...

[marcus_of_augustus]

OK this really looks serious. Gavin and Mike are starting the first real attack against Bitcoin and all that it stands for.

Stop XT!

actually this could be a good test to see how strong bitcoin is, if we can sustain this giant problem caused by two influent guy, then we are done, bitcoin will prove that can defeat anything even internal disputes

all those problems will make bitcoin stronger

yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up  (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)

[1714797756]

1714797756

[1714797756]

1714797756

[1714797756]

1714797756

[1714797756]

1714797756

[1714797756]

1714797756

[Bitaurox]

 in case it hasn't been posted here yet, nice recap:

http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

[hdbuck]

 in case it hasn't been posted here yet, nice recap:

http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

+ this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157123.0

[Denker]

Just my two cents,

I support the block size limit increase and was already on the way to upgrade my nodes to XT, I was assuming that the block size limit was the only change.

At this moment I really don't care if its prioritization or banning in the code, the main reason I will not upgrade to XT is the fact that other changes were implemented that were not advertised - changes that obviously deserve their own separate vote.

The block size limit should be the only thing we should be talking (fighting) about right now, and the XT devs made a huge mistake by implementing this kind of stuff, they just made everything more complicated. This could easily wait for another version, and from my knowledge of the network, DDOS is not such a big problem for the network at the moment as is this block size limit controversy.

I think we need an upgrade that includes only the block size limit change, everything else should be left for other upgrades since the block size is important enough by itself. So that people have only one thing to vote for.

Hope the core team will do a cleaner alternative for the block size limit increase. XT is way too tainted in my eyes now.

This.
Pro bigger block but against all the other changes which hadn't been discussed and never been a topic before.
It sounds fishy when someone says: This client supports bigger blocks. Besides that I did some minor changes but this is not much relevant so don't worry.
Dangerous or not. I don't like that.

[lucky88888]

fuck blacklisting! go work on ripple if you want blacklisting.

there are services which requires authoritative controls and there are services that are made specifically for the free world aka BITCOIN.

Bitcoin (decentralized) and ripple (centralized) can come hand in hand to serve the world.

For those that want to control their own wealth and value privacy can use Bitcoin and for those that are afraid of theft can use centralized services, like the BANK or Ripple.

[BTCat]

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

[Pursuer]

if it really is recording IP addresses of bitcoin users then it would be seriously against the freedom and anonymity that bitcoin offers.

but it looks like it is to block the DoS attack via Tor!! https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20

I don't know what to believe anymore

[BillyBobZorton]

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So whats the consensus here?

Are we agreeing to differ?   

Look, I think we all want bitcoin to succeed, or we would all be on pornhub right now.


bitcoinXT is a move towards trying  to address some ( but not all) of the immediate shortcomings in the protocol. Its far from perfect - I now accept that the code can do a live connect to tor to get an exit node list, something I am absolutely against - but in principle I feel that it is a valid release within the spirit of open source and bitcoin.

I dont believe that it will be a magic potion that will suddenly allow us to give Visanet a run for its money. But it does get the ball rolling and get the debate into a wider arena.


Okay, this makes some people very unhappy, but you will never keep everyone happy in a project of this nature. It comes down to a straight choice - given all the factors you either decide to run with XT as a vote towards its core value of bigger blocks, or you stay with core, where you say that you dont want to move on without full consensus.


Bitcoin is more than capable of absorbing forks of this nature (whether you class them as software forks, hardware forks or schisms) - whats more important is that it doesn't decent into the naked hatred that has been evident here lately. There is no need. I myself am guilty of contributing to that. But I'm now drawing a line under that, I dont want to personalise this any further as a battle between guys on one team versus guys on another. They have all worked together in the past, and I am sure they will be able to do so in the future - irrespective of the outcome of the XT plebiscite.

I dont know, maybe a last minute patch to core that offers a compromise between the two implementations might be more appropriate. But I can't judge whether there is an appetite for this or not.

[Lucko]

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.

Most of the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is it gives 100% privacy and anonymity and can be sent instantly anywhere in the world. Just as good as a bank account, well actually better since its faster, cant be reversed, and fees are almost nothing, combined with no barriers to entry. It gives humans financial freedom like never before in history.

That is so not the case. If you really believe this please stop. It will get you in trouble if you are doing something illegal... You really need to know what you are doing for this be almost right. Bitcoin is not anonymous or private. It is public. And if someone with enough power has a reason can find you. Just ask DPR...

EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.

[Lucko]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

Lets see how meono and co try their best to hide facts now


Stop XT!

No need to hide them. There are big errors in this article... Remember Uber storries? Just put it out. If it was on forum it can't be faked...

First post that is quoted and article is talking about:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010386.html

But left out the part where he figures out he was looking at the wrong code:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

We will see if they will fix that...

