...

[Lucko]

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.

This is the BitcoinXT commit, its in the current version https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Peter Todd:

Oh, and I just checked, and Mike's original pull-req for the Tor
blacklist didn't include the proxy disable code; what's in master != the
pull-req, so the OP may have been looking at the wrong code by accident.

So you say Peter Todd don't know what he is talking about?

[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...

Why don't you read the code instead of post after post of misinformation? It clearly bans by IP, that isn't even in question.

Yes I did and there is no banning. But you can't point to something that is not there so I can't help you. But you can say where the code is doing that and I will explain to you why you are wrong...

[meono]

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

I can ensure you no IP blocking or bitcoin blacklist bullshit.

This FUD is a test of bitcoin community, and we failed miserably.

If we had a FUD like this in 2011, i bet you the second post would be "Gtfo"

[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...

Why don't you read the code instead of post after post of misinformation? It clearly bans by IP, that isn't even in question.

Yes I did and there is no banning. But you can't point to something that is not there so I can't help you. But you can say where the code is doing that and I will explain to you why you are wrong...

// A group of logically related IP addresses. Useful for banning or deprioritising
// sources of abusive traffic/DoS attacks.
struct CIPGroupData {
    std::string name;
    // A priority score indicates how important this group of IP addresses is to this node.
    // Importance determines which group wins when the node is out of resources. Any IP
    // that is not in a group gets a default priority of zero. Therefore, groups with a priority
    // of less than zero will be ignored or disconnected in order to make room for ungrouped
    // IPs, and groups with a higher priority will be serviced before ungrouped IPs.
    int priority;

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;

That is just one segment describing that section of code, there are literally thousands of lines of code that deal with banning.
You are a liar.

No you don't know how to read a code. This is a comment. But you can also read a comments... But you can't read just one. EDIT:(Just to be more clear) "It describes for what it can be used but that doesn't mean it is used for that. So go and find a line that says this bans IPs."

What code dose(if you are read it) is when node is attacked by TOR DOS it just drops any TOR connection in exchange for not TOR connection. And for this to even happen there needs to be 125 connections to a node. This is not banning... This replace the need to block TOR with FW permanently since XT nodes do get a lot of attacks from TOR. So it is a good thing for TOR.

EDIT2: You do know that the comment you posted is not in https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

This part:

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;

I can't find it...

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

[Lucko]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Again point to it. It is impossible to show that something doesn't exist since there is nowhere to point to that shows that. But if you show me where you think it is I can show you why you are wrong... To this point none did that.

[akaman]

IF XT wins it will bring on so many changes that the Bitcoin we thought we knew and had, will be something completely different. Be prepared for a fully centralised coin should it happen that XT gains consensus.

Whoa!! Hang on. There are lies and damned lies. How did you reach the conclusion that bitcoin will end up being 'centralized' if XT gains majority?  

[meono]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

[BayAreaCoins]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Take something that may need to be done in order to make for a brighter future and then line it full of shit in the fine print.

[meono]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Take something that may need to be done in order to make for a brighter future and then line it full of shit in the fine print.

You can thank Theymos for that. Its like you'r given a book. You can see the title but you cant read the book.

Then you're asked to give opinion of the book.

Sweet isnt it?

[meono]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

[Lucko]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

How and where... You are reading wrong code. At lest from the aprt that you posted a comment form a code that it is not a part of XT

[tupelo]

Thank you for your hard work turtlehurricane, it is much needed.

[Lucko]

No you don't know how to read a code. This is a comment. But you can also read a comments... But you can't read just one. EDIT:(Just to be more clear) "It describes for what it can be used but that doesn't mean it is used for that. So go and find a line that says this bans IPs."

What code dose(if you are read it) is when node is attacked by TOR DOS it just drops any TOR connection in exchange for not TOR connection. And for this to even happen there needs to be 125 connections to a node. This is not banning... This replace the need to block TOR with FW permanently since XT nodes do get a lot of attacks from TOR. So it is a good thing for TOR.

EDIT2: You do know that the comment you posted is not in https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

This part:

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;

I can't find it...

No shit it's a comment, a comment that describes a section of code. The "its not in the code" strategy isnt gonna work, stop cluttering the thread with useless bullshit.

The fact you cant find it indicates how incompetent you are. It's directly in the BitcoinXT source.

I used find function of chrome.

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;

Is not there... You are not looking at the code you linked... It has noting to do with me. It just isn't there...

[meono]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

Here is the code https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Read it, actually click on the view button so you see all of it for each part of the program.

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

[Lucko]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

Here is the code https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Read it, actually click on the view button so you see all of it for each part of the program.

You can't point to a part that do what you say it is doing? Just look at the code? Just point... For now you posted this that is not in a code

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;

[Greendragon]

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

[madjules007]

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

The debate is about block size. Can you show me the section of the XT code that addresses block size? Then, can you show me everything else in the code? Then explain why such code is being included in a fork that is supposed to address block size?

Let's not get bogged down by the details. What the hell are these pages and pages of code that have absolutely fuck all to do with block size? And why is it being pushed then solely as a fix for the block size issue?

The issue here is philosophical first and foremost -- secondarily, it's what's actually in the code.

[Liquid71]

So basically Bitcoin is subject to a hostile takeover and the price is crashing..yet people still defend XT.

[Lucko]

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?