Bitcoin Forum

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

I count 5 major crashes by now, no?

I don't know what this one is yet, but no doubt it's more of their crappy code crashing, and of course they'll blame core somehow...  ::)

https://i.imgur.com/rL5KdLU.png

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

You have a point, so let's just say that what matters is significant drops in the nodes.  For BU there are drops of basically half whereas with Core they're fairly insignificant on the charts.

If you only count significant drops in nodes, BU nodes have had three crashes and Core have had zero (in a much longer time).

I don't see any major crashes there, as the thread title stipulates...

The blips in the core software could be caused by ISP disruption, or newly released software update downtime.

Besides, I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. BU is showing consistent behavour.

ck, did this really have to be a self moderated thread?

Prepare for the shills to start defending BU again. ::) Here we go again:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C66gpcRWgAAFlMt.jpg:large

Yes, due to shills and signature spam.

Maybe not but I'm sick of seeing the same names with empty entries in threads because I have them on ignore. It'd be nice if someone else got a chance to post instead of this whole section being their personal troll flood wall.

It looks like r/btc is using the term "being attacked again" as their explanation although it's just another out of memory bug to do with their x-thin implementation ::)

Is this a joke?

This has to be stopped asap, i'm done with Jihan Wu and Roger Ver with there BUG Unlimited... freaking clowns.

BU is truely one of the most crappy software I've seen so far.

Segwitt now!

Edit; Those delicious BU tears at reddit/btc are priceless.  Harsh reality meets shattered dreams  :D

It's actually horrific watching them try so hard to convince themselves and each other that things are still okay (and worse, that this is still somehow core's fault). It's like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff - he's there for a ages suspended in mid air, doomed a long time ago, but nothing happens until he finally realises. I remember seeing a great Ted talk which was entitled something like "what does it feel like to be wrong" and the summary was that "it feels exactly the same as it feels like when you're right... until you realise you're wrong".

It is not possible to be objective and still support BU considering the horrible quality of their software. This leads to the conclusion that anyone who is still supporting BU is some sort of shill or delusional.

They whine about "attacks" every time not realizing that Bitcoin Core is probably much more actively attacked each time. The major difference here is that Bitcoin Core is high-quality software, while BU is high-school quality.

This sounds interesting. I'll look up that video.

reality check
bitcoin holders see that a brand crashed but network survived, giving hop/proof that their funds/assets are safe in a diverse network.

reality check
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin(?maybe not), btcd, bitcoinj, and all the other implementations want a PEER NETWORK of diverse decentralisation on a single chain

reality check
"Seriously though imagine the consequences if blockstream became the only codebase, the price alone would drop so hard if there was a bug in the only codebase. Bitcoin is too valuable to let such joker's have their way."
FTFY
hope this opens your mind to why diversity=good vs blockstream control=bad... rather than the opposite


P.S i have made no insults but i predict my post would get deleted as it does not fit the propaganda of REKTing anything not blockstream endorsed.

1. if you stop reading reddit, you will see that no threats are actually made. the non-blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along, no deadlines no PoW nukes, no mandatory threats..

2. if you read all the REKT campaigns and comments gmaxwell writes you will see where the real threats are made
3. you keep thinking its a "take over" rather then keeping the network diverse while upgrading to new limits in a way that avoids blockstream domination
4. all the 'rekt xt 2014' rekt classic 2015 rekt BU 2016-17 are all dramatic distractions purely to try getting people to cower down and sumbit themselves over to relying on blockstream.
5. blockstream/core are not perfect. they even admit they prefer to hid their issues for atleast 30 days AFTER a fix is found

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

if you think that prtending blockstream(core) is perfect and should be treated as the supreme being of bitcoin control. then you are not thinking about bitcoin the network. your only thinking about FIAT2.0

..
oh and lastly
https://blockchain.info/block-height/465117

Wow, repeating proven fraudulent claims (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61bkqe/the_astounding_incompetence_negligence_and/) from the BU folks, good for you.


