...

[hdbuck]

I need to correct this, XT is not attacking the network. If you truly believe that we should never hard fork then the core development team essentially has absolute power over Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be completely centralized, the ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. It is not the core development team that should control Bitcoin it is the masses that should control Bitcoin, so everyone vote with your nodes and help keep Bitcoin free and decentralized.

Very well said.

Personally I'm more and more convinced that Blockstream is the real attack.


 

lol no.

forking <=> altcoin.
there is plenty other coins with larger blocks so just go enjoy yourselves with them.

[1713997148]

1713997148

[pedrog]

Mike Hearn is not pushing blacklists. It was an idea 2 years ago, which was abandoned shortly after

But right now he added blacklists for Tor in their XT client. Didn't he ?

Do you understand how anti DoS attack work?

I expect much better from you Zeroday, i think you should not listen to chanting "blacklist IP, blacklist coins".

Yes, I know how does DDOS work and can confirm that blocking Tor is stupid and ineffective method.
There are huge botnets around with over 15K IPs each, that you cannot identify because, unlike Tor nodes, they are not listed somewhere.
If someone wants to run devastating DDOs again bitcoin network, they will succeed without help of Tor.

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

You could also write some code instead of just keep bitching about it.

[knight22]

I need to correct this, XT is not attacking the network. If you truly believe that we should never hard fork then the core development team essentially has absolute power over Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be completely centralized, the ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. It is not the core development team that should control Bitcoin it is the masses that should control Bitcoin, so everyone vote with your nodes and help keep Bitcoin free and decentralized.

Very well said.

Personally I'm more and more convinced that Blockstream is the real attack.


 

lol no.

forking <=> altcoin.
there is plenty other coins with larger blocks so just go enjoy yourselves with them.

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

[Ilove-Obama]

I undertook the painstaking effort of seeing how many virtual servers/cloud servers were being used as nodes for Bitcoin XT, since the node # rose alot the past few days. No less than 250 nodes are virtual servers from Amazon, Microsoft, Digital Ocean, etc. Seems like almost every company that offers free trials has at least a handful of Bitcoin XT servers. There might be quite a bit more since I didn't have time to research all the different companies.

So 40+ % of Bitcoin XT nodes are definitely virtual servers, they're trying to inflate their numbers to appear credible. Free virtual servers have little power so they're obviously not mining, and won't help Bitcoin XT gain ability to take over the network. The only thing they do is create an illusion.

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.11.0/

      
I just knew that they were scammers

[iCEBREAKER]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork.

Someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

We won't know how much of that supposed "super majority" is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (perhaps prematurely) activated.

[meono]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork.

Someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

We won't know how much of that supposed "super majority" is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (perhaps prematurely) activated.

No its not, Why are you digging deeper?

This post might have worked if it was 3 days ago.

By now, most ppl who cares enough about the topic would have known, XT only forks if 750 of the last 1000 blocks mined by XT


Ofcourse you're gonna say they can be mined using fake XTnodes. Sadly to inform you, majority of miners are not dumb like you to fck around.

[iCEBREAKER]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork.

Someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

We won't know how much of that supposed "super majority" is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (perhaps prematurely) activated.

No its not, Why are you digging deeper?

This post might have worked if it was 3 days ago.

By now, most ppl who cares enough about the topic would have known, XT only forks if 750 of the last 1000 blocks mined by XT


Ofcourse you're gonna say they can be mined using fake XTnodes. Sadly to inform you, majority of miners are not dumb like you to fck around.

A "majority of miners" is not relevant.  The Knights of Satoshi's Core Defense Team only needs to bribe incentivize defection such that XT/NotXT's ostensible fledgling economic plurality is fukkin' rekt.

IOW, just wait until Eligius offers a port for NotXT mining, and upon observation of its success more pools follow suit.

[coinableS]

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

[VeritasSapere]

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

Just so you know that these fake XT nodes are being put up by Core supporters. This does constitute an attack on the network and is in fact a Malicious and incredible irresponsible thing to do, trying to make it so that a fork is impossible is the equivalent of hijacking Bitcoin.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[Slark]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

Praise the Lord for that. Judging current situation with XT, unknown code properties possible ability to blacklist bitcoin users disguised ad DoS protection system etc.
I think there is no way that XT nodes will ever reach majority. Some serious changes in the code of XT needs to be done before that.

[VeritasSapere]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

Praise the Lord for that. Judging current situation with XT, unknown code properties possible ability to blacklist bitcoin users disguised ad DoS protection system etc.
I think there is no way that XT nodes will ever reach majority. Some serious changes in the code of XT needs to be done before that.