And I manage to sleep and work and not even kano found the code that is doing what you are saying it is doing in all this time? So where it is...

[tvbcof]

OK this really looks serious. Gavin and Mike are starting the first real attack against Bitcoin and all that it stands for.

Stop XT!

actually this could be a good test to see how strong bitcoin is, if we can sustain this giant problem caused by two influent guy, then we are done, bitcoin will prove that can defeat anything even internal disputes

all those problems will make bitcoin stronger

yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up  (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)

So true.  They embedded themselves at a time when Bitcoin was in need of any development effort it could get and have stuck around like cancers since that time.  Now rapidly metastasizing.  Bitcoin's most impressive achievement would be to survive through the days when these two were still around and still causing problems.

Ultimately Satoshi's most impressive design might have been that of building a social structure which could encapsulate and ultimately expel the likes of Mike and Gavin.  Thankfully the promise of the technology is such that it attracted the right kind of people as well, and many of these folks happen to have very good engineering skills.

I was one of the first people to publicly call out all of Mike, Gavin, and the Bitcoin Foundation here on this forum I think.  Before TBF was formed I suggested that transparency was important to me since I would need to make decisions about what to do upon a hostile fork failure mode which I was anticipating as a likely event at some point in the future.  It was not idle talk.  Concerns like these factored into the position I took in the first place and how I've dealt with that position over the years.  I would not have expected Bitcoin to survive with Mike and Gavin being where they were and doing what they do.  If it does I'll be even more in awe of Satoshi's variety of design skills.

[oblivi]

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.

Most of the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is it gives 100% privacy and anonymity and can be sent instantly anywhere in the world. Just as good as a bank account, well actually better since its faster, cant be reversed, and fees are almost nothing, combined with no barriers to entry. It gives humans financial freedom like never before in history.

That is so not the case. If you really believe this please stop. It will get you in trouble if you are doing something illegal... You really need to know what you are doing for this be almost right. Bitcoin is not anonymous or private. It is public. And if someone with enough power has a reason can find you. Just ask DPR...

EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.

You are right, there's no way to get privacy unless you get paid directly in BTC and you never exchange for fiat, if you exchange for fiat you should have your stuff taxed. In an ideal world we would have merchants everywhere IRL so we wouldn't need to exchange for fiat to buy some things.

[Lucko]

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.

Most of the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is it gives 100% privacy and anonymity and can be sent instantly anywhere in the world. Just as good as a bank account, well actually better since its faster, cant be reversed, and fees are almost nothing, combined with no barriers to entry. It gives humans financial freedom like never before in history.

That is so not the case. If you really believe this please stop. It will get you in trouble if you are doing something illegal... You really need to know what you are doing for this be almost right. Bitcoin is not anonymous or private. It is public. And if someone with enough power has a reason can find you. Just ask DPR...

EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.

You are right, there's no way to get privacy unless you get paid directly in BTC and you never exchange for fiat, if you exchange for fiat you should have your stuff taxed. In an ideal world we would have merchants everywhere IRL so we wouldn't need to exchange for fiat to buy some things.

Not even that is enough. If you identified one address in a chain it can lead to you. If your employer paid you in BTC it is imported how did he got them what address they used did they document that in books(they did for sure) and how did he send them. And what he did with unused inputs... And what happens with coins before that... And what happens when you spend them... You can look/control things that happen before you get them do a degree but not when you spend them. And there are laws that say you need to document salary so that is not a way to go.

[Lucko]

Look closely, do you see there is anything missing in yours?

Thank you, I did miss that part yeah. Here it is:

Code:

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

Source: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/main.cpp
Lines: 223 and 224

Just because it isn't in the linked commit, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists in the master branch and the latest release.

Oooo I missed this. Nice someone took one line out of a context...

Just a part of code in question:

Code:

/**
 * Maintain validation-specific state about nodes, protected by cs_main, instead
 * by CNode's own locks. This simplifies asynchronous operation, where
 * processing of incoming data is done after the ProcessMessage call returns,
 * and we're no longer holding the node's locks.
 */
struct CNodeState {
    //! The peer's address
    CService address;
    //! Whether we have a fully established connection.
    bool fCurrentlyConnected;
    //! Accumulated misbehaviour score for this peer.
    int nMisbehavior;
    //! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
    bool fShouldBan;
    //! String name of this peer (debugging/logging purposes).
    std::string name;
    //! List of asynchronously-determined block rejections to notify this peer about.
    std::vector<CBlockReject> rejects;
    //! The best known block we know this peer has announced.
    CBlockIndex *pindexBestKnownBlock;
    //! The hash of the last unknown block this peer has announced.
    uint256 hashLastUnknownBlock;
    //! The last full block we both have.
    CBlockIndex *pindexLastCommonBlock;
    //! Whether we've started headers synchronization with this peer.
    bool fSyncStarted;
    //! Since when we're stalling block download progress (in microseconds), or 0.
    int64_t nStallingSince;
    list<QueuedBlock> vBlocksInFlight;
    int nBlocksInFlight;
    int nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders;
    //! Whether we consider this a preferred download peer.
    bool fPreferredDownload;

    CNodeState() {
        fCurrentlyConnected = false;
        nMisbehavior = 0;
        fShouldBan = false;
        pindexBestKnownBlock = NULL;
        hashLastUnknownBlock.SetNull();
        pindexLastCommonBlock = NULL;
        fSyncStarted = false;
        nStallingSince = 0;
        nBlocksInFlight = 0;
        nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders = 0;
        fPreferredDownload = false;
    }
};

void Misbehaving(NodeId pnode, int howmuch)
{
    if (howmuch == 0)
        return;

    NodeStatePtr state(pnode);
    if (state.IsNull())
        return;

    state->nMisbehavior += howmuch;
    int banscore = GetArg("-banscore", 100);
    if (state->nMisbehavior >= banscore && state->nMisbehavior - howmuch < banscore)
    {
        LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d) BAN THRESHOLD EXCEEDED\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
        state->fShouldBan = true;
    } else
        LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d)\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
}

void static InvalidBlockFound(CBlockIndex *pindex, const CValidationState &state) {
    int nDoS = 0;
    if (state.IsInvalid(nDoS)) {
        std::map<uint256, NodeId>::iterator it = mapBlockSource.find(pindex->GetBlockHash());
        NodeStatePtr nodeState(it->second);
        if (it != mapBlockSource.end() && !nodeState.IsNull()) {
            CBlockReject reject = {state.GetRejectCode(), state.GetRejectReason().substr(0, MAX_REJECT_MESSAGE_LENGTH), pindex->GetBlockHash()};
            nodeState->rejects.push_back(reject);
            if (nDoS > 0)
                Misbehaving(it->second, nDoS);
        }
    }
    if (!state.CorruptionPossible()) {
        pindex->nStatus |= BLOCK_FAILED_VALID;
        setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(pindex);
        setBlockIndexCandidates.erase(pindex);
        InvalidChainFound(pindex);
    }
}

bool static SanityCheckMessage(CNode* peer, const CNetMessage& msg)
{
    const std::string& strCommand = msg.hdr.GetCommand();
    if (strCommand == "block") {
        uint64_t maxSize = Params().GetConsensus().MaxBlockSize(GetAdjustedTime() + 2 * 60 * 60, sizeForkTime.load());
        if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxSize) {
            LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i\n", SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId());
            return false;
        }
    }
    else if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH ||
        (maxMessageSizes.count(strCommand) && msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxMessageSizes[strCommand])) {
        LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i (%d bytes)\n",
                 SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId(), msg.hdr.nMessageSize);
        Misbehaving(peer->GetId(), 20);
        return msg.hdr.nMessageSize <= MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH;
    }
    // This would be a good place for more sophisticated DoS detection/prevention.
    // (e.g. disconnect a peer that is flooding us with excessive messages)

    return true;
}

There is much more of the code... More then I can get in this mesage. Just search for Misbehaving

See the diference? There a re a lot of things you need to do to activate this? Something normal node will not do.

[meono]

The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.

He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.

He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.

While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.

So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.

Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job

[Lucko]

I like this post from Slush eleuthria https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg12194813#msg12194813

[keyscore44]

yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up  (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)

this ^^^

andresen and his sidekick can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned, would be interesting to know how long they've been plotting to usurp bitcoin with this XT bullshit.

[turvarya]

I like this post from Slush eleuthria https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg12194813#msg12194813

hmm ... I also thought about clarifying the difference between a blockchain change (BIP101) and a client change(anti-DDos measurement), but I forgot about it, and I don't think all this XT-Bashers would understand, since they obviously lack basic knowledge about how Bitcoin works. (I wouldn't even blame them for that, if they would stop spreading FUD about things they don't understand)

So, since we are at it:
The features in BitcoinXT are not part of the hardfork. In fact, such changes are done all the time in Core. They can easily be removed. Even someone with just basic knowledge about programming could easily remove them and compile his own version.
They don't change the blockchain/are not permanently stored in the blockchain, don't require a hardfork whatsoever. Even if malicious code would be slipped into Bitcoin Core/XT (which is very unlikely since so many people have their eyes on it) the damage would just be temporally till somebody finds it and removes it(or make his own version of the client).

[Lucko]

The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.

He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.

He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.

While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.

So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.

Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job

Majorly false, I developed code for the University of Wisconsin Nonhydrostatic modeling system. I know how to simulate the entire fucking atmosphere from a hurricane to a leaf floating on a breeze. I can read code.

I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.

So did you find a code then?