sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 19, 2015, 11:39:52 AM |
|
And only active in certain situations. Yes, in situations where the person running the node configures it that way.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4452
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:06:25 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it
|
|
|
|
kelsey
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:14:10 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it what about this; "The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn no one could honestly with even half a brain not see that none of this is actually about blocksize, thats the distraction.
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:31:58 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it Are you blind? Anti-DoS attack improvements, by Mike Hearn. It's currently possible to jam a Bitcoin node by connecting to it repeatedly via different IP addresses, as there is a fixed limit on how many connections a node will accept. Once full, no other peers or wallets can connect to it any more and serving capacity for new nodes and P2P wallets is reduced. If the attack is repeated against every node, the entire network could become jammed. This patch set introduces code that runs when a node is full and otherwise could not accept new connections. It labels and prioritises connections according to lists of IP ranges: if a high priority IP address connects and the node is full, it will disconnect a lower priority connection to make room. Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed, and most users/merchants don't use it. In normal operation this new code will never run. If someone performs a DoS attack via Tor, then legitimate Tor users will get the existing behaviour of being unable to connect, but mobile and home users will still be able to use the network without disruption. https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.htmlWhere exactly have you looked?
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:52:33 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this. So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4452
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:53:56 PM |
|
I simply looked on the main page. https://bitcoinxt.software/I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see "Decision making is quick and clear." Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get. Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4452
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:56:21 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this. So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda. Yes indeed that's what I mean - what is your agenda for ignoring all the other changes in your statement? It isn't just block size as you stated.
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:58:24 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it Really did you read it at all? Especially the part : Anti DOS attack?
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:00:33 PM |
|
I simply looked on the main page. https://bitcoinxt.software/I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see "Decision making is quick and clear." Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get. Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page WHAT is your AGENDA ignoring this: Anti-DoS attack improvements, by Mike Hearn. It's currently possible to jam a Bitcoin node by connecting to it repeatedly via different IP addresses, as there is a fixed limit on how many connections a node will accept. Once full, no other peers or wallets can connect to it any more and serving capacity for new nodes and P2P wallets is reduced. If the attack is repeated against every node, the entire network could become jammed. This patch set introduces code that runs when a node is full and otherwise could not accept new connections. It labels and prioritises connections according to lists of IP ranges: if a high priority IP address connects and the node is full, it will disconnect a lower priority connection to make room. Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed, and most users/merchants don't use it. In normal operation this new code will never run. If someone performs a DoS attack via Tor, then legitimate Tor users will get the existing behaviour of being unable to connect, but mobile and home users will still be able to use the network without disruption. Also stop with the FUDing about IP blacklist BS. You're a programmer i expect much better from you.
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:00:54 PM |
|
I simply looked on the main page. https://bitcoinxt.software/I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see "Decision making is quick and clear." Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get. Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page They put this patch at the (surprise) patch Tab. Acting like Mike Hearn is hiding something an 8-year old could find with a 5 minute search, is just another ridiculous aspect of this whole discussion. Same with ignoring the only-bigblocks branch, I already mentioned in this thread:
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:03:52 PM |
|
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. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this. So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda. Yes indeed that's what I mean - what is your agenda for ignoring all the other changes in your statement? It isn't just block size as you stated. Ahhhh... look at the title of the thread. Just following the topic. edit: to clarify,.. The thread above was based on a flawed premise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
qwep
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:04:43 PM |
|
coming back to bitcoin talk after the price tank from yesterday, lets me know i shouldnt stay away from the forum too long.
|
|
|
|
mayax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
August 19, 2015, 03:59:53 PM |
|
that means more centralization. Anyway, there is one now too....but it will be more visible with XT. well, that means BTC end. BTC is based on anonymity. Why shouldn't I use any other e-currency if BTC will be centralized more than now?
|
|
|
|
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1028
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:03:32 PM |
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. The average joe is never going to do all that nerd stuff, it's all about protecting the vulnerable, the geeks that are going to do that are 1%. You are an idiot by excusing it out like that and saying "just go on your linux machine and compile your own self modified code". That's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:08:53 PM |
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. The average joe is never going to do all that nerd stuff, it's all about protecting the vulnerable, the geeks that are going to do that are 1%. You are an idiot by excusing it out like that and saying "just go on your linux machine and compile your own self modified code". That's just ridiculous. What ridiculous is ppl blindly listen to some FUD without even checking. The changelog show it. Had BitcoinXT been allowed to be discussed then we wouldnt have this FUD in the first place.
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:12:16 PM |
|
MEONO IS A xtSHILL
not even brave enough to post under his real account. as for gavin and mickey, go fuck yourself. ignored.
|
|
|
|
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1028
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:15:12 PM |
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. The average joe is never going to do all that nerd stuff, it's all about protecting the vulnerable, the geeks that are going to do that are 1%. You are an idiot by excusing it out like that and saying "just go on your linux machine and compile your own self modified code". That's just ridiculous. What ridiculous is ppl blindly listen to some FUD without even checking. The changelog show it. Had BitcoinXT been allowed to be discussed then we wouldnt have this FUD in the first place. What are you talking about? The code is there. I have been doing lots of reading, you should begin too, this is a good start: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010386.htmlIm not sure yet what to do just like most people, but I don't like how this sounds like, I definitely don't, so im keeping my core node running for now.
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:20:49 PM |
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. The average joe is never going to do all that nerd stuff, it's all about protecting the vulnerable, the geeks that are going to do that are 1%. You are an idiot by excusing it out like that and saying "just go on your linux machine and compile your own self modified code". That's just ridiculous. What ridiculous is ppl blindly listen to some FUD without even checking. The changelog show it. Had BitcoinXT been allowed to be discussed then we wouldnt have this FUD in the first place. What are you talking about? The code is there. I have been doing lots of reading, you should begin too, this is a good start: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010386.htmlIm not sure yet what to do just like most people, but I don't like how this sounds like, I definitely don't, so im keeping my core node running for now. Stop posting and read the bitcoinXT changelog. Its not sneaky and blacklist bs as the FUD said
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 19, 2015, 04:48:40 PM |
|
MEONO IS A xtSHILL
not even brave enough to post under his real account. as for gavin and mickey, go fuck yourself. ignored.
Life's not been a happy experience for you, has it?
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
|
|