"Node war" possible with spoofed version strings?

[mmortal03]

One respondent to that fake Satoshi message from the other day brought up the concept of a potential "node war" by way of spoofed version strings. He said,

Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible to know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute the fork.

Source: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010252.html

I doubt Core would actually do something like this, but, if the version string actually has no bearing on the actual code running on a said node, then is this way of voting by node version string really a foolproof technical solution to achieving consensus? Can this sort of spoofing be a reasonable attack vector? Could there be, to counteract this, a more verifiable way developed to know that the version string being displayed *actually* matches the code that is being run underneath all the nodes?

[1715020236]

1715020236

[1715020236]

1715020236

[1715020236]

1715020236

[Carlton Banks]

Could there be, to counteract this, a more verifiable way developed to know that the version string being displayed *actually* matches the code that is being run underneath all the nodes?

It would likely become more cat-and-mouse dynamics. It seems like something close to 99% consensus is what you really need to implement a successful hard fork, and there's no substitute for that.

[DannyHamilton]

One respondent to that fake Satoshi message from the other day brought up the concept of a potential "node war" by way of spoofed version strings.
- snip -
I doubt Core would actually do something like this, but, if the version string actually has no bearing on the actual code running on a said node
- snip -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".
- snip -
This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

[mmortal03]

Excellent. So, the Core devs didn't release it, but someone did.

[Cryddit]

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision. 

And, to me, that means the consensus decision (the real one) has already been made and now there's nothing left for them but this kind of screaming and FUD tactics and trying to prevent people from accurately seeing what the decision is. 

[mezzomix]

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision.

No. It's a clear answer to the way some people try to enforce a change of the consensus rules. Everybody is free to to choose his own version string and consensus rules. BXT shows that communication with the people to reach almost 100% consensus before doing a change is no longer necessary.

In the future we now might see more changes of the consensus rules by small groups of people trying force their ideas to be accepted by the majority. Live with it!

[YarkoL]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

[tsoPANos]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Well that will not cause premature >1mb blocks, as they are scheduled no earlier than 11 Jan 2016.

[achow101]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Well that will not cause premature >1mb blocks, as they are scheduled no earlier than 11 Jan 2016.

However it could cause the fork to occur on 11 jan 2016 without consensus. If for example 50% of the miners were XT, 25% NotBitcoinXT and the rest Core, then the fork could happen and spawn two chains with equal hash power. This could be detrimental to Bitcoin has we have previously established that such a fork is not a good thing.

[tsoPANos]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Well that will not cause premature >1mb blocks, as they are scheduled no earlier than 11 Jan 2016.

However it could cause the fork to occur on 11 jan 2016 without consensus. If for example 50% of the miners were XT, 25% NotBitcoinXT and the rest Core, then the fork could happen and spawn two chains with equal hash power. This could be detrimental to Bitcoin has we have previously established that such a fork is not a good thing.

It doesn't really matter to me if 25% of nodes were NotBitcoinXT and 50% XT.
That totals 75%. It is enough to trigger an unsuccessful fork attempt in 11 JAN 2016, and
at the same time enough to trigger a new wave of XT adoption.
Don't underestimate the power of mass controlling peoples psychology.
NotBitcoinXT causes harm to core. It will make it appear that XT has a wider adoption than the reality, and thus gaining more supporters.

Ever heard How Reddit Got Huge?

I am not a fan of XT, and I don't like how the devs are fighting.
However I do expect that NotXT will backfire.

[iCEBREAKER]

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision. 

And, to me, that means the consensus decision (the real one) has already been made and now there's nothing left for them but this kind of screaming and FUD tactics and trying to prevent people from accurately seeing what the decision is. 

Don't worry, we'll see what the decision is.  But only after goading GavinCoin into a trap from which it cannot escape.   

Heam says XT, we say sabotage.  We say NotXT, you say sabotage.

NotXT is simply a contentious fork of Heam's contentious XT fork.  Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[iCEBREAKER]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Yes, the XT's fork is triggered by 750/1000 last blocks self-reporting their version as XT.

Mining fake XT blocks generates the same reward as real XT or plain old 1MB blocks, so it's not a waste of power.

But would that really accomplish anything?  We don't know!  That's the point of NotXT.   

Even with perfectly accurate metrics, being the first to defect from Bitcoin consensus (IE accept XTcoins) is risky.

In this fog of war, with its weaponized version strings, such first mover defections are an extremely brave leap of faith.

[iCEBREAKER]

Ever heard How Reddit Got Huge?
I do expect that NotXT will backfire.

