...

[LiteCoinGuy]

yep, just look at turtlehurricanes posts and you see that. sad 

[knight22]

MEONO IS A xtSHILL

not even brave enough to post under his real account.
as for gavin and mickey, go fuck yourself. ignored.

Clever. Do you have any more insight or are you just expressing out loud your fear driven by your ignorance?

[Lucko]

yep, just look at turtlehurricanes posts and you see that. sad 

I'm not the one who added tens of thousands of lines of blacklist code to XT. Read the code and then tell me this is fud. If you choose not to read the code that is pure ignorance and negligence. If the fork happened it would compromise bitcoin forever, so if you're ok with this you must not be a real bitcoin user.

First of all you would still be able to run core with BIP101. Second you are reading the wrong code(core proposed) or you don't understand it...

Peter Todd

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

[manselr]

Yep, I was running XT but after reading this im back to core. I would rather have privacy than being able to globally broadcast all over the planet if I bought a cup of coffee or not (even tho the LN solution still sucks and I would rather have it all on-chain)

[Klestin]

You folks have an interesting definition of "blacklist".  It's a reduction in priority for known TOR exit nodes. How one goes from this to "ZOMG! BLACKLIST!!!" I have no idea.  And whoever read this as a stripping of TOR's anonymity is either clinically insane or does not understand the basic concepts.

[Klestin]

Yep, I was running XT but after reading this im back to core. I would rather have privacy than being able to globally broadcast all over the planet if I bought a cup of coffee or not (even tho the LN solution still sucks and I would rather have it all on-chain)

You've fundamentally misunderstood the changes.  Nodes always track IP addresses - that's how the Internet works.  The priority adjustment change has nothing whatsoever to do with your privacy.

[BayAreaCoins]

Signature updated.

Fuck XT, Mike and anyone else looking to block Bitcoins from moving freely.

Thanks OP.

[Lucko]

You folks have an interesting definition of "blacklist".  It's a reduction in priority for known TOR exit nodes. How one goes from this to "ZOMG! BLACKLIST!!!" I have no idea.  And whoever read this as a stripping of TOR's anonymity is either clinically insane or does not understand the basic concepts.

Read the code... it specifically has blacklists and whitelists. It bans specific users based on IP, one of the facets of that is it can see right through tor and other proxies.

It is a huge amount of code, it does a very thorough job of banning bitcoin users at will.

You are not a programmer right? It dose noting like...

[Lucko]

yep, just look at turtlehurricanes posts and you see that. sad  

I'm not the one who added tens of thousands of lines of blacklist code to XT. Read the code and then tell me this is fud. If you choose not to read the code that is pure ignorance and negligence. If the fork happened it would compromise bitcoin forever, so if you're ok with this you must not be a real bitcoin user.

First of all you would still be able to run core with BIP101. Second you are reading the wrong code(core proposed) or you don't understand it...

Peter Todd

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

I pulled this code directly from the Bitcoin XT source. There is no confusion that this is the current version being downloaded. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA

And it's still in github https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Than you are reading it wrong... No IP leaking if you are on TOR or PROXY and no blacklist. Only reduced priority whan DOS(from TOR)

[meono]

Yep, I was running XT but after reading this im back to core. I would rather have privacy than being able to globally broadcast all over the planet if I bought a cup of coffee or not (even tho the LN solution still sucks and I would rather have it all on-chain)

You really let a FUD fool you like that?

Sad to see this would have been avoided if we could discuss BitcoinXT from day one.

[meono]

yep, just look at turtlehurricanes posts and you see that. sad  

I'm not the one who added tens of thousands of lines of blacklist code to XT. Read the code and then tell me this is fud. If you choose not to read the code that is pure ignorance and negligence. If the fork happened it would compromise bitcoin forever, so if you're ok with this you must not be a real bitcoin user.

First of all you would still be able to run core with BIP101. Second you are reading the wrong code(core proposed) or you don't understand it...