I would also prefer if XT only changed the block size since having several other changes in their just complicates the issue irregardless of what we think of them. There is however another version of XT that does not include these other changes and only increases the block size, and since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork it makes the other changes optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way you would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. There is even an option to turn off these other patches within the standard XT client itself.

[meono]

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

Praise the Lord for that. Judging current situation with XT, unknown code properties possible ability to blacklist bitcoin users disguised ad DoS protection system etc.
I think there is no way that XT nodes will ever reach majority. Some serious changes in the code of XT needs to be done before that.

Forget your stupidity to believe the FUD ...

If the proposed chain is adopted by majority then thats what it matters. BitcoinXT will continue being an alternative client if majority nodes arent XT nodes.

What matters is the chain proposal is a success.

BIP101 is what we want you can merge it into any wallet client you like.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

You think that  is all? Remember that guy who supposedly walked on the moon?  Nah. XT supporters...   #blockstreamrekt   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

Just so you know that these fake XT nodes are being put up by Core supporters. This does constitute an attack on the network and is in fact a horrible and incredible irresponsible thing to do, trying to make it so that a fork is impossible is the equivalent of hijacking Bitcoin.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The motives of any cause that feels it is justified in advocating the use of a piece of software to subvert a network should be questioned, and questioned closely.

But like all bullies, they only act out of fear - fear of what they cant control.

[ChetnotAtkins]

XT has an unreliable node count because of NotBitcoinXT

XT uses artificial urgency created by Coinwallet.eu 'stress testing' the network

XT relies on manipulative rhetorics and lack of technical understanding of it's supporters

XT plans to divide the network by causing a maximum amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt


This movement of Bitcoin's low intellectual class has to be stopped in it's track before it drives away even more users.
Yes. Stop XT!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

XT has an unreliable node count because of NotBitcoinXT

XT uses artificial urgency created by Coinwallet.eu 'stress testing' the network

XT relies on manipulative rhetorics and lack of technical understanding of it's supporters

XT plans to divide the network by causing a maximum amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt


This movement of Bitcoin's low intellectual class has to be stopped in it's track before it drives away even more users.
Yes. Stop XT!

Straight out of chairman maos red book. good grief.   



Blockstream - The Gathering

[ChetnotAtkins]

satoshifanclub, beside your need for continued personal attacks, your motives in this debate are clearly visible.

Surprisingly his history is full of shorting Bitcoin, so for satoshifanclub at least, his motive to support XT is obviously to cause as much FUD as possible to increase the chances of a price drop.

[VeritasSapere]

XT has an unreliable node count because of NotBitcoinXT

XT uses artificial urgency created by Coinwallet.eu 'stress testing' the network

XT relies on manipulative rhetorics and lack of technical understanding of it's supporters

XT plans to divide the network by causing a maximum amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt


This movement of Bitcoin's low intellectual class has to be stopped in it's track before it drives away even more users.
Yes. Stop XT!

It is ironic that you are accusing XT supporters of manipulative rhetoric when that is exactly what you are doing here. Since the only real argument you are presenting here is that we should not adopt XT because of NotBitcoinXT which I consider to be a malicious attack on the network by the supporters of Core. Any attempt at trying to stop a hard fork in this way can be considered as an attempt to hijack Bitcoin from the people to whom it belongs to. A hard fork is the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the core development team in check.

Please present me with real arguments so that I can learn from your perspective, or it would be even better if you attempted to rebuttal some of the arguments I have already presented here in this thread. That would be more convincing and intellectual in nature. Since you are here saying that we must stop this “low intellectual class” by stopping XT? Which is also not really an argument and therefore also not very convincing.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

satoshifanclub, beside your need for continued personal attacks, your motives in this debate are clearly visible.

Surprisingly his history is full of shorting Bitcoin, so for satoshifanclub at least, his motive to support XT is obviously to cause as much FUD as possible to increase the chances of a price drop.

Meh, its a living.  Better than being outed as a duplicitous  fraud though.  

Any joy with asking the devs to block malicious nodes? No?  Tool.

[nibor]

Is this post for or against a larger block size? Seems to be for a larger block size to me.

The main argument against larger blocks is that the "community" could not run full nodes if the block size was increased. (Other being smaller blocks force higher fees so pay for miners - but fees even now are less than 1% of miner subsidy - so no miner is going to stop if they dropped to zero).

If however a "free vm" can run the current blockchain seems likely that many in the "community" could afford an 8 fold increase in the cost of running a node.