Those ticks are spider restarts, a data artifact.  There has never been an exploited node crasher for the Bitcoin project (and AFAIR there has only been one potential one, which we fixed before it was exploited-- The BIP37 integer divide by zero bug)

gmaxwell uses a bug found on TESTNET.. as a fake way to suggest that classic doesnt work..

UM. testnet is suppose to break. thats the point of it.. throw every attack vector at it..
by trying to presume that testnet should have rules is like saying a cat litter box should only contain diamonds and the cat is not allowed to defecate in it.

---

so gmaxwell.. never says he cant recall a bug that causes an error in core?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9997
... wait..is this gmaxwell himself having an error with his own client!!!!!!!

Reality check:
You aren't in support of true network diversification, you are shilling crapware also known as BU.

They are making threats every other day. It looks like you are a nobody, thus also uninformed.

Outright lie.

Blockstream has nothing to do with those threads.

At least their code does not crash all of their nodes every now of then. BU is trash. Period.

A new attack, obviously. Unlimited is derived from Core v12 code versions, so an attacker familiar with the fixes done in the Core code in recent versions just have to use those vulnerabilities, one at a time, until the Unlimited developers keep in track with Core v14 fixes and their game will be over: no attacker will attack Unlimited without damaging Core too.

Who attacks Unlimited? Someone interested on the success of a different implementation. Who is interested in that success of Core v14/Segwit? Blockstream and those shills with an economic stake on Lightning implementation. It is so obvious who is doing this, and yet some people think they'll convince the rest it is because of Unlimited developers...

Some people (Blockstream among others) would burn to ashes the Bitcoin network if they'll could just be the kings of those ashes For that reason, Unlimited supporters are not going to change our minds and we will keep running our nodes. Just disabling XThin as developers are recommending, until they release a patch. In two weeks we will have another attack and we will repeat the protocol. Not a big deal :-)


Do you really want to make us believe that a synchronized leak of memory in the majority of the nodes is bug and not an intended attack? Oh, come on -ck, you are a reputable developer...

Do you have brain damage? The exploit, being the 5th so far, has nothing to do with Core code. The exploit is related to Xthin, which is an inferior and crappy version of Compact blocks. Xthin does not exist in Bitcoin Core: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6a49mz/bu_under_attack_temporarily_disable_xthin_as/

A lot of individuals/groups attack Bitcoin Core each day. You have no point.

All the things that you've mentioned have nothing to do with each other.

Anyone who supports Bitcoin Unlimited at this point is a shill or an outright idiot. Pick the one which better describes yourself.

Yes and when I have a bug that I introduced I call it what it is - my own bug. If I introduce an exploitable flaw in my code it is still my fault.

G.max - blockstream had nothing to do with the REKT campaign.. you really wanna push it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13070891#msg13070891

here is gmaxwell both mentioning the testnet bug like its a problem where testnet should not bug out and should flow like a real coin...(facepalm). oh and also being in the REKT campaign topic.

.. oh and the bip9 threat to maybe at 90% kill off 5% to get to 95% and then kill off the other 5% to get to prettmy much above 99%
yep read bip 9, yep it can be changed. even gmaxwell admits this.

^ this is where the UASF comes in (A leads to B leads to C)

speaking of UASF
i wonder who is heading up that campaign...
oh yea Samson mow, newest blockstream employee

lauda seriously you are making it too obvious that you are defending blockstream and not a diverse decentralised peer network..

There comes your problem: you consider people idiots. Idiots that are going to be convinced that BU is a bad idea and embrace SegWit just because BU nodes are attacked. This community is stronger and smarter than you think. Is the number of BU nodes droping after the attacks? No, a few days after a patch is released the number is recovered. Is the number of Segwit signaling nodes increasing after each attack? Neither, it has been stagnant for months. What is the majority of people doing? Sticking with v12, because they know BU is constantly attacked, because they don't want SegWit, because they consider the poisonous pill of v14.1 a bad joke. People is smart. Segwit is not going to happen even if UASF is released by Core. They will have to hard fork Bitcoin in minority of nodes and miners if they want to see SegWit activated.


