...

[colinistheman]

Hey guys,

I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:

http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new

The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.

A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.

[meono]

Hey guys,

I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:

http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new

The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.

A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.

OMG you're a rare species.... i thought we're extinct.

Seriously, i dont expect to see a level head guy in here that actually take time to validate the FUD.

[desired_username]

Ridiculous bullshit.

The desperation of the Core fanboys is pathetic.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20

Grow up.

[cryptowest]

I don't list seeing IP lists in Bitcoin XT, but when I take off my tinfoil hat I can understand why that code exists.

IMO, the problem is here:



Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.

It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly  




To be fair, this is normal application behavior by regular standards, but it's not in Bitcoin core.



Code referenced:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172

[Lucko]

Hey guys,

I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:

http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new

The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.

A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.

All the public comments from Hearn make it sound benign, he says repeatedly this code is not active unless there's a DoS attack. However there are tens of thousands of lines of code, and if you scan through it you can see it's advanced blacklist/whitelist software.

I'm not the one who discovered this for the record, someone on the bitcoin mailing list found it while giving all of XT's code a thorough review.

Please point out that code and I will explain what you are reading wrong... And no it was not reading XT code but QT code. Yes that was code for the core that got rejected... Mike made changes to it but someone though it was same code and make a that post...

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010435.html

But since none care about reality on form we have this...

But if you are so sure that he was right then go ahead and point part of the code that shows that...

[Lucko]

I don't list seeing IP lists in bitcoin, but when I take off my tinfoil hat I can understand why that code exists.

IMO, the problem is here:



Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.

It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly  




To be fair, this is normal application behavior. But I don't like it.



Code referenced:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172

Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...

And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...

[point0]

Everyboddy Shut up! here is a song to explain everything : 

Yo..

Lets Go!

Mike Hearn i thought you"re cool but you have a scary rule.

How can i use my money while you have a dark hole.

You wanna watch me from a virtual door.

You think i wont see it cause im a fool.

Who told you to do that? will fuck him on the floor.

You said im just Dreaming and nothing on the code

And Im just blind and trolling on the road.

Fuck you bitch with a crypted long rope ,

Sometimes i get high but not a stupid noob.

change your minde for that future we hope.

i know your mother she's so nice and good

She might even knows how to suck and cook.

Why are you like this; gay and sneaky with a fucktard look.

Please be a good man and come to our brothhood.

....................


Do you think i should finish this crazy song ? if so make a tip : 12fugikkyFdPF6FDFCoa4ExzMt86JmDaLA


Do you think im crazy and its sucks ? if so tip here : 1Cg8m122d3WrYF3sGt6oF3SPtaGLvDKr8U

Thank u.

[cryptowest]

Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...

And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...

I meant it was standard for most modern software to identify itself in the useragent, Bitcoin core doesn't identify itself to torproject.org like this. Sorry, I edited the post for clarity. I haven't commented on the "banning" thing because right now it's a list of IPs for connection priority reasons, I'm just voicing concern on a separate but related issue.

[turvarya]

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

You really reached a new level of stupidity.
Bad enough that you don't know, who Peter Todd is, but you are even to lazy to look him up.

You and icebreaker, really make a nice couple.

[desired_username]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

[Mitchell]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

[Lucko]

Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...

And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...

I meant it was standard for most modern software to identify itself in the useragent, Bitcoin core doesn't identify itself to torproject.org like this. Sorry, I edited the post for clarity. I haven't commented on the "banning" thing because right now it's a list of IPs for connection priority reasons, I'm just voicing concern on a separate but related issue.

You are right. I assumed to much from your comment. Well if you are using TOR or proxy this will not happen. Peter Todd is source for this. And if you are not using any of this two things you probably don't care. And if you read documentation you can see that you can also disable download....

[desired_username]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry.

[cryptowest]

Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...

And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...

I meant it was standard for most modern software to identify itself in the useragent, Bitcoin core doesn't identify itself to torproject.org like this. Sorry, I edited the post for clarity. I haven't commented on the "banning" thing because right now it's a list of IPs for connection priority reasons, I'm just voicing concern on a separate but related issue.

You are right. I assumed to much from your comment. Well if you are using TOR or proxy this will not happen. Peter Todd is source for this. And if you are not using any of this two things you probably don't care. And if you read documentation you can see that you can also disable download....

True, true.

[turvarya]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry.

It's still questionable, why this thread wasn't moved to the Altcoin section. Since according to theymos, we are talking about an Altcoin here.
Maybe it is, because he is hypocrite, but who knows?

[meono]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry.

It's still questionable, why this thread wasn't moved to the Altcoin section. Since according to theymos, we are talking about an Altcoin here.
Maybe it is, because he is hypocrite, but who knows?

Even on reddit, they intentionally leave it and not deleting it.


As for hypocrite? I dont know but take a look:

It's often repeated that Satoshi intended to remove "the limit" but I always understood that to be the 500k maximum generation soft limit... quite possible I misunderstood, but I don't understand why it would be a hardforking protocol rule otherwise.

Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.

I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.

IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.

However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.

So, the wiki should be changed, right?

It's not yet known how this issue will be handled. The wiki describes one possibility, and this work shouldn't be removed.

[Lucko]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry.

It's still questionable, why this thread wasn't moved to the Altcoin section. Since according to theymos, we are talking about an Altcoin here.
Maybe it is, because he is hypocrite, but who knows?

This is a threat to the core values of Bitcoin, it's important for Bitcoiners to know before electing to support a BitcoinXT fork. If BitcoinXT forked with the code it has now it might ruin the Bitcoin market, so it's obviously quite relevant.

But it is not relevant since this everything about banning or IP leaking is a lie... To this moment none show part of a code that do one or another. Well in XT code. They found it in QT proposed code. But QT is core...

[Lucko]

The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.

There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.

This thread is not stickied.

You're right, it's on top and looked like to be stickied as the wider line below separates them from the rest. Sorry.

It's still questionable, why this thread wasn't moved to the Altcoin section. Since according to theymos, we are talking about an Altcoin here.
Maybe it is, because he is hypocrite, but who knows?

This is a threat to the core values of Bitcoin, it's important for Bitcoiners to know before electing to support a BitcoinXT fork. If BitcoinXT forked with the code it has now it might ruin the Bitcoin market, so it's obviously quite relevant.

But it is not relevant since this everything about banning or IP leaking is a lie... To this moment none show part of a code that do one or another. Well in XT code. They found it in QT proposed code. But QT is core...

This is directly from the current version of Bitcoin XT. Why are you spreading misinformation?

No it is not. If you don't believe me I guess you would believe https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

EDIT: It is from QT(core) proposed code. XT has fixes that solves the problem. And to this moment I didn't see a blocking code. But you are welcome to point to it.

[gogxmagog]

It would be such a damning move to insert such tracking code without telling anyone, that I don't think they'd do it. It's not like every bitcoiner is a total noob especially the hackers and thieves.

And I'm not even totally against IP blocking, maybe, finally some recourse for victims of theft, but it does go against one of the fundamental principals of BTC so it would need to get a huge concensus first

[Lucko]

It would be such a damning move to insert such tracking code without telling anyone, that I don't think they'd do it. It's not like every bitcoiner is a total noob especially the hackers and thieves.

And I'm not even totally against IP blocking, maybe, finally some recourse for victims of theft, but it does go against one of the fundamental principals of BTC so it would need to get a huge concensus first

What tracking? Please let me know... If you are talking about leaking IP when running proxy and TOR that was in proposed QT(core) code but not in XT.

And there is no IP blocking. To this moment none pointed to the code that do that.

Also I'm interested how IP blocking will help victims of theft...