'We fake it, until they make it' is certainly a factor.

But every bit of faked support gives the economic veto power (IE MPEX's GavinCoin short) more leverage.

I don't think it will even get to that point.

If NotXT (and the devastating addition risk it creates for first mover defections) doesn't sufficiently demoralize the Gavinistas, the FUD about XT's hidden anti-Tor/pro-panopticon code will.   

[YarkoL]

Mining fake XT blocks generates the same reward as real XT or plain old 1MB blocks, so it's not a waste of power.

But would that really accomplish anything?  We don't know!  That's the point of NotXT.  

Even with perfectly accurate metrics, being the first to defect from Bitcoin consensus (IE accept XTcoins) is risky.

In this fog of war, with its weaponized version strings, such first mover defections are an extremely brave leap of faith.

The scheme seems to me little like buying tickets to a concert
with no intent to show up. Hoping that the band will be demoralized
when faced with empty seats. But that could backfire, when other
people learn about ticket pre-sales, they might want to see what's so hot..

Also wouldn't you need some big pool operators to collaborate?
Ok, I can think of one   who might be up for this kind of thing but
even he'd have to think how his miners feel about it (well, maybe).

[Cryddit]

Also wouldn't you need some big pool operators to collaborate?
Ok, I can think of one   who might be up for this kind of thing but
even he'd have to think how his miners feel about it (well, maybe).

Get serious.  He has a long history of not giving a crap how his miners feel about things.

[PolarPoint]

The strategy is to get the 6 largest pools (except Eligius) on board and it's over 75%. Rest of the miners can spoof version strings all they need and it wouldn't matter. It not a node war, it's a pool war.

[onemorexmr]

i dont think any pool will run NoXT fake versions.
if you are a miner: would you stay with a pool, when you know it has lied to YOU?

because as a miner you have to think you are mining XT blocks when your pool says so. if - after the fork - you see that he didnt and simply lied wouldnt you just switch to a honest pool?

nodes may be faked; but most of the hashrate is real. i am sure.

[Delek]

I'm really worried about a miners-war rather than node-war. 

[sgbett]

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Yes, the XT's fork is triggered by 750/1000 last blocks self-reporting their version as XT.

Mining fake XT blocks generates the same reward as real XT or plain old 1MB blocks, so it's not a waste of power.

But would that really accomplish anything?  We don't know!  That's the point of NotXT.   

Even with perfectly accurate metrics, being the first to defect from Bitcoin consensus (IE accept XTcoins) is risky.

In this fog of war, with its weaponized version strings, such first mover defections are an extremely brave leap of faith.

Oooh FUD. SCAAAAARY!

[iCEBREAKER]

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision.  

And, to me, that means the consensus decision (the real one) has already been made and now there's nothing left for them but this kind of screaming and FUD tactics and trying to prevent people from accurately seeing what the decision is.  

Oh right, if not for "sabotage" XT would have surely won the day.  

What a rich fantasy world your imagination has constructed.  Meanwhile, back in reality:

“the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”

[f2pool's] Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.

“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.

BitFury CEO Valery Vavilov told Bitcoin Magazine: “The Bitcoin Blockchain is not an amateur project anymore – it is becoming a platform for the Global Economy of Things. Changing the base rules can affect a lot of things, thus, any changes should be done very carefully, gradually, and with tests.”

He added: “The proposed transition to the alternative client raises some concerns about its security: It is well known that key parts of the default Bitcoin Core client were thoroughly checked and sometimes formally verified, which cannot be said about alternative clients – including Bitcoin XT.”

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, BTCChina’s Mikael Wang made it clear that his mining pool is not prepared to make a switch to Bitcoin XT. The Chinese pool that contributes 13 percent of hashing power to the network maintains that a consensus should be found among Bitcoin Core developers on how and when to raise the block-size limit.

“We will not support Bitcoin XT,” Wang said. “What the Bitcoin community needs now is stability and growth, and we will not do anything to jeopardize this further.”

U.S.-based Eligius, accounting for 5 percent of hashing power on the Bitcoin network, is another fierce opponent of Bitcoin XT and has no plans to make a switch. Much like F2Pool, Eligius’ owner who goes by the pseudonym “wizkid057” does not even consider Bitcoin XT a Bitcoin implementation – rather an altcoin.

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, wizkid057 said, “I see no reason to mine yet another altcoin: ‘Bitcoin XT’ is not Bitcoin.”

Blaming NotXT for your Gavinista putsch getting fukkin' rekt?  Weak sauce.

Go cry to your buddies at bitco.in and voat/bitcoinxt!