also devs that should figur out the truth.. that maybe they need to go back to the drawing board and do things that would unite the community.. not point fingers at blaming everyone but themselves

there is another asic manufacturing company, infact more then one more company.
but all this drama is prtending bitmain have 70% control. which is the illogical part of all this distraction techniques

He never used it, no. Same goes for most nukes. It could have been used, for example, to attack the smaller chain after a BU/Segwit split, by shutting down miners that mine for the wrong chain  >:(

It wouldn't matter if bitmain only produced 40% of the miners for Bitcoin, that's still a lot of miners being produced by 1 company and if said company is shady that's a problem.

If bitmain is blocking changes to Bitcoin to protect some secret advantage, that's a problem for ALL of us.

If bitmain has the ability to remotely kill their miners and their miners make up a significant amount of total miners in use, that's a problem for ALL of us.

It is undisputed that they have a lot of influence in the Bitcoin world.

Does it matter if bitmain is shady? The answer should be yes. It should matter a lot, at least to those who wish to see bitcoin prosper.

BTW, bitmain doesn't dispute the 70% producer of miners, why are you trying to?

funny part is now your dfending keeping PoW running because killing off 'if 40%' to If 70% would be bad...
hmmmmm
so i should quote you above everytime you mention UASF good or time to change PoW
i do find it funny that one minute mining is bad then asic mining is good

when overall its just social drama to distract the real debate of the code of the bitcoin network that wants to change the network to a cesspit of  a tier network

Are you having some kind of meltdown dude, I can't understand what your trying to say?

I didn't say anything about PoW or UASF or mining bad asic good wtf?

It could have - not important. If they did used it for nefarious purposes, i'm sure the victims can sue him.

The software is public code, hosted on GitHub, as far as I know. From my short incursions to the Mining subsection, I remember seeing modified versions of the software for some devices. The code can, and is probably audited frequently. According to antbleed.com Why was this only discovered now on the height of the scaling debate?

Having a backdoor is a serious issue and "forgetting" to delete code an even more serious one. If they couldn't develop the feature further, they could have just deleted it entirely. But making this a smear campaign against Bitcoin Unlimited and saying that SegWit supporters were "cooking" this for a while is just outrageous.

With this attitude we're not going anywhere. This has to do with mining, not with scaling. Note that people from both sides are confusing things up to get their propaganda going. Some posts on reddit (both /r/bitcoin and /r/btc) are made with the goal of over-complicating things. This forum is way better but still a bit "twitchy"... Are we going to take advantage of this to make a bigger smear campaign?

What im trying to understand is, how did it take so long for somebody to find out about this? I mean I understand most devs have better things to do, but we are talking about the biggest miner provider, so if I was a bitcoin developer I would be taking great attention to every single pull request on the bitmain github because these guys are always going to try to be a step ahead and try to have a hidden ace of spades that could checkmate the entire network. If this wasn't found in time, they could have made a lot of damage.

If Jihan felt cornered and about to be defeated, im sure he would go down while trying to kill the entire thing, and this was a way to do it. Remember to always think the worst.

its because gmax found a flaw in going soft last month. so now wants to double down on blaming pools for why segwit didnt activate at christmas.
and his army of followers went out looking for all excuses possible to make pools seem bad. a way to sway users into thinking that UASF should be activated to kill off pools.

but your right. if it wasn't for the desperation to get segwit activated.. people would not have cared or looked or tried to dramatise these things

not in this topic, but you seem to be over the last few months in the same band camp of kill off or destroy anything thats not supporting segwit

You've cried racism and brought Fox News into it. LOL what a rabid snowflake. Just for entertain,net give us a reliable "news" source. Try getting some pussy and leave the basement. It will help your insanity.

funny part is im writing this on a tablet in a hotel looking over a beach. sometimes i write on a plane. sometime in a taxi. just about everywhere apart from a basement

but if you look at my post history, i waffle details and things that get people thinking.
if you want to do a tally of how many times feindcoin uses the word shill vs how many times i only respond about race or news preference before today. you will see who shouts out the empty replies more.

but have a nice day

First it was ASICBOOST and now Antbleed this chinese miner mafia will really do everything they can to take control of bitcoin.
And now they're trying to divert the attention towards them into blaming the Core devs into attacking their BUggy network. seriously are they really that desperate?

