BitPay suports BIP101 (which is run by bitcoinXT)

[meono]

@meono, you can comment it from your original forum account

Can you PM the admin and tell them that?


Anyway, do you want to argue while others clearly explained it to you? Its you that refuse to understand it.

[meono]

@meono, you can comment it from your original forum account

I don't find, where it is called. Can you show me?

There isn't
It is simply not true, this place if full of trolls and ignorants that simply doesn't know and doesn't want to understand anything about the topic.

It's a feature against dos attack, and if you don't like it? Bam! Just add -disableipprio before running the node/client. OMG!!!
Move on.

The most of the users are not aware about -disableipprio switch and this is not excuse.
XT client has Anti-DDOS tor blocking feature enabled by default which means that user's privacy can be compromised.

No it does not, Show me the code that does what you say. So we can explain it to you.

[zeroday]

No it does not, Show me the code that does what you say. So we can explain it to you.

Can you comment on this ?
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html

[everaja]

The Twitter Post By bitpay clearly reveals that it is supporting Larger Block size and they should , i also support Larger Block size as i want Network to Process much Transaction than it is doing Right away.
I think OP got it another way that Bitpay is supporting Bitcoin XT.

[cogabonito]

What a legendary shill. They don't support XT, they support bigger block sizes. That's already supported by almost everybody in the community.

[Lauda]

Let me clarify this one more time.
Supporting bigger blocks =/= supporting XT
Supporting BIP101 =/= supporting XT.

Unless someone explicitly states that:"I support BIP101 and XT/within XT.", you're talking things out of context.

[HostFat]

No it does not, Show me the code that does what you say. So we can explain it to you.

Can you comment on this ?
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp

Code:

        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.sipa.be", "seed.bitcoin.sipa.be")); // Pieter Wuille
        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bluematt.me", "dnsseed.bluematt.me")); // Matt Corallo
        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("dashjr.org", "dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org")); // Luke Dashjr
        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoinstats.com", "seed.bitcoinstats.com")); // Christian Decker
        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("xf2.org", "bitseed.xf2.org")); // Jeff Garzik
        vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch", "seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch")); // Jonas Schnelli

OMG, even Bitcoin Core is leaking our IP! 


And no, it is NOT true, if the node is set to use a proxy, it doesn't download the list.

Everything that you are writing is not true.

Move on.

[LiteCoinGuy]

It is inevitable. All major players will support XT because it scales their operations. I'm pretty sure Mike and Gavin have been approached by them to release the code in the wild so they can use it. The free market will prevail.

that could be true yes. the major players bet on bitcoin ...on a "big" bitcoin with hundreds of millions of users.

bitcoin core will not adopt bigger blocks - so it will be XT in the end

[meono]

Jesus christ the amount of idiots in here are heartbreaking.



Support BIP101 means the BitcoinXT is completely compatible with whatever chain it is after the fork


Hence the BitcoinXT will remain as alternative client just as it is now.


This is EXACTLY the point Gavin wants to make by letting it out in the wild and LET THE NETWORK COMES TO CONSENSUS..


Now go laugh at your core devs because the Network WON.

[pedrog]

No it does not, Show me the code that does what you say. So we can explain it to you.

Can you comment on this ?
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html

Mike already commented on that:

You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.

This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.

Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768


So, where's your code?

[Carlton Banks]

I don't find, where it is called. Can you show me?

There isn't
It's a feature against dos attack, and if you don't like it? Bam! Just add -disableipprio before running the node/client. OMG!!!

That works in a way that stops your own node from discriminating against Tor traffic, it doesn't prevent anyone using the feature from discriminating against you as a user. They can.

[HostFat]

That works in a way that stops your own node from discriminating against Tor traffic, it doesn't prevent anyone using the feature from discriminating against you ....

IF the node is under a dos attack.

Move on.

[turvarya]

No it does not, Show me the code that does what you say. So we can explain it to you.

Can you comment on this ?
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html

A lot of people already did. Some of us are trying to narrow it down to the actual code. I don't want to discuss hearsay.

[Quickseller]

Please stop misinforming community. What are you doing is blatant manipulation in order to promote Bitcoin XT.

BitPay supports BIP101 (large blocks), but not XT!

The tweet mentioned in the OP links to a blog post

A few snippets:

--snip--

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Currently, the block size limit is hard-coded to 1mb, which constrains overall transaction throughput. BIP101 proposes to increase that limit to 8mb after January of 2016 when a supermajority (>75%) of the blocks being mined indicate they support the increase. The limit on block size will double every two years after that until it reaches 8gb in 2036.

--snip--

In summary, we believe BIP 101 will safeguard Bitcoin’s decentralized nature while providing a reliable, immediate path toward greater network throughput, and we would like to express our support for merging BIP 101 into Bitcoin Core.

From the looks of it they are supporting the hard fork that will happen once 75% of the miners (based on blocks found) accept BIP 101. I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that BitPay is not supporting XT.

I think it would be more accurate to say that BitPay is supporting Bitcoin Core to have the same rules that XT will have regarding larger blocks.

[meono]

Please stop misinforming community. What are you doing is blatant manipulation in order to promote Bitcoin XT.

BitPay supports BIP101 (large blocks), but not XT!

The tweet mentioned in the OP links to a blog post

A few snippets:

--snip--

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Currently, the block size limit is hard-coded to 1mb, which constrains overall transaction throughput. BIP101 proposes to increase that limit to 8mb after January of 2016 when a supermajority (>75%) of the blocks being mined indicate they support the increase. The limit on block size will double every two years after that until it reaches 8gb in 2036.

--snip--

In summary, we believe BIP 101 will safeguard Bitcoin’s decentralized nature while providing a reliable, immediate path toward greater network throughput, and we would like to express our support for merging BIP 101 into Bitcoin Core.

From the looks of it they are supporting the hard fork that will happen once 75% of the miners (based on blocks found) accept BIP 101. I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that BitPay is not supporting XT.

I think it would be more accurate to say that BitPay is supporting Bitcoin Core to have the same rules that XT will have regarding larger blocks.

Let me clarify

BIP101 blocks will have the same version as BitcoinXT blocks hence BitcoinXT will count them to the 750 blocks target,

so it does not matter if bitpay use XT nodes or not

[Carlton Banks]

That works in a way that stops your own node from discriminating against Tor traffic, it doesn't prevent anyone using the feature from discriminating against you ....

IF the node is under a dos attack.

Move on.

Lol that doesn't even make sense loosely. I think you knew that though.

[SebastianJu]

And btw. there is an only-bigblocks-version:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

This is not the version available for download from official XT site.

Official XT version has a backdoor that allows NSA/CIA and other parties to start ddos attack that blocks Tor and de-anonymizes users.

Did you buy this account?  You surely should not believe every world conspiracy gossip. If there would be a backdoor then it would be known already.

Though i agree. Hearn is stupid to add such things. If he thinks he will win more users then he is really stupid.