Why is this an attack? It is not.
because they don't host the whole blockchain. only 10Gb ...  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. |
|
|
|
The thing is, the blocksize thing is such a small change. If BTC is having such drama over such a little thing, how will it cope in future with more stressful demands (and these will certainly present themselves). I would have thought common sense would have prevailed by now, but this thing has been dragging on for years and seems like it will continue on for years.
It isn't, this is a common misconception. Anything that requires a hard fork is anything but a simple change. Actually it is a very complex change since it should require almost everyone to upgrade (consensus). Classic on the other hand does not care about the opinion of 1/4 of the network and would fork without it.
Update: Yes, my wording was not adequate. However, it is safe to assume that it would fork (if it came to that) with less than 75% users/merchants supporting it. |
|
|
|
Lauda are you wrong is not only armstrong classic supporter,Armstrong have money and can pay for differently datacenters,the peoples do everything they can to save money,and choose cheap datacenters if you don't like it please offer money to those peoples to change datacenters if you can't do that don't speak for many datacenters
No, I'm not. If you want to support the network, then do it right. There are plenty of places where it won't cost you a fortune. This is one of the services that is being used to spread the attack, however it seems to have more locations available now (IIRC). There was at least 1 tweet of Brian asking people to join in. Additionally it is worth keeping in mind that only 1 out of 4 of those nodes is a full node. The rest are pruned nodes.
Did you not see this?  |
|
|
|
If we assume 150 Core nodes and 650 Classic nodes, then it fits the much higher DDoS risk for Classic nodes, thus the need to run on good DDoS protected vps. Classic is new, so these had to come recently. Such Core nodes maybe just come recently as well to pretend as Core nodes not switching to Classic (which is happening).
Core nodes are not switching to Classic. This is false, unless you're saying that somebody is managing to fool the chart by replacing a node every time somebody changed. This would have to be timed properly, and would honestly not make sense. Classic supporters (e.g. Armstrong) are actively supporting the Sybil attack. If they really wanted to support the network, they'd at least distribute their nodes among many datacenters. PS: I assume the pic representing BlockStream, at least it fits so well It doesn't fit (yet) and hopefully won't. Maybe I should have added the word Classic somewhere for clarification. |
|
|
|
So do you still consider it as a sybil attack by mix of Classic and Core nodes, or you just close the thread to dont continue to spread FUD when you acknowledge yourselves some people are preffering to use good vps server because of better bandwith (and DDoS protection) and not as a intention to attack Bitcoin network ?
 So you really think that somebody who allegedly created 800 full nodes is doing this to support the network? Where have they been this whole time? What a joke. Centralization of bitcoin nodes and attack like this that happen before some hours is a very serious problem and no one can take it so easy.
No one besides the people who are behind it. |
|
|
|
So what? having a preview necessarily means it will be delivered now?
I did not say that. What I mean was that a open beta will be delivered. Plz dont go there with the "i hope" arguments. You/we are better than this.
Well, I've used that wording because I don't have exact information. The only one who could tell you this is theymos. This new forum is way overdue.
Indeed it is, however you can't speed it up much (or at all) with additional manpower now. |
|
|
|
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. mehh, come on now, nobody is falling for anything.
its just couple dozen loud wackos.
Correct. According to the analysis on medium.com there is less than 300 people behind the nodes. |
|
|
|
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.
A Sybil attack is a well known attack vector. The real question is why people are falling for this manipulation. 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..  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. and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes  This is why decentralization is important. |
|
|
|
i think this new forum is never going to see the light of day.
I think that as well. If I where to program this forum it probably would have been done already. These statements do not make much sense since you can already look at the beta and/or join it. Once theymos gives the green light it will be open beta (i.e. bug hunting season). This should happen in the close future (I hope). Lastly I'll leave with this: software follows the 80/20 rule, 80% of the work/time/effort is usually concentrated in that last 20%, or the last mile.
People who have never been involved in large projects do not know this. Additionally, there's Brooks law: Brooks' law is a claim about software project management according to which "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later"
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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). ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.
Stall Bitcoin development by giving the keys to inexperienced people and stoners. 
[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. |
|
|
|
Here an nice article that does some analysis in regards to this problem: A date with Sybil.Classic nodes went up 1300-1400 in a day. You saying 1300-1400 people brought nodes online all at once? Not saying it's impossible, but pretty unlikely. There is someone now boasting on reddit about owning 800 nodes in the cloud, paid through May. All their nodes are controller by less than 300 people. They're using this to show that there is "support" for Classic. However, they're just trying to manipulate people as this is not really the case (read the linked article). I've actually read a claim (somewhere on /r/btc) from someone saying that they're behind 800 of such nodes (I have no idea whether this is true). |
|
|
|
The odds are decent for this pick. However, the match will surely be interesting so it will be worth to watch. Have you considered looking into tennis? I know that the odds tend to be lower due to only two possibilities (1/2), however you can easily find picks for parlays as there are less surprising wins (there are sometimes, but rare). |
|
|
|
how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?
That's a good question actually. I don't see a valid reason for somebody to support such foul play. 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. 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). What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!
Nothing. Ignore it and stay with status quo. What's wrong with Blockstream? Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?
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. |
|
|
|
I think its wrong to manage ad campaign and try to keep the members from knowing truth about business they advertise for.
Every accusation against betcoin is backed up with evidence.
Well, IMO posting that in their signature campaign is not right. From what I see there is already an on-going scam accusation against them to which they are not responding to. If there is adequate amount of evidence, then it would be best to contact people from DT as they might mark the service (if they have an account) or the promoted with negative trust.
Note: I have not looked closely into the accusation and can't say whether it is valid or not. |
|
|
|
Whenever you post about what the current forum policies/rules are you are posting/acting as a moderator. This is why some threads specifically ask for the assistance of a moderator/administrator so that someone with actual authority can help with a situation.
Where did you find this or is this something that you've concluded based on your own (subjective) perception of how things should be? I called you out on calling someone a retard, making you look bad, and subsequently did something to retaliate against me.
Cherry picking is not nice. User-to-user interaction (trust) is not relevant here. If what you say was the case, then whenever a staff member has an argument with somebody they aren't allowed to leave them a trust rating anytime afterwards because that would mean that they can't be impartial? This is one of the reasons why trust is not moderated. Why should you be trusted to be fair and impartial when moderating the forum when you have a history of retaliate against someone who spoke out against you?
I have never retaliated against anyone. There have been at least 2 threads about me by two different users that were slander at best, I did not touch either one of them. In these cases it is best to report it to others and let them decide, which is what I did and will keep doing.
There are reasons for which I didn't give you a rating at first, and they are reasons for which I left it to you now. If you want to talk, then do so via PM as I will not reveal things here. I don't need drama.
He/She's not necessarily speaking as a staff member, in some case she could be a staff member, in other cases, she/he is speaking for herself/himself.
Indeed. The staff consists of various people with various beliefs and opinions. After joining we are allowed to (or encouraged IIRC) to continue our usual posting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