That is the whole point of being here, trying to get some (whatever).
This is what happens when you rush in developing a world class crypto currency without properly thinking through everything and cover every aspect.
I know as a fact that many people take some stuff and reverse engineer it and then start copying the design, now how is it that miners with Antminer ASICs are unable to do the same?
Bitmain having more at stakes here so remotely killing miners makes no sense, unless they no longer can mine with ASICboost advantage and effectively can target every antminer not mining BU blocks which then again I'm sure someone will find a way to stop that.
People are reverse engineering the most advanced technologies such as missiles/ drones/ laser guided systems/ radar evasion, I'm sure they can handle this one. but for now let them mine covertly as much as they can only thing we can do as community is to hold to our coins as long as possible and not fall for $1300/ $1500 prices as whales will be the ones to profit more than others when we hit $2500+ in near future.

I know it has to be hard to keep up with all your posting “jobs” and all but I stated I’m against UASF or a PoW change unless it’s a last resort. I do not want to see a chain split unless there is no way around it. I want progress not stagnation.

Core’s roadmap with SegWit is the best way forward. It is only being blocked due to some bad actors wanting to keep their secret advantage intact. Jihan Wu himself has acknowledged this. He likes SegWit but does not want it for reasons he cannot justify (Secret advantage).

You are constantly defending bitmain, jihan, big blocks and bashing core with a single-minded obsessiveness, like all day long, every day. No one in their right mind would be on Bitcointalk that many hours a day, saying the same shit over and over again without it being a job.
 
You and jonald are the two biggest shills on this forum for those reasons. I only call people shills who appear to be shills, like you two. If you are not being paid to do this, then you must have something wrong psychologically.

No one spends that amount of time and effort without being paid to do so. So yes, a shill is a shill is a shill and I'll continue to call your brethren out.

I believe in Satoshi's vision.  Hate me for it if you want, I don't care :-*

Wouldn't doubt that Ver and Wu have already put out a ton of money in bribes in order to try to discredit the entire claim and to push it off, I highly doubt anything they do is going to fix it, and I do hope they burn for all of this and everything else they've done. They've practically held Bitcoin hostage in an attempt to stop Segwit so Wu can still make more money of AsicBoost being able to run and work.

It's a bunch of fucking bullshit but what can you do about it, all we can do is sit here and try to show people the facts. Maybe if people don't buy Wu's stuff it'll kill him slowly. WHO KNOWS

No. It is non nonsensical to ask for evidence for a claim that nobody has ever made.

1) Appeal to authority.
2) BU has nothing to do with Satoshi's vision.

Read this: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/issues/485. Gmaxwell opened up an issue regarding a serious problem in their code; look how unprofessional the response i.e. the BTU team is.

what you dont realise is that i and many others dont need to be paid.

i hold bitcoin from the earlier times.
i am not expressing my opinion to earn an income. i am doing it because i care about my hoard and future. i dont even look at the bitcoin price because even that is just temporary drama to me. i care about the long term viability of the bitcoin network as a diverse decentralised peer network, not a cludgy cesspit with a blockstream dominant tier network

my rationale about antbleed is that their firmware check server doesnt respond, and for months has not been used for anything malicious. and most pools are behind firewalls anyway. if pools were to become malicious all they would be doing is hurting themselves. directly and indirectly

secondly my rationale is that for months nothing has happened but now that segwit supporters are getting very desperate to find excuses to kill off pools to fake a 95% activationof the cludgy tier network, by purely rejecting blocks based on version number.. is a bigger threat because that is more likely to happen than all the if's and maybe's of antpool shooting themselves in their own foot using antbleed

thirdly i will emphasis the last point. shouting out a sudden 'pools are bad because they 'could' shutdown some pools, so segwit/uasf 'must' shut down some pools is hypocrisy in its finest. thats like saying there could be a nuclear war, so america must start a nuclear war.
come on think logically about the mindset of some people "omg X could kill 30% so we must kill 70%" rathre than actually listening to the 70%
its even funny that things have got so desparate that some are saying that 70% are all one man.. (illogical facepalm)

lastly. if segwit supporters want to go down the kill 70% route(which is not 1 person by th way).. this can only be done via a node consensus. then atleast use that opportunity to actually recode segwit as a 1 merkle version where there is just a single block parameter of 4mb that both native and segwit can sit in and include other features the community want and can unite everyone

not simply push out another version that has one small temporary purpose just to allow in something else that only has temporal positive features "at best" but a bigger negative, more long term issues it can and will cause.

now try to reply about my context above without just screaming any thing that amounts to 'typical shill response' or 'wrong because cant find reason but your a shill'  because thats just a whistle in the wind response. P.S dont reply about me presuming your just going to scream something about shilling like your playing the victim card. again whistles in the wind.
reply about the context of the black writing not this grey writing

Why oh why i never see Franky1 in the Development & Technical Discussion section if you know so much about this topic? You're just a fake copy/paste noob try to troll people who doesn't know much about it.