When an innocent is shot by a gun in real life we blame the shooter, not the innocent because he was not wearing a kevlar jacket. Unless you have "alternative ethics", of course

Besides, I think you are wrong when you consider that a good code is the one that does not glitch when attaked. First, it can simply mean that the other implementation have the economic power to hire developers to actively find new exploits.

Secondly, a good code is not the bug-free one. A good code is the one that is useful for people. If some people adopt BU is because they think is more useful for the network, and if the majority rejects to update from v12 to v14 is because they think Segwit is the biggest threat Bitcoin is facing at the moment

BU crashes more than Windows 95 and Windows ME put together.

They should go into the vacuum cleaner manufacturing business, that could be the only way they build things that don't suck.

Posting in a discussion thread != having something to do with a campaign. I'm assuming you're doing some heavy drugs.

He is not leading UASF.

Classic shill talk. How about you first learn Bitcoin?

Small correction: I don't consider people idiots. I know that they are idiots.

Meaning that a huge % of BU node count is heavily centralized.

False.

This could not be further from the reality. Wake up. Statements like these make you look like a complete baboon.

https://i.imgur.com/h2OXl0O.png

https://i.imgur.com/mPHwRt6.png

v13 was released 9 moths ago, 9!! According to your data, less than 67% of the "nodes" have upgraded to the new version. What a success, considering how good and how necessary it is to implement SegWit! Oh, wait, but lets speak about what a "node" is. Because everybody knows each "node" represents a single honest person running a wallet in his computer connected 24/7 right? Node count can't be manipulated... No one would be so evil to run thousands of virtual machines in multiple instances of Amazon S3, right? LOL

That's the reason why protocols adopt proof-of-wathever to demonstrate consensus, like proof-of-work. And in terms of PoW... let's say that the situation is getting dramatic for SegWit adoption, using mild words.

But you are distracting the focus of what really matters: these attacks on the BU nodes and your FUD messages that follow are being useless as BU adoption is not decreasing in the long term and public opinion is not changing.

If I was at Blockstream I would have fired the strategists due to incompetence: 5 times BU is attacked and 5 times devs fix issues and nodes get back online in less than 24 hours. Without impact in public opinion or node count. I would fire you too of your shill position for similar reasons...



Nothing to add here. That defines you completely  :D

This is how updating works, in a decentralized system. BU is therefore not decentralized, but rather the nodes are highly centralized in the hands of Ver & similar. I have destroyed your false claim with 2 screenshots.

You don't need to run anything 24/7.

Such an attack is trivial to detect. Most of these nodes have been online for months/years.

Nobody really cares. UASF is coming.

This does not change the fact that BU code is trash. High-school programmers could create software of better quality.

Unless you have proof that Blockstream has led these attacks, you are truly a shill or just demented.

I predate any of you (including Blockstream and a fair deal of Core developers), and the whole KKK BU Clan (with the lucky exception of Ver). Those who preach the truth by providing data are definitely shills. ::)

https://techcrunchjp.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/samsonmow-e1493685479122.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9mXT4pV0AEuJyu.jpg
whats on his head. is that a badger?? nope its a UASF cap

So if I support an idea, and I wear a cap that has the abbreviation for said idea, then I'm the official leader of this idea? Example: Whoever wears a cap with a Nazi symbol == leader of Nazism? ::) Do you even realize what you're saying ???

https://twitter.com/excellion/status/850359974618316804?lang=en-gb


https://cointelegraph.com/news/samson-mow-delivers-6btc-to-segwit-code-winner-shaolinfry

None of that makes him "official" anything, otherwise we'd have a "official president of Bitcoin" pretty quickly. Although, this title does sound familiar. I wonder where I've heard it? ::)

probably from your groupy reddit scripters wondering how to hide adam backs CEO puppetry and barry silberts VC extra strings.. by then pretending other implementations have strings..

TL:DR;
dont look at the blockstream puppet strings, look over there we can see everyone else is tied up. but please dont look at blockstreams puppet strings

ever ask yourself.. why within the same month of samson promoting UASF. organising a bounty, declaring a winner and delivering the bounty to the winner, samson also got a new job with blockstream..

let me guess your answer, because his job is just to be a janitor, sweeping the floor.
much like luke Jr pretending not to be a developer at the hong kong agreement but just an individual with as much power as a janitor

P.S
lauda stop defending blockstream employee's.

