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.

Correct. According to the analysis on medium.com there is less than 300 people behind the nodes.

lol hahahahahahahaha Ok man. Tell to your direct democracy dont be so much racists. Xenophobia is something that historical had north Europe.

Do they at least pay you well? If so, what are the other benefits?

EDIT: being a corporate shill must be really terrible, sitting in the cubicle, I guess they have quota of how many posts you need to make.

tell us more I'm really curious

i too am not happy about the sybil attack and i hope that the core fanboys abusing amazons free trial fail for their propoganda mission to fake classic nodes to spread doomsday scenarios about why people should join the blockstream cult and be controlled by blockstream.

i know the blockstream shills are grabbing funds under the pretense of pretending to be classic supporters, to then abuse the amazon trial and keep the funds to themselves.

i really wish people would see through all that drama of core vs classic and just think about code and community. having the buffer AND segwit prepares everyone for any eventuality without contention. yet it seems blockstream love contention as it strokes their ego.

so folks stop stroking anyones ego and just protect yourself by having the code for all features available. then there is no contention or debate or corporate control.

and i ask you again. I am very sure that if miners was white ppl in zyrich or Usa i am very sure that you will not have problem at all. Do you vote and Trump?

awww, fork off already.

and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes



what a crap

ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.


good job, still...

~not tonight dearies...

if we were a small team then the hard fork will happen 6 months before and we will not have all this every day drama and whining. Take out from your bubble and see what really happen. The financial system want to crap bitcoin and do a small part of it.

This is not a problem at all because no one node control more than 30% of this hash power. Expect that you think chinese people act like zerg. What will you say if the same power controlled from white people in Zurich or in Usa? I am very sure that then you will have no problem with this situation. To find a centrilized mining problem look to any other altcoin not to bitcoin. For example in ehtereum one single node has 49% of hashpower atm.

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity.

how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?

Here an nice article that does some analysis in regards to this problem: A date with Sybil.

All their nodes are controller by less than 300 people.

Segwit is an improvement to scalability, a 2 MB block size limit isn't.

You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous; proposing 32 MB right now would be a bad joke at best (now).

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)

I'm sorry "you fool" but why on earth would you want such a high limit then?

Seemingly you are such a "fool" you don't even understand the implications of what that might mean do you?

Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

You know full well that SegWit gives you exactly the same as 2MB blocks (and will be done *this* year).