Gmaxx is active there so you can have youre debat with him...Oh no you aint got the balls for it right? It's much easier to troll!

Paid shill Franky1!

Hey I've been away for a while... but apparently notorious UnlimitedCoin trolls jonald_fyookball and franky1 are as active as always.

This tells us that Bitcoin Judas Roger Ver still has funds left to pay his shills.

Now they go as far as justifying the obviously malicious integration of a backdoor into Bitmain hardware. I would say, that's definitely a new quality that goes way beyond shilling. It's more like endorsing fraud.

I think it's about time that we, as a community, take proper action against such behavior. A permaban is long overdue!

ya.ya.yo!

Gmax moderates that along with achow.
i have had many discussions about technical flaws which funnily enough months later they end up patching or doing work arounds to cover up but not admit to.. but they happily delete my posts

i guess you missed the whole blockstream censors all negatives about them
hint:


funny part is darkbot and others do not reply in connection to the content. but just poke the bear with "shill" replies to divert the discussion away from the content

I think its interesting that recently I was in the Dev&Tech section making the obvious point that SW UASF would cause a network split if not backed by majority hashpower,
and you have Gmax and Achow trolling me, playing semantic games... trying to somehow argue it.   (You can't make this stuff up)

Says whom... the developers? They are not gods. Developers can make mistakes too. Don't assume anyone who opposed Segwit is a bad actor. Not everyone is a sheep that simply follows thy leader to doom. Some are actually capable of using their own intelligence to decide for themselves whether segwit is good for bitcoin or not.

Newsflash ...

Some have a huge financial interest in the continued success of bitcoin. The existence of a direct financial interest in advocating a certain direction for bitcoin's growth does not imply that one is being paid by another party.

You have been explained already by a couple people how satoshi's vision is incompatible with the concept of cash, because setting a blocksize big enough to allow for main stream transactions on-chain, would mean the people validating the transactions have the power to censor transactions at will because it would be no longer people running nodes but corporations.

Satoshi was wrong when he wanted datacenters running nodes while calling his project p2p cash.

translation:
"gigabytes by midnight"
"visa by midnight"
"hold bitcoin at 1mb to prevent it growing naturally at a pace that home nodes can cope with over decades, because visa by midnight not naturally in a few decades"
(facepalm)

My opinion is that there's no way around it.  Whether these data centers are miners, LN banking hubs, or other forms of delegated power concentrations, the very idea that a trustless cash system must allow in principle, each participant to verify independently the:
1) validity of a right to spend
2) the non-existence of a spending transaction <--- the hard part
3) the non-existence of "counterfeiting" <---- the other hard part

means that a fungible cash system has a burden per user that grows with the size of the system.  This scaling burden per user will give rise to economies of scale by concentrating the "validation" process in "delegated trust authorities", and users preferring to trust some authority instead of suffering the burden himself.  This delegated trust will give power to the owners of those trust authorities, and that's the end of the decentralized, trustless system.

However, this can go almost unnoticed, because these authorities derive their power also from the credibility of the overall system, so in fact, these centralized stake holders have all interest in giving the impression to the user that everything is running as expected.  These centralized entities will be, in fact, the greatest stake holders in the system and will do everything to keep the system running for the users, defend the system and propagate the illusion of a decentralized system.

You are out of your mind if you think technology will grow naturally with the amount of blocksize needed for mainstream onchain cheap fast transactions while allowing people to run nodes at home.

By the time bitcoin reaches VISA levels, VISA will be lightyears away.

We can't never compete against the expected standards of the average joe onchain, because they are used to the perceived speed of centralized systems.

We can do very moderate blocksize increases and that's about it (if you care about network decentralization that is)

your out of your mind if you believe:
1. visa got to where it is over night
2. that bitcoin NEEDS to process billions of transactions tonight
3. that bitcoin will be a one world currency for 7 billion people.. tonight or even in a couple decades
3. that halting onchain growth because of fake fears it cant grow.

let me guess if you had kids you would break their knee caps at 6month old out of fear they may walk into a moving car before they are 15. and the only thing you can think of is not letting them walk because a wheelchair with airbags is safer which you can only get if your child is disabled.

bitcoin today is like the internet in 1992, so let me guess if you could time travel to 1997. you would want to kill off the guys that invent skype and activision because video calls and online gaming wont happen the next day of 1997..