Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 07:08:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ...  (Read 58874 times)
VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 03:44:09 AM
 #521

I shall not support XT if it blacklists some ip address.
Here a new parrot.

You're pretty spammy, rude and aggressive for a staffer. Aren't you required a minimum of justification in what you post? A minimum of content? A minimum of respect?

I get you have/had a better grasp of the situation than me, than most. And now that i had a mature discussion with someone else, i can now attest to it.

But you really don't contribute anything when you reply spam like "^User is a parrot."

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
1506236929
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506236929

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506236929
Reply with quote  #2

1506236929
Report to moderator
1506236929
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506236929

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506236929
Reply with quote  #2

1506236929
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506236929
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506236929

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506236929
Reply with quote  #2

1506236929
Report to moderator
1506236929
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506236929

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506236929
Reply with quote  #2

1506236929
Report to moderator
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 03:49:28 AM
 #522

I starting to hating these users that read just the first post (that can be full of FUD) and waste their time on repeating as a parrot without even reading the few posts that that are just upper their last one.

I feel that just wasting my time in these discussions.

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 03:58:00 AM
 #523

I starting to hating these users that read just the first post (that can be full of FUD) and waste their time on repeating as a parrot without even reading the few posts that that are just upper their last one.

I feel that just wasting my time in these discussions.

I guess i can't blame you. My reason of being vocal is inviting someone to prove me wrong. Thats how i (like to) learn. Or teach.

But doing that i also notice that many users don't even try to learn and change their stance. They instead just "parrot" invalid arguments.

Consider what you said to me to not have fallen into completely deaf ears. (eyes(?))

I'd rather a wallet not add code that may not be necessary or just a temp fix. But i guess XT devs may not be out to destroy Bitcoin. (Maybe, always best to assume everyone's out to get you!)

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 04:04:36 AM
 #524

But i guess XT devs may not be out to destroy Bitcoin. (Maybe, always best to assume everyone's out to get you!)
Probably not Wink

Just to give a notice to everyone, Gavin for sure is working on Bitcoin from the May 28, 2010, 04:47:08 PM (date of his registration on this forum)
Maybe he was on Bitcoin even before, I can't remember.

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 04:17:02 AM
 #525

...
As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example:

Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch.  However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains
...

WTF!  Anyone with the most vague idea of how spends are constructed,  what coinbase is, and how transactions are verified can easily see how to do this!

Stolfi's been stinking up the place for quite a long time now and claims to be a comp-sci professor who could consult like Peter Todd yet he makes a statement like this?!?  Something isn't adding up here.


madjules007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 05:05:47 AM
 #526

@VirosaGITS

LOL
You can even add all the possible IPs to the list, then they will have all the same priority, and just during a DoS attack  Roll Eyes

Do you know that will happen when a dev will add other IP to this list? Someone will see it because ... it's an open source project!

Do you check every day what devs add to the Bitcoin Core?

Again, it isn't a black list, it is a "low priority list", that enable it self only IF there is a DoS attack.

Actually, it fits the definition of a blacklist quite well, particularly if you consider why the list was compiled in the first place:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+blacklist

But this is just a silly semantic issue.

The larger issue is this: Why do people keep rationalizing a centralized solution to DDOS attacks? Compiling a centralized list introduces trust into an otherwise trustless system. That's downright foolish.

There is nothing wrong with deprioritizing IP addresses that are maliciously attacking you. Why don't we stick with that? Why can't a node determine when an IP address is spamming it, and deprioritize its access on that basis? Perhaps we can make it even easier for nodes to do that. What possible reason is there to justify using a [trusted] third party to compile a list of suspicious IP addresses that nodes will trust simply by virtue of running a node?

If there is a problem, use a decentralized solution. Nodes should be capable of identifying IP addresses that are attacking them without introducing third party trust.

Quote
Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed

Perhaps if attacks are predominantly coming from Malaysia, we should begin deprioritizing Malaysian IP ranges. There are geo-IP services that we can trust as a third party to compile lists of such suspicious IP ranges, too. Roll Eyes

All that some of us ask is that people stop supporting unnecessary centralized solutions. Just admit that there are better ways to approach DDOS attacks, so we can oppose this aspect of the XT implementation hand in hand and move onto the next issue of contention......

██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
RISE
VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 05:21:26 AM
 #527

@madjules077

I indeed am against any form of centralization of authority or responsibility. Even if i'm 100% wrong in it being exploitable in any way. I just don't like the idea of giving any sort of power, useless or not, to any "one". I just feel like negligence, mistake or malice can bring about trouble. Just another vector of attack to exploit.

Although labeling XT corrupted might be a bit of an exaggeration, i just dislike that there is shifty code that doesn't need to be there, is being included in the current hot topic "increasing BTC blocksize".

I feel the IP ban blacklist is kind of arbitrary and doesn't have its place in a decentralized "governance".

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
Gimpeline
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 499



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 05:32:26 AM
 #528

If the blacklisting can be disabled or not dosn't really matter.
The problem is that they put in the code for it in the first place.
To me it indicates that the devs are way off track

BTC: 14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 05:39:52 AM
 #529

As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example:

Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch.  However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains

Well, can you say more specifically what is wrong with that quote?

Quote
[The Blockstream devs] want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin.

Yes, I know that they intend to use congestion to their advantage, and have explained their plans many times.  That is one of the things that determined my view of them.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 05:42:58 AM
 #530

I haven't seen any proof of core devs sponsoring or condoning the censorship moderation.

IIRC Luke Jr commented approvingly on reddit (but he admitted that, if XT gets the majority, then it is references to Core that should be censored instead.  I haven't seen any Blockstream guy condemn it. 

And it is not "moderation", but plain censorship, and banning users by the dozen.  They even changed the CSS to suppress reddit's "[deleted]" placeholders (so that the comments often do not seem to make sense). 

Not an inch different than what Pravda's editors would do in the good old days of the USSR.  Or the military government did here 1964-1984.

Quote
You do understand there is a difference between "the Blockstream guys" and users against an irrational block increase? Of course you do

Of course I do. It is the difference between those spreading baseless FUD, and those repeating it without bothering to understand and check it.

Quote
I'd also argue "the Blockstream guys" are more competent engineers than Gavin & Mike.

Well, you keep your opinion, I'll keep mine, thank you.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 06:13:03 AM
 #531

I starting to hating these users that read just the first post (that can be full of FUD) and waste their time on repeating as a parrot without even reading the few posts that that are just upper their last one.

I feel that just wasting my time in these discussions.

you mean you feel you are wasting your time parroting the same thing over and over? ... hey, look there's the door

JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 06:53:42 AM
 #532

From Bitcoin's point of view, XT's "big blocks" don't exist, so the question of whether or not it can orphan them is moot. Core will continue to work on the longest valid chain, and that doesn't include any chain with blocks greater than 1MB in it.

That is not "Bitcoin's point of view".  Please admit that there will be two (or more) implementations of bitcoin, each intending to be "the" Bitcoin.  It is not objective or technically productive to decide from the start that the Core version is the right one, and the others are altcoins, no matter how much support each version gets.

Besides, the precise software that miners are running, what formulas they user, how they trigger the changes, what is their schedule for the following year -- all that is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is how many miners accept blocks greater than 1 MB, and how many reject them.  So, instead of "XT" and "Core", it is better to say "big-blockian" and "small-blockian".  

(Let's assume that there are only two size limits competing, say 8 MB and 1 MB. Things are already complicated enough in that case.  If there are three or more candidates for the limit, then it matters how many miners choose each candidate.)

Quote
The longest valid chain accepted by Core *is* the longest valid chain, by definition.

Of course not; that is the longest valid chain *only for Core*.  For implementations that accept bigger blocks, bigger blocks are (of course) valid, so the longest valid chain may be a different one.

Quote
Miners won't mine Mike's coin once they find they can't cover their expenses by selling them.


Just as they won't mine "Adam's coin" once they find that no one wants it any more.

Quote
Litecoin forked from Bitcoin.

Er, um, a mathematician would agree, I guess.  Their blockchains share zero blocks, and zero is a number, too.

Quote
If, at that moment, more than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the big-block branch (mined by them) will eventually grow faster than the small-block branch (mined by the rest of the miners).  The split will be permanent and the big-block branch will grow faster.

Why would the split be permanent? Miners are free to switch between chains at any point, and will mine whichever chain gives them the best payouts. If XTcoin is valued significantly below Bitcoin then miners will switch back to mining Bitcoin and the Bitcoin chain will catch and outgrow the XT chain.

In theory perhaps the two coins could survive with separate identites.  In practice, that will be extremely unlikely.

It will not be easy to use the two chains independently, because all transactions are in principle executed on both chains.  (That is another reason why they cannot be called "altcoins".)  Only transactions that spend coins mined after the fork will be executed exclusively on the same branch.  So it will be difficult to find buyers and exchanges for each coin separately.  Rather, just as miners will want to have a common size policy, the exchanges will want to accept the winning version only.

Quote
Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?

Sigh, it wlll NOT give 8 MB blocks next year, nor 8 GB blocks 21 years from now.  Those are block size LIMITS.  Bitcoin had a 32 MB block size LIMIT for almost 2 years at the beginnig, but teeny weeny block SIZES.  In fact it had a 1 MB size LIMIT since then, and yet the average block SIZE is still 0.45 MB.

It is sickening to see the small-blockians invariably replace LIMIT by SIZE in their arguments.  Who is being disingenuous?

If the block SIZEs ever get close to 8 GB, it means that the traffic is 15'000 times what it is today, which ma mean a user base of hundreds of millions. Then of course the block size LIMIT would HAVE to be greater than 8 GB.

Anyway, 21 years is a long time.  Who would have imagined the Chinese mining farms, a mere 6 years ago?

But I do agree that BIP101's schedule is stupid: it is silly to plan parameter changes several years in advance, when no one knows even whether bitcoin will survive to next year.  The block size limit should be raised to 8 MB (say) as soon as practical, but without any automatic increases thereafter.  If an when the blocks start to get more than 30% full (say) the limit should be raised again by another hard fork, to the appropriate size.  Hopefully there will not be opposition, that time.


Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 07:05:35 AM
 #533

From Bitcoin's point of view, XT's "big blocks" don't exist, so the question of whether or not it can orphan them is moot. Core will continue to work on the longest valid chain, and that doesn't include any chain with blocks greater than 1MB in it.

This is not true according to the original design of Bitcoin.  There is no mention of a block size limit in the Bitcoin white paper.  The original design was such that (paraphrased):

- Nodes assemble valid transactions into a block and work to find a proof-of-work.

- Nodes express their acceptance of a new block by mining on top of it.

- The longest chain composed of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  



By making it easier for nodes to "express their acceptance of a block" (e.g., for blocks larger than 1 MB via BIP101), we are making it easier for the network to come to consensus according to the original design of Bitcoin.

The block size limit was just a temporary anti-spam measure that crept into the consensus layer inadvertently.  Bitcoin was designed to prevent Alice from moving coins without a valid signature, prevent Bob from creating coins out of thin air, and prevent Charlie from spending his coins twice.  It wasn't designed to create block space scarcity to push TXs to off-chain solutions. 

Quote
The longest valid chain accepted by Core *is* the longest valid chain, by definition.

False.  The longest valid chain accepted by Core *is* the longest valid chain accepted by Core, by truism.  

The longest chain composed of valid transactions *is* the correct one, according to the Satoshi white paper.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 07:09:59 AM
 #534

Oh god peter r and stofli combo attack!

Hide your kids! Hide your coinz!
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 07:20:40 AM
 #535

... WTF? ...
Lulz - we are talking about bitcoin and XT in here.
No idea what coin you want or what you are talking about as you already stated before your topic is not bitcoin.
... a lot of that post is either OT or you just don't understand bitcoin and block sizes - your comments about 1MB are best relegated to: WTF are you talking about?

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Sir Lagsalot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


The lion roars!


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 09:38:14 AM
 #536

Bitcoin XT is rat poison. Why people would choose an operative like Hearn to be their central banker is beyond me.

nagatlakshmi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 11:10:23 AM
 #537

If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin.  The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.

onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
 #538

If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin.  The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.

true, but who would care about an original bitcoin with hours between new blocks? a transaction backlog that huge that even servers cant store the UTXO?

no one Wink

(btw this is true for *any* fork of the bitcoin blockchain)

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 11:29:08 AM
 #539

If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin.  The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.

true, but who would care about an original bitcoin with hours between new blocks? a transaction backlog that huge that even servers cant store the UTXO?

no one Wink

(btw this is true for *any* fork of the bitcoin blockchain)

Who cares about free transactions? Im holding anyway and by then wont be annoyed paying a little to transfer big money when ever, where ever, to who ever.
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 11:39:11 AM
 #540

If Fork is issued by Bitcoin XT, it becomes another Altcoin.  The Bitcoin Core is the only one Original BTC.

true, but who would care about an original bitcoin with hours between new blocks? a transaction backlog that huge that even servers cant store the UTXO?

no one Wink

(btw this is true for *any* fork of the bitcoin blockchain)

Who cares about free transactions? Im holding anyway and by then wont be annoyed paying a little to transfer big money when ever, where ever, to who ever.

the point is you cant... because none of your beloved elitist-mpex-lovers would ever touch mining hardware.

where did i wrote anything about free transactions? even with 1TB blocks miners are not forced to put free transactions in a block (and they would be dumb if they do as soon as the block reward is too low ofc)

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!