I don't support IP blacklists in general, but I recently read something that described a seeder as a crawler that records nodes and "bans nodes after enough failures, or bad behaviour".
That's from sipa's bitcoin-seeder, which was used as the basis for Litcoin's seeder, which is the basis for what other altcoins use.
Are our IPs already subject to being blacklisted, and the only difference is that it's done on the network instead of in our local client?
Sure, I guess every server has some kind of protection against DDOS. The whole controversy because it is directly in your Bitcoin client is silly. I am pretty sure, I would find someone on the Deep Web I could pay to DDos some servers, if I wanted. DDosing servers is nothing unusual. It happens all the time. So, servers need protection against that, which often means to block malicious IPs. |
|
|
|
|
I don't really get it. This is far from over.
There is no implementation of "only 8 MB without further increase" as far as I know. There is one implementation and that is BIP 101, which has only 0.4 % of the hash rate.
Even if we combine all "none-standard"-blocks. It is still 43.3%
|
|
|
|
Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it. Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.Bitpay:
Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.
Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  ... - Appeal to authority anyone?
... |
|
|
|
no bitcoin is not real value.
i cannot use any where any time or any merchants bitcoin. All merchants not accept bitcoin so it is not real value
Bitcoin has value, it's just that there are not enough merchants to cater your needs that's why you deem it as worthless. Also, it is wrong to say that this technology is worthless or whatsoever because billions of dollars are poured into it. There was poured billions into worthless internet companies in the early days of internet. Had thos companies value? Ponzi and pyramid schemes are based on people pouring in money. Do they have value? The idea that bitcoin has a real value at the moment is absurd. Its just a "handfull" group of people who know about it and it is useless for the most part. If you dont search activly for places to use your bitcoins you are likely to never find a merchant who accepts them. That is just wrong. I stumbled over merchants, who accept Bitcoin many times, even if it just a small percentage of all the merchants in the world. The rules should be set in stone, and not subject to any major modification and by anyone, or that would create a precedent.
Okay then, we'll go back to the original implementation of Bitcoin that had a 33.5MB blocksize. Satoshi subjected the network to a pretty major modification to the rules when he introduced the 1MB limit. And we would not be able to fix bugs. Anybody who says, we should set things in stone, has no idea how anything works. History shows that every culture, who did something like that, had their downfall. Strange.... I do 90% of my shoping online and has never seen a merchant accepting bitcoins. Might be because i never search for merchants who accept them but search for those who give me the best deals. Fact is that you are lucky to even hear about bitcoin if you dont search for it. It is almost never in the news and not talked about among people. Only once this year i have seen an news article about bitcoin and it was only about the blockchain and not the currency. Bitcoin is kept alive by a small number of people who think bitcoin is much larger than it is. At the moment it is just a beta test of the blockchain tech. Nothing else. I agree, that they don't always have the best deals, but when I bought The Witcher 3, I was on one of this sites, that compare prices and , as far as I remember, 2 Shops, which accepted Bitcoin, where in the Top 5. When I did buy things for my raspberry pi, there suddenly was the option to pay with Bitcoin(not mentioned on the main page). When I bought a VPN-connection, I also paid with Bitcoin. Maybe, you don't see the option to pay with Bitcoin, because you mainly buy from Amazon? |
|
|
|
no bitcoin is not real value.
i cannot use any where any time or any merchants bitcoin. All merchants not accept bitcoin so it is not real value
Bitcoin has value, it's just that there are not enough merchants to cater your needs that's why you deem it as worthless. Also, it is wrong to say that this technology is worthless or whatsoever because billions of dollars are poured into it. There was poured billions into worthless internet companies in the early days of internet. Had thos companies value? Ponzi and pyramid schemes are based on people pouring in money. Do they have value? The idea that bitcoin has a real value at the moment is absurd. Its just a "handfull" group of people who know about it and it is useless for the most part. If you dont search activly for places to use your bitcoins you are likely to never find a merchant who accepts them. That is just wrong. I stumbled over merchants, who accept Bitcoin many times, even if it just a small percentage of all the merchants in the world. The rules should be set in stone, and not subject to any major modification and by anyone, or that would create a precedent.
Okay then, we'll go back to the original implementation of Bitcoin that had a 33.5MB blocksize. Satoshi subjected the network to a pretty major modification to the rules when he introduced the 1MB limit. And we would not be able to fix bugs. Anybody who says, we should set things in stone, has no idea how anything works. History shows that every culture, who did something like that, had their downfall. |
|
|
|
It is pretty easy to explain:
You can make nodes, that don't do anything at all. You might be able to make 100 nodes on your PC, if you know how(I guess it is even more)
BitcoinXT or Bitcoin Core is just a string the clients send. You can change it, when ever you like.
