...

[meono]

From where is coming all this FUD about XT?

An ass of somebody of course. Not that it matters, what matters is some people got goofied by its stinky fart

[1714793902]

1714793902

[1714793902]

1714793902

[1714793902]

1714793902

[1714793902]

1714793902

[meono]

I am disturbed by the large number of people who are trying to cover this up by saying this doesn't exist, isn't in the code, or we're misunderstanding. The heavy propaganda campaign is the only reason XT is still being discussed.

Nice try ignoring this :

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...

Let me guess, you cant because you're not able to actually understand the code.

[DooMAD]

For a while there I was thinking that iCEBREAKER was one of the biggest trolls on the forum, but I'm now starting to wonder if turtlehurricane and Check2fire might be in with a shout for the title.  The moment Bitcoin gets larger blocks and your continuous stream of deceit and misinformation becomes irrelevant, you're all going on my ignore list.  How's that for blacklisting?  

Seriously, if you were running a node and a malicious user was trying to DDoS it, are you just happy to sit there and take it?  Or would you want a way of moving that malicious user the the bottom of the queue so you can continue to process legitimate transactions?  This code gives individual nodes a choice.  Obviously small-blockians aren't a fan of choice, so they resort to misinformation at every turn.  

[meono]

To turtlehurricane:


When i say, How stupid can you be, i dont mean it as a challenge.

Unless you got into a duel with iCEBREAKER....

[madjules007]

So much ad hominem in this thread. So little evidence of technical knowledge. There are real concerns here, and some of us have quite a lot of money on the line. It's nice that there is so much support for XT in this thread, I guess, but perhaps some of you guys could take a moment to answer some questions from a non-technical guy:

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?

Thanks in advance.

[Klestin]

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

This.

[knight22]

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

This.

FUDsters don't care. 

[madjules007]

I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.

In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.

[Lucko]

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?

What TOR DOS is doing to XT nodes is that is asking for a big old blocks that are not in memory so you need to look on a disk. So weary littel traffic is necessary to stop node operating...

I would agree that TOR deprioritizing(it is really not banning read the code) will not help much if the attacked would start coming for normal network. For now they are coming from TOR. Mike is making a patch that will deprioritize nodes based on what they are doing but this was a quick fix since XT network was under attack.

If the whole network would be DOS attacked then TOR nodes would have harder time connecting. TOR is deprioritized since attacks are coming from there and since exchanges and payment processors are not using it.

And this is much batter then what I was using. I was using DROP on FW. And I didn't remove it since attacks were repeating itself. Now I serve TOR in time I'm not attacked... So that fix things for to not make them worst...

[RGBKey]

This is not okay, in any way. This is not what Bitcoin was meant to be, and we cannot let this be the future.

[meono]

Also i bet major service providers like exchanges and merchant processor would implement their own rule to protect them from DoS.

We had DoS attack before.

[meono]

This is not okay, in any way. This is not what Bitcoin was meant to be, and we cannot let this be the future.

LOL wut? how are you gonna force a wallet user NOT to have their own rule? Do you even understand the bitcoin network?

[Lucko]

I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.

In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.

Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack... EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.msg12187102#msg12187102

But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision.

But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

This is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy.

[meono]

So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?

Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

No its not the first time, you're just too new to know crap.

SatoshiDice was effectively banned with their dust tx spams.

[Lucko]

So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?

Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Luke-jr anyone? And how is that ban? Can you give me a definition?

[meono]

Also i bet major service providers like exchanges and merchant processor would implement their own rule to protect them from DoS.

We had DoS attack before.

From what I understand server operators can protect against DoS attacks themselves, this secondary layer of 'protection' isn't necessary, and considering how controversial it is it would be best for XT to drop it. I'm under the impression at this point that this code is the whole point of forking XT, but would love to see XT prove me wrong by getting rid of this code.

Yes, the bold part is the key. It discredit everything followed after that.

You dont understand jack. Sorry

[meono]

I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.

In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.

Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack...

But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision.

But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

This is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy.

Peter Todd is one of the people who helped develop this DoS aka banware code. Straight from github:

78 contributors
@sipa
@gavinandresen
@laanwj
@Diapolo
@TheBlueMatt
@luke-jr
@jtimon
@gmaxwell
@jgarzik
@CodeShark
@rebroad
@sdaftuar
@petertodd
@theuni
@morcos
@cozz
@dgenr8
@muggenhor
@domob1812
@paveljanik
@jordanlewis
@fanquake
@mikehearn
@rdponticelli
@SergioDemianLerner
@ashleyholman
and others

Uh oh.... you better make a new thread to start a new campaign to call out that sneaky bastard.

DOOOO EET

[RGBKey]

So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?

Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

No its not the first time, you're just too new to know crap.

SatoshiDice was effectively banned with their dust tx spams.

>you're just too new to know crap
>jr. member

Oh, you sure fooled me meono, you are a master of deception.

[Klestin]

So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?

There is no banning. Don't listen to the screamers who have not read and understood the code.

[Lucko]

Also i bet major service providers like exchanges and merchant processor would implement their own rule to protect them from DoS.

We had DoS attack before.

From what I understand server operators can protect against DoS attacks themselves, this secondary layer of 'protection' isn't necessary, and considering how controversial it is it would be best for XT to drop it. I'm under the impression at this point that this code is the whole point of forking XT, but would love to see XT prove me wrong by getting rid of this code.

It can be easily disabled but it is on by defolt... And active only if you are DOSed... And since there are home users that are not experts I see this as good... And this code will get replaced by something not IP based but action based. If you are requesting for random blocks all the time you get deprioritised... But for now we eater FW TOR and not allow any connections or use the code that deprioritised it when attacked... If the attacks stops there will be no need for it.

But if you like conspiracy theories is it you attacking? And looking for a way to get over the defences? I hope you know I'm joking...