Peter Todd

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

I pulled this code directly from the Bitcoin XT source. There is no confusion that this is the current version being downloaded. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA

And it's still in github https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Than you are reading it wrong... No IP leaking if you are on TOR or PROXY and no blacklist. Only reduced priority whan DOS(from TOR)

I dont know why he keeps digging himself a bigger hole.

When i said : How stupid can you be? , I think he took that as a challenge

[Klestin]

Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the code.  If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.

[meono]

Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the code.  If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.

LOL.... that made me laugh.

[Lucko]

isislovecruft added a note 5 days ago
@mikehearn @gavinandresen If you use this URL, you're going to block all Tor Exit relays… regardless of whether they allow exiting to the IP:port that your BitcoinXT node is running on. This unfairly punishes people who run Tor Exit relays. (For example, if I ran an Exit relay on my server which only allowed Tor clients to exit to port 443, then — even though no Tor clients could access the normal bitcoind ports from my Exit relay — I also would be unable to do so from my server.

We have a tool which will parse the current exit list for you, and, given an IP (or IP:port) will generate a list of only the Tor Exit relays which allow clients to exit to that IP (or IP:port). The output format from that tool also happens to be much easier to parse: it's just one Tor Exit relay IP address per line (you just have to discard lines which begin with #). The easiest way to use it would be to replace https://check.torproject.org/exit-addresses above with https://check.torproject.org/torbulkexitlist?ip=38.229.72.19&port=443 (filling in whatever is the actual ip[:port] of the Bitcoin node).
@mikehearnOwner
mikehearn added a note 4 days ago
Thanks Isis!

This code doesn't actually block anything, just marks it as being lower priority than non-Tor traffic. It should never do anything unless there's an active DoS attack via Tor. So perfect accuracy isn't really needed here: Tor access still works fine and will do even if you run a Bitcoin node and Tor node on the same machine.

That said, I'll make a mental note to switch to the second URL when I work on this code again (might be soon, given the ongoing DoS attacks via Tor we're seeing).

[Lucko]

Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the code.  If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.

Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban". https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA

It sets up blacklists and whitelists which can be subjectively changed.

The only reason I'm posting a lot about this is I care about Bitcoin. If XT was truly just about blocksize I wouldn't have posted any of this. I am not gonna watch Bitcoin get destroyed by this without fighting.

The main selling point is no Bitcoin can be frozen or any transaction stopped, that will no longer be true if XT forks, and Bitcoin will lose most of its intrinsic value.

Please show the part of the code that do that. So I can tell you how wrong you are...

EDIT: XT merge BIP101 but it has never stated that it is only about size. They have a core patched with BIP101 that is just about size. But they don't do builds. But if anyone is ready to do it he can...

[Klestin]

Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".

It does nothing of the kind.  It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes.  The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada.  UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit.  That happens when a node is under a DOS attack.  IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference.

[Lucko]

Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".

It does nothing of the kind.  It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes.  The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada.  UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit.  That happens when a node is under a DOS attack.  IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference.

It is much batter then what we were doing till now. To stop the attack you had to add DROP commands to FW. Now they only get less service if you are DOS from TOR...

[meono]

Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".

It does nothing of the kind.  It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes.  The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada.  UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit.  That happens when a node is under a DOS attack.  IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference.

OMG,..... BLACKLIST.


Why is that general public so easy to scare? I thought bitcoin community is alot better. No wonder the war on drug and terror is an ice on cake for politician.

[madjules007]

I understand that this is being framed as "protection from DOS attacks from TOR nodes." Can anyone explain to me why this is necessary? Has DOS attack by the TOR network ever been a real threat -- and if so, could one provide proof? TOR nodes are easily tracked, easily blacklisted. Aren't serious DOS attacks run off botnets? How does this code actually prevent DOS attacks? It merely "deprioritizes" (to zero access?) IP addresses by mere association.

Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.

On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?

[entertainment]

From where is coming all this FUD about XT?