So, node-count is easily manipulated. That is pretty much the reason, why Satoshi invented POW in the first place.
Thank you for your explanation but the manipulation level is so fucking high lol ... It just dropped back to 6555 nodes for the Non-XT nodes and for the mined blocks it went from 5 to 4 ? how is that possible ? shouldn't be done once it's mined ? I mean if it's mined then it's mined , how it can decrease  http://xtnodes.com/xt_blocks_pie_chart.phpIt's about how many of the last 1000 blocks, have the new version number(otherwise the piechart wouldn't make much sense). |
|
|
|
|
It is pretty easy to explain:
You can make nodes, that don't do anything at all. You might be able to make 100 nodes on your PC, if you know how(I guess it is even more)
BitcoinXT or Bitcoin Core is just a string the clients send. You can change it, when ever you like.
So, node-count is easily manipulated. That is pretty much the reason, why Satoshi invented POW in the first place.
|
|
|
|
5.Seize the oppotunity of financial crisis is much more important than argue this foolish 101 or 100 problem,you geeks know nothing.Btc can be a replacement of Gold.
So, we should make a big PR-campaign, so people buy Bitcoin and than let the whole Bitcoin-system crash, because it just can't handle that much users? I really love salesmen, who tell the clients, what a software can do and leave me as a programmer with the mess to tell them, that the software can't do that stuff. |
|
|
|
Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement.
The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple.....
I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info. You should know, that turtlehurricane doesn't know much, about the big players in the Bitcoin-ecosystem. |
|
|
|
never said this but iam still waiting for a solution. i can only see XT at the moment.
I did not imply that you said this, I was talking more about the general debate (since a lot of people mention it). Yes there are alt-coins one can use instead. There are even alt-coins with adaptive blocksize limits such as Monero that avoid what got Bitcoin into this mess in the first place. The point of XT and the bigger blocksize limits is to preserve what is left of the value in the Bitcoin ledger. You are correct that the Lightning Network will need much larger blocksize limits in the neighbourhood of 133 MB according to their paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf; however in order to ensure the investors get their profits the fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have to rise significantly and that can only be accomplished by keeping the blocksize artificially low. As many have demonstrated in the past, Bitcoin does not scale well on its own. I mean we could make the blocks eventually 100GB big, but that will only cause problems in addition to being inefficient. This is why a combination of everything is needed. Edit: Bitcoin XT also has a serious flaw namely the 8 GB limit. Gavin is in effect saying that "8GB blocks ought to be enough for anybody". This reminds me of the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote attributed to Bill Gates and the IBM XT computer with 640K of RAM.
I agree.
I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt: - My post was made before that was made public
- Appeal to authority anyone?
Do you mean the appeal to the authority of the Core Devs? That is one of this stupid arguments, you could throw at both sides of the discussion and is there fore pretty much pointless. (The same thing, you did with, "but there are pro-XT-trolls") And again, I have to tell you, that your view is biased. |
|
|
|
my biggest concern is the blacklisting and not the blocksize. why is there not more discussion on that?
because it is bullshit. Just read the whole thread, that claimed that there are blacklists ... (and not just the headline and take a look at the OP and just think "Oh, that looks like research, it must be true" without really reading it) |
|
|
|
If the large companies in the Bitcoin space can decide by majority vote (not consensus) to change the protocol, then the governments those same companies are regulated by can force those commercial entities to regulate the Bitcoin protocol. It will no longer be an apolitical protocol that runs on consensus.
Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it. You are sadly naive when it comes to government influence over businesses. And the economic and market forces have spoken, you check the price recently Did you check the stock markets recently? Especially the Chinese one(since most miners are Chinese) There are so many thing going on in the world, you just can't draw a straight line from cause to effect, but I seriously doubt, that this debate has much to do, with the price movement. so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. here the coup de grāce, if we stick to 1MB blocks we'll pay minner 10-100X more on TX fees and they will continue to deliver a system that can't handle more the 1/100000 th Visa's system. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. I t wont be needed for at least a year or two. Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad. That is exactly the point. If we need it in a year, we have to make the preparations now. You just can't switch a global system over from one day to another, you should plan at least 6 months for that. |
|
|
|
To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value. They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation. I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.
See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one. On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter. Which is it? You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment. The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network. Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network. Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network. The pressure is mounting for scalability. Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system". Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?). You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain. The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you. So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions. Am I close? I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government. I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.) I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs. I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way. I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get. I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land. Do you also send just one E-Mail a year since you don't want to exploit the nice people, who let you use their E-Mail-Servers? |
|
|
|
As always, people are spreading false information in regards to this debate. How about you guys stop this, else we will never leave this vicious circle? 1) First learn how to properly spell out the name of the person which is Pieter Wuille. 2) He is not for 1 MB blocks. 3) He proposed a 17.7% yearly growth rate . His proposal is a bit too conservative if we start with 1 MB blocks.
Starting in 2017. Just enough for Blockstream to roll out their products and for us to hit the wall. Anyway it won't be adopted.
Stop diverting the argument. His claim is that Pieter supports only 1 MB blocks is false. End of story. I think, we can divide it into people, who want an increase asap(the time for businesses to upgrade) and people who are saying, that they want it later. The problem about "later" is that you can often translate it into "never"(but keep the hope up) As I said many times already: I don't care about endless discussions(which were there long before I joined Bitcoin), I care about code. So, when there is another BIP coded into a client, I can actually install on my PC, than I will re-evaluate, what I want to support. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. |
|
|
|
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for? In the light of the precedent post showing some very interesting writing of Satoshi, can we at least agree on a "YES" as an answer? [EDIT] this will be my sig for now on  I'd love to see someone say, that Satoshi was wrong about that. That would be a much more honest move, than to deny things that are written in the Whitepaper. |
|
|
|
wie war das nochmal mit dem Claim über Kraken? Hatte man da irgendwas bekommen, was man aufbewahren muss, oderso ? Habe gerade einen Haufen Dateien verloren. Die letzte Sicherung ist n knappes halbes Jahr alt. Ich meine ich hatte von Kraken irgendeine Kraken - MtGox Bankruptcy Claims Datei gehabt... war die wichtig? edit: habe dateien dank ShadowExplorer wieder aber Frage darf gerne trzd. beantwortet werden^^ Hatte beim Claim nur eine Nummer zum abschluss bekommen die dann quasi meinem Fall zugeordnet ist - diese Nummer musste ich mir notieren. Warum? Der Claim ist doch ohnehin mit deinem Kraken-Account verbunden. Ich hab jedenfalls keine Nummer notiert ... |
|
|
|
|
And ...
no response from a mod, yet.
I have been on many forums in my life, but the mods in here are the worst, I have seen so far ...
|
|
|
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing, but hey just blacklist all SPV-clients.
Why is the "but you don't have to enable it"-argument valid in this case?
It is NOT blacklisting all SPV clients. It is implementing an extra bit which indicates whether the node supports bloom filters or not. They are also adding an option in Bitcoin Core to disable bloom filters should the operator wish to do so. It has bloom filters enabled by default. You sound exactly like the people, who defended the evil "drop Tor-Nodes if you are DDOSed"-feature in BitcoinXT  But to get serious again: Is that a problem for SPV-clients or not? Can they implement bloom-filters without a blockchain of their own? It can be both a problem and a benefit. Instead of wasting resources trying to get a node to respond to a service request it doesn't support, the SPV client can go look for nodes that actually respond to its request. On the other hand, if people disable bloom filters, you pretty much leave those SPV clients in the dark or using the old method which takes a lot of data. Seems like I got this wrong: So, you need bloom filters to run a SPV efficiently? (I don't understand much about bloom filters, but with my little knowledge, that actually makes more sense) So, what exactly are the benefits of disabling bloom filters? None for the SPV client. For the full node that supplies the client data, it reduces the amount of data it uses and prevents DoS attacks. Otherwise disabling bloom filters is pretty much pointless and not beneficial except for people running nodes on low end hardware and low bandwidth networks. So, the benefit would be, that we would theoretical get more full nodes from people with bad hardware or bandwidth? Is that the official reason for implementing this? |
|
|
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing, but hey just blacklist all SPV-clients.
Why is the "but you don't have to enable it"-argument valid in this case?
It is NOT blacklisting all SPV clients. It is implementing an extra bit which indicates whether the node supports bloom filters or not. They are also adding an option in Bitcoin Core to disable bloom filters should the operator wish to do so. It has bloom filters enabled by default. You sound exactly like the people, who defended the evil "drop Tor-Nodes if you are DDOSed"-feature in BitcoinXT But to get serious again: Is that a problem for SPV-clients or not? Can they implement bloom-filters without a blockchain of their own? It can be both a problem and a benefit. Instead of wasting resources trying to get a node to respond to a service request it doesn't support, the SPV client can go look for nodes that actually respond to its request. On the other hand, if people disable bloom filters, you pretty much leave those SPV clients in the dark or using the old method which takes a lot of data. Seems like I got this wrong: So, you need bloom filters to run a SPV efficiently? (I don't understand much about bloom filters, but with my little knowledge, that actually makes more sense) So, what exactly are the benefits of disabling bloom filters? |
|
|
|
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work. However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?
But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD. Which is it? One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense. As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
