Now that we know many XT nodes are fake, what are the implications?

[balu2]

Title says it.
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?

[Lauda]

Please provide real evidence that backs up the assumption of most [1] XT nodes being fake. Then we can discuss this further.

[1] - Define the word 'most'.

[quakefiend420]

Please provide real evidence that backs up the assumption of most [1] XT nodes being fake. Then we can discuss this further.

[1] - Define the word 'most'.

Exactly.

Mine isn't fake.

[ammy009]

Title says it.
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?

"Most XT nodes are fake" --- Are you sure ??

[balu2]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

[Meuh6879]

Fakes ?
No event an SPV relay ?

[meono]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

Awsome.  You're so smart

[quakefiend420]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

You're the one that used the word "most".  We asked for evidence that the majority are fake.  You don't seem to have that.

Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake.  Far cry from most.

[chrisvl]

Title says it.
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?

fake nodes what conclusion is what ??

[balu2]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

You're the one that used the word "most".  We asked for evidence that the majority are fake.  You don't seem to have that.

Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake.  Far cry from most.

Can you provide evidence supporting your point that most are not fake?
Probably not ... so your guess is as good as mine in this situation.

[quakefiend420]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

You're the one that used the word "most".  We asked for evidence that the majority are fake.  You don't seem to have that.

Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake.  Far cry from most.

Can you provide evidence supporting your point that most are not fake?
Probably not ...

I never said that most aren't.  I said that your evidence was spurious.  You said most are.  I asked you to back that statement with better evidence.  You don't appear to have any.

[balu2]

I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0


If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.

You're the one that used the word "most".  We asked for evidence that the majority are fake.  You don't seem to have that.

Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake.  Far cry from most.

Can you provide evidence supporting your point that most are not fake?
Probably not ...

I never said that most aren't.  I said that your evidence was spurious.  You said most are.  I asked you to back that statement with better evidence.  You don't appear to have any.

My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?

[Brad Harrison]

Just some more nonsense fud

[onemorexmr]

My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?

none, because the only relevant number is how much of the hashing power supports XT.

edit: yay, it seems the first XT-block has just been minted

[DooMAD]

The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?

The primary consequence is we learn exactly how far the deceitful individuals playing this little dirty tricks campaign are prepared to go to further their agenda and how little we should trust their motives.  If anyone willingly and fraudulently manipulates the results just to score some cheap shots at the opposition, it means they've lost the debate and can't argue on merit.  I say they're welcome to continue throwing what little integrity they have left under the bus.  It's not doing their cause any favours.

[DannyHamilton]

My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?

none, because the only relevant number is how much of the hashing power supports XT.

edit: yay, it seems the first XT-block has just been minted

Unless of course that mining pool was running notXT.

[forlackofabettername]

It means this is a blindfolded flight now. Could become messy as the opponents start pretend-updated mining soon. No way to determine when a switchover is safe. Immediately after fork nodecount and hashrate of Gavincoin could and likely will collapse. I just hope all this doesn't hurt the value of core too much. Volatility is certainly to be expected. People transacting Gavincoin after the fork (if it happens) stand to loose it all.

[tvbcof]

Transplanted from the now heavily censored 'gold collapsing' thread:

---

To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk.  It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.

The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain.  That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not.  And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.

It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary.  Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much.  Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.

[hdbuck]

all xt nodes seems to run on AWS ip for a start..

+ about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...

ps: i sense despair. good.

[Alley]

Who cares?