medUSA
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 952
Merit: 1003
--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77
|
 |
August 19, 2015, 10:13:13 AM |
|
Out of the 6000 Core nodes, I am sure a lot of them are on virtual servers and some of them could be just personal wallets. Nevertheless, number of nodes does not matter. Forking is determined by a majority of mined blocks by XT not a majoruty of nodes. While most of the new XT nodes are on virtual servers, I believe some of them are legit people/businesses testing XT. Surely businesses (may be even pools) aren't going to "upgrade" their live Core systems without thorough testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:36:22 PM |
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ...  |
|
|
|
|
goregrind
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:59:19 PM |
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ... Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT |
woot?
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:03:56 PM |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:06:43 PM |
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ... Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT Dumb fuck, its not blacklisting coins. You cant even understand the code and just listened to a bunch of FUDsters. Blocking DoS attacks is exactly what it does. Better ask than make assumption retard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
valiz
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 471
Merit: 250
BTC trader
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:15:54 PM |
|
Dumb fuck, its not blacklisting coins. You cant even understand the code and just listened to a bunch of FUDsters.
Blocking DoS attacks is exactly what it does. Better ask than make assumption retard.
We can freely choose to run those iptables blocking XT scripts, as opposed to the XT shoving anti-privacy code hidden in big patches while shouting it wants a bigger block size. I have noticed that you resort to name-calling for almost anyone who is not a XT cancer supporter. Please go ahead and to the same for me. I am a dumb retard sheep Blockstream supporter who wants Bitcoin to be destroyed by the tyrannical core devs who stubbornly refuse to accept the perfect patches from the well intentioned Mr. Andersen and Mr. Hearn.  |
12c3DnfNrfgnnJ3RovFpaCDGDeS6LMkfTN "who lives by QE dies by QE"
|
|
|
zeroday
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:19:56 PM |
|
How can we see the list of all XT nodes?
Just curious to see their originating networks
|
|
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:20:58 PM |
|
Have you looked at the date? Mike Hearn is not pushing blacklists. It was an idea 2 years ago, which was abandoned shortly after |
|
|
|
zeroday
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:23:24 PM |
|
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 ? |
|
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:27:24 PM |
|
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". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummina
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:32:42 PM |
|
The two pieces of software, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin-XT, are very similar. Bitcoin-XT is actually just a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features added that Bitcoin Core developers didn't deem appropriate, such as a larger block size (BIP 101) and relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core is more up-to-date with all of the work that the community doing. Additionally, Bitcoin-XT now has a different consensus protocol regarding the maximum size of blocks. There has been much debate within the bitcoin community about if/how/when to increase the artificially imposed block size limit (of 1 MB), and one attempt to resolve this debate is being done through Bitcoin-XT. The Bitcoin-XT README.md has these notes on how it is different than Bitcoin Core: Support for larger blocks. XT has support for BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen, which schedules an increase from the one megabyte limit Bitcoin is now hitting. Relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core will simply drop unconfirmed transactions that double spend other unconfirmed transactions, forcing merchants who want to know about them to connect to thousands of nodes in the hope of spotting them. This is unreliable, wastes resources and isn't feasible on mobile devices. Bitcoin XT incorporates work by Tom Harding and Gavin Andresen that relays the first observed double spend of a transaction. Additionally, it will highlight it in red in the user interface. Other wallets also have the opportunity to use the new information to alert the user that there is a fraud attempt against them. Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent. DNS seed changes: bitseed.xf2.org is removed as it no longer works, and seeds from Addy Yeow and Mike Hearn are (re)added to increase seed diversity and redundancy. So, if you support these changes and/or the possible future changes on the consensus-block-size-limit, run Bitcoin-XT. The releases are available here: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases |
|
|
|
|
AtheistAKASaneBrain
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:34:52 PM |
|
What after the trial period? If Bitcoin community split into two and Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT run on different nodes - due to this coming fork, many people may lost their Bitcoins in their wallets.
So stick for the One, and my vote is for Bitcoin Core.
I think im going to stick with core too. After much research, I don't like Hearncoin. They are introducing a lot of fishy as hell stuff that they don't talk about with the excuse of the blocksize raise. |
|
|
|
|
zeroday
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:43:40 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
VeritasSapere
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:54:18 PM |
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ... Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
desired_username
|
|
August 19, 2015, 03:05:27 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
|
|
August 19, 2015, 03:56:34 PM |
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing ... Theres a difference between blacklisting coins and blacklisting an attacker such as XT 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. I agree, if Gavin had continued as lead developer instead of stepping down to work at the Bitcoin Foundation, we could instead have been doing this debate from the opposite stance; given those circumstances I'd be favouring the hard fork upstart that was promoting liberty and transaction rate scaling, and I support the Bitcoin Core people for the same reason in the reality we actually have. |
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
|
