...

[turvarya]

There is an only-bigblocks-branch on Github:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

If you have concerns about the other features but want to support bigger blocks, use this branch.

[kelsey]

Looks like XT is a piece of shady bullshit. What will be in the next version ? Direct reporting to NSA ?

confirmed, totally shady.

I have had my suspicions about Gavin for a long time, CIA visit (no transcript), CFR talk, the CA/TLS payment protocol privacy leak but this is damning if he wants to sign off on this shit. And the way the XT panopticoin fork is being pitched reads like a bad infomercial.

Never trust an Aussie, Gavin, you just made it onto my blacklist (and it is quite short).

hey us aussie's are OK

you mean never trust an aussie that moves to the USA n works with the NSA, CIA etc

[Lucko]

Just looked at the code. What BS. It just uses a list that deprioritized a list of IPs that get dropped if you are DOS attack. And I do see a lot of IPs in the list that were DOSing me... So to say it is a blocking list... I got about 75% of that IPs in days and they are saying it took mouths to map... Real FUD... So I no longer need DROP rules in FW... That makes things batter for TOR not worst... They can now connect and only get drooped if I get DOS again... Sorry to say but I have no intention to have CPU at 100% and disk going crazy... If you are using same IPs as attacker you get blocked. I don't see other way.

It could be called same as pools and nodes doping so called SPAM in SPAM or DOS attack. There was a lot of valid ones in there... I know for at lest one since I was affected. But that was all good right? Since you agree that this is SPAM even if it is not... So please let me know how is that different... And it is temporary till better solution gets done... It is batter then block IPs all together on FW. Next one will get even batter but you need something now.

So just stop attacking XT nodes(the ones that are doing it) and this will not be issue.

EDIT: Interesting http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

You are not talking about XT code...

[Its About Sharing]

I'm not surprised there is hidden crap in the XT fork. A certain group is pushing hard to try and force it's adoption. The spam/stress tests was the beginning of it. It made people feel that blocks were full when they were just orchestrated that way.

And I wonder how far away we are from a Wiki Leaks "block", I mean "Extremely Low Priority - Oops, we lost that transaction" change?

If nothing else, this should have been talked about openly. Slipping it in there while the block size thing was going on, is just plain scary and too big to ignore.

I didn't trust Hearn when I first heard him as the NSA, I  mean Google, connection was too much to ignore. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now, he is going to be watched (by everyone) closely.

My bet - going to be a rough year for BTC and I have a feeling big money will be buying it up (cheap).

Its about Sharing, not Blocking

[Lucko]

I'm not surprised there is hidden crap in the XT fork. A certain group is pushing hard to try and force it's adoption. The spam/stress tests was the beginning of it. It made people feel that blocks were full when they were just orchestrated that way.

And I wonder how far away we are from a Wiki Leaks "block", I mean "Extremely Low Priority - Oops, we lost that transaction" change?

If nothing else, this should have been talked about openly. Slipping it in there while the block size thing was going on, is just plain scary and too big to ignore.

I didn't trust Hearn when I first heard him as the NSA, I  mean Google, connection was too much to ignore. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now, he is going to be watched (by everyone) closely.

My bet - going to be a rough year for BTC and I have a feeling big money will be buying it up (cheap).

Its about Sharing, not Blocking

They are not talking about XT code. So that is bad PR. Haters should look first....

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

[XCASH]

What the actual fuck , guys does this mean that Lightweight wallets like Electrum & Multibit will be affected aswell since those will be full running nodes on their servers , does it mean we will get affected too or it's only who is using BitcoinXT client directly

Multibit doesn't run a node on a backend server like Electrum. However you can probably specify which nodes it does transactions through if you want to be sure it omits XT nodes. I think you can specify which backend servers your Electrum wallet uses, so you could check which aren't running XT nodes and instruct your wallet to only use those.

[Rampion]

What did you expect from Hearn? He showed his cards long ago proposing "proof of passport" for miners, anti-Tor policies, blacklisting of "tainted" coins...

He made his intentions pretty clear.

[Kakmakr]

I did not expect anything less from those two guys. In my opinion they are secretly working for the US Government to destroy Bitcoin and to replace it with a fork that would serve their masters.  They say this is done to protect the network against DoSS attacks, but it can just as easily be used to block and filter whole nations from accessing the network.

It’s all about control and manipulation.

[luckygenough56]

You can not discuss this here. Please move to altcoin discussion.

  laughed hard 

[Its About Sharing]

Curious as I am not a coder:

How can we stop DDOS attacks on BTC without blacklisting the DDOS servers (or however this is actually being done)?

There must be a better way than putting in what I can only describe as 1984 Code.

[JackH]

Because blacklisting ip by ip is the way to block DDoS? Please....

[Rampion]

I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.

[S4VV4S]

I am really curious to see when the core dev team will actually implement larger blocks so that we avoid all this drama and war between bitcoiners.
And of course the XT hard fork.
We should just stick to core.

yes more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism 

Like the war on terror.

[Calabi–Yau Manifold]

I am really curious to see when the core dev team will actually implement larger blocks so that we avoid all this drama and war between bitcoiners.
And of course the XT hard fork.
We should just stick to core.

yes more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism 

Like the war on terror.

this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

[Krypt0Fr3ak]

I think we can clearly see now that XT is just an altcoin and nothing but a hostile takeover from a few people that are most likely bought by an interest group. Stay away from XT, it is cancer to the Bitcoin community.

That's a very fair way to summarize what this whole farce is all about.. power play under the guise of betterment for the core project / community.
Its all BS and stinks!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.

What? you want to be laughed at there as well?   

so the OP may have been looking at the wrong code by accident.

[desired_username]

BS propaganda.

At least 75% of the mined blocks have to be on XT nodes after January.2016 for 2 weeks for the blocksize increase to take place. If super majority does not form around XT then everything stays the same.

You cannot use the number of nodes as metric, as it can be easily spoofed.

On the other hand, the existence of miners depend on the userbase, so they are restricted to follow the user's needs.

Anyone can make their own decision.

Personally, when I got into bitcoin I subscribed to independence, transparency and freedom. Not tyranny, censorship and serving a company (Blockstream).

[okae]

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs (i mean whats their excuse to include this feature) and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

edited: this is just the beginning of a nice try to start to control the bitcoin world, if people cant see it, maybe people are blind, now is just this "configurable" feature, whats next?, this will not stop here man... with all those "configurables features" we are giving power to
others on us.

[valiz]

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

They will say this is for your own protection, of course. And only active in certain situations.

Meanwhile, they will put new ugly stuff in there, which perhaps none will discover in time.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question?  The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.