And here comes the mother of all the wonders: the same people that was vividly attacking BU supporters because "they want to fork and split the network" (and because they are Chinese, and you know, Chinese are bad people) now are cheering the UASF fork and counting the hours until it is deployed.

But you know it doesn't matter if you fork the Bitcoin and create your own BSW crypto (Bitcoin-SegWit) if next the real users don't support it and keep making their transactions in BTC, right?  :)

Which real users BU got?  Jihan and roger supported by redddit btc people  :-\  Polls all over the place shows uss that atleast 85% wants Segwitt, i see the market as the real Satoshi's consensus. The market doesn't want BU because it is not trusted to handle a multi-billion industry.

Miners make money from the users, the users are the market and the market wants Segwitt. BU miners will go bankrupt after a hardfork.

I also believe Core can deliver uss a ''save soft-landing'' hardfork.

It's the giant vs a little mouse. The only thing that little mouse (BU) got is hashpower, that is it.

I highly reccomend you to pick Segwitt and leave BU for what it is.

It strikes again the BUGcoin, if someone still supports Bitcoin Unlimited after 5 consecutive crashes in just a year,  i guess their all madmen
Good thing that this scaling solution has never been activated and an hardfork never occur.
Cause if this was implemented that will be the end of bitcoin.

I have nothing to do with Reddit and neither does Reddit have anything to do with my post.

As soon as you stop defending Bugs Unlimited.

There is nothing wrong with UASF. Read: user-activated-soft-fork.

Nope. Bitcoin Core remains the BTC after UASF even in the case of a split. Whatever BU does will make BU listed as BTU altcoin.

I fully support the ideals and goals of BU. The elimination of the centrally-planned production quota would be the elimination of the most significant bug Bitcoin has.

That said, it does not matter who is attacking. Better it be bitcoiners now than the vampire squid after BU becomes the majority client.

These widespread crashes are embarrassing. They do demonstrate a lag in software quality. BU would benefit greatly from an influx of good developers. Making excuses is merely making excuses.

Sometimes, I despair briefly from these events. Then I recall that each bug exploited, identified, and squashed, is one less bug in the system.

A suboptimal implementation of the correct design decisions is infinitely better than the tightest implementation of the wrong design. In time, BU will prevail.

Are you claiming that it was just a coincidence ,may be that is the fact,if i am wearing something i must know that i am supporting something,i cannot wear a Tshirt or a cap written that i am gay ,and let others think that i am a straight person.  :D Just an example,since you really like to have fun quotes i just made this up,no offense intended.
As far as another crash is concerned they have to change their name to blackout unlimited (BU).

It seems like to me that we should diversify away from BU nodes/ code and add more of a stable nodes/ code/ core.
I don't know why in the name of diversification they put hash power behind their nodes?
Lets have several implementations but just their nodes not hashrate.

Aren't we all just trying to stir the pot at this point to get all the miners to notice that this is shitty code and shouldn't be the scaling solution which we allow to hit the masses, we should allow it to die at this point and the miners should let SegWit takeover to help with the issues relating to the network as a whole. As it's disgustingly bloated at this point and the scaling is the only way in which we'll be saved.

Gosh, I honestly don't know how much money Ver is dishing out in an attempt to take over the network through hostile means but the thing I don't understand is how the miners are willing to throw any sort of reputations and credentials they have for some money, as I doubt Ver is paying them THAT MUCH to be his shill and a crony.

Hope this will be the end or at least the beginning of the end.

For what it's worth, this is the slowest I've seen the number of nodes recovering after a BU crash and it isn't close to its pre-crash level. Perhaps, just maybe, there are people amongst those node users that are finally realising how stupid it is to persist with this woeful hostile fork. There wasn't that much of a drop after each of the previous ones, but 5 major crashes should start being convincing enough... plus there's bound to be more in the future.

whats the deal with:
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=xbadprobe:1.0

xbadprobe:1.0
seems theres near 100 of them on amazon servers