...

[marky89]

BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.

How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"?  There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns. 

That doesn't matter (whether or not it remains true). What matters is that we are downloading and trusting a central list that is published by a third party (torproject.org now -- who knows, later).... That is the very definition of trust.

Nodes can see IP addresses that are DDOSing them. They can deprioritize them as needed without downloading a list from a (trusted) third party. Why is this even a subject of discussion?

[1714151632]

1714151632

[1714151632]

1714151632

[1714151632]

1714151632

[1714151632]

1714151632

[1714151632]

1714151632

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.

How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"?  There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns.  

That doesn't matter (whether or not it remains true). What matters is that we are downloading and trusting a central list that is published by a third party (torproject.org now -- who knows, later).... That is the very definition of trust.

Nodes can see IP addresses that are DDOSing them. They can deprioritize them as needed without downloading a list from a (trusted) third party. Why is this even a subject of discussion?

If they have the skills to do that, why don't you think they can set a value in a conf file?

[erik777]

BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.

How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"?  There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns.  

That doesn't matter (whether or not it remains true). What matters is that we are downloading and trusting a central list that is published by a third party (torproject.org now -- who knows, later).... That is the very definition of trust.

Nodes can see IP addresses that are DDOSing them. They can deprioritize them as needed without downloading a list from a (trusted) third party. Why is this even a subject of discussion?

If they have the skills to do that, why don't you think they can set a value in a conf file?

Good questions.  The answers to your questions are in the dev discussion on the pull request to Core.  Please read this discussion.  If you continue to have questions after reading this, then post here. 

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6364
 

[TransaDox]

Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784

Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node?

This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking.

My dad can't. Neither can my mother, 2 sisters, grandfather, grandmother, most of my cousins or my wife. Thats the big deal unless you want to come round and do it for us everytime there is an update?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784

Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node?

This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking.

My dad can't. Neither can my mother, 2 sisters, grandfather, grandmother, most of my cousins or my wife. Thats the big deal unless you want to come round and do it for us everytime there is an update?

Sounds like you picked the worlds worst sys admin team there. Sorry for ya troubles, brah.... 

[TransaDox]

Sounds like you picked the worlds worst sys admin team there. Sorry for ya troubles, brah....  

You know what they say. "You can't pick your family."  
But when my car breaks down, my dad is the one to visit and he doesn't tell me to go and buy all the tools, panels and a workshop manual to fix it myself   He just drives it back a day later and hangs around for some beers.

[uxgpf]

I don't understand what's so hard.

1. You like 1 MB blocksize limit and think there's no need to raise it anytime soon.
Solution: Install Bitcoin Core

2. You want blocksize limit to be increased (BIP 101), but disagree with additions made to Bitcoin XT
Solution: Install Core codebase + BIP 101. You don't even have to compile it yourself, there's precompiled binaries available.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

3. You want blocksize limit to be increased and think other additions in Bitcoin XT are cool.
Solution: Install Bitcoin XT

4. You want blocksize limit to be increased and think other additions in Bitcoin XT are cool, except the evil TOR node dropping DDOS protection.
Solution: Raise discussion with Bitcoin XT devs for that part of code to be removed/disabled by default or be a sport and compile the code yourself without the offending code and put the binaries available for others to download.

5. You're not happy with 1MB blocksize limit and BIP 101 sounds like a stupid idea.
Solution: A.) Wait patiently and someone might make BIP XXX fork that you like better. B) Code something that pleases you and publish your own BIP. 

This is decentralization.

[VirosaGITS]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

[meono]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

wtf?

This is why stupid FUD got everywhere due to parrots.

[VirosaGITS]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

wtf?

This is why stupid FUD got everywhere due to parrots.

Are you not understanding what i am saying? If you take the source and modify the code, its not the same coin anymore. So unless the IP list is exempted...

[meono]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

wtf?

This is why stupid FUD got everywhere due to parrots.

Are you not understanding what i am saying? If you take the source and modify the code, its not the same coin anymore. So unless the IP list is exempted...

Oh i didnt know that, thanