It's true, it is mentioned. Does that improve matters? Tor usage with XT is documented to be compromised in XT, how is that a good thing? Please explain. So, we agree, that saying it is unmentioned is a lie? Good, now we can discuss if it is a bad implemantation. Was it mentioned from the first day of XT release ? In the news and discussions there were statements that XT's only difference from Core is increased block size. Yes, it was always mentioned, that XT has other features than Core besides the blocksize increase. Maybe you are just reading the wrong news sites. And btw. there is an only-bigblocks-version: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks |
|
|
|
Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.
Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?
Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently. Like...oh say....torproject.org I really expect better from you Elwar. I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all. People are mixing up so many things on here already. I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently. A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others. Does not sound very decentralized. So, how does that answer pedrog's question? Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose? The question was "how could this be achieved?". The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS. c'mon Elwar, seriously? I think, you know, that you are writing nonsense here. |
|
|
|
Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.
Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?
Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently. Like...oh say....torproject.org I really expect better from you Elwar. I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all. People are mixing up so many things on here already. I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently. A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others. Does not sound very decentralized. So, how does that answer pedrog's question? Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose? |
|
|
|
Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.
Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?
Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently. Like...oh say....torproject.org I really expect better from you Elwar. I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all. People are mixing up so many things on here already. |
|
|
|
Please stop this blatant promotion Bitcoin XT by misinforming community. BitPay supports BIP101 (large blocks), but not XT! Besides block size increase, Bitcoin XT client has other unmentioned features that affect privacy. Proof: Bitcoin XT contains an unmentioned addition which periodically downloads lists of Tor IP addresses for blacklisting, this has considerable privacy implications for hapless users which are being prompted to use the software. The feature is not clearly described, is enabled by default, and has a switch name which intentionally downplays what it is doing (disableipprio). Furthermore these claimed anti-DoS measures are trivially bypassed and so offer absolutely no protection whatsoever. Connections are made over clearnet even when using a proxy or onlynet=tor, which leaks connections on the P2P network with the real location of the node. Knowledge of this traffic along with uptime metrics from bitnodes.io can allow observers to easily correlate the location and identity of persons running Bitcoin nodes. Denial of service can also be used to crash and force a restart of an interesting node, which will cause them to make a new request to the blacklist endpoint via the clearnet on relaunch at the same time their P2P connections are made through a proxy. Requests to the blacklisting URL also use a custom Bitcoin XT user agent which makes users distinct from other internet traffic if you have access to the endpoints logs. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23Spurce: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.htmlCould you please stop spreding the lie, that it is unmentioned? It is mentioned on the official website: https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html |
|
|
|
It is made earliest in January 2016, depending if the 75% consensus(of hashing power) is reached. |
|
|
|
No it won't solve anything
This will be the definite answer for shills and manipulations. 4 MB blocks on core would be a good solution as a compromise. This gives more room for transaction in addition to giving more time for other solutions to be developed.
There is no logging and blacklisting in XT. It's prioritization, and a defense mechanism:
-snip-
This will go off topic if you start discussing the same things in the wrong threads. more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism
The OP made a false statement and got corrected. It is not the fault of the people, who try to stick to the facts, that FUDsters creep in every thread spreading the same misinformation and someone feels entitled to correct them, again and again. |
|
|
|
The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.
There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection. This thread is not stickied. You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry. It's still questionable, why this thread wasn't moved to the Altcoin section. Since according to theymos, we are talking about an Altcoin here. Maybe it is, because he is hypocrite, but who knows? |
|
|
|
|
Most miners are not even full nodes
These are two different things.
And again, someone who makes an anti-XT-thread, who doesn't know shit and again, the mods don't move it to the Altcoin section since anti-XT-propaganda is fine, just pro-XT-topics are bad.
But I am sure, a mod will find a nice meme, since that seems to be everything they are capable of as an answer.
|
|
|
|
I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack... But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision. But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.htmlThis is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy. Peter Todd is one of the people who helped develop this DoS aka banware code. Straight from github: 78 contributors @sipa @gavinandresen @laanwj @Diapolo @TheBlueMatt @luke-jr @jtimon @gmaxwell @jgarzik @CodeShark @rebroad @sdaftuar @petertodd @theuni @morcos @cozz @dgenr8 @muggenhor @domob1812 @paveljanik @jordanlewis @fanquake @mikehearn @rdponticelli @SergioDemianLerner @ashleyholman and others You really reached a new level of stupidity. Bad enough that you don't know, who Peter Todd is, but you are even to lazy to look him up. You and icebreaker, really make a nice couple. |
|
|
|
That is not how it works.
The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic.
So, why pushing that hype about the grow of XT nodes number ? Real XT mining power is less than 0.1% and is declining with time. That doesn't make sense. XT mining power is currently exactly 0.1%, since they count the last 1000 blocks to determine that. How is it declining? Like I said: The node count is symbolic. |
|
|
|
You might be against this process but technically this is how it works...
So, why wasting your time posting on forums? Just buy a huge network and force XT to gain 75% of presence That is not how it works. The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic. |
|
|
|
I am trying to set up a full node on a raspberry pi. Installation seems to have worked, the blockchain is synced, but it seems like I can't be reached. I am using https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/ to see, if I can be reached, neither putting my IPv4 nor my IPv6 address in there gives the desired result. I can't setup port forwarding on my router. The support-lady told me, that since it is using IPv6 it shouldn't be necessary in most cases(but she admitted to don't really know much about that). Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.
So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will? The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ? What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them. If you really want to vote do it with a node.
Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers  I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes. How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers? Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion? I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node. |
|
|
|
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.
So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will? The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ? What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them. You are repeating something a member of this forum said, who often showed that he: 1. doesn't understand fundamentals of Bitcoin 2. believes in stupid conspiracy theories I really wonder, if people don't feel stupid about using every dumb argument they can find. There are valid concerns about XT, but this for sure is not one. |
|
|
|
Have you looked at the date? Mike Hearn is not pushing blacklists. It was an idea 2 years ago, which was abandoned shortly after |
|
|
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ... Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT Who is blocking coins? How is that even supposed to work? Do you have any idea, what you are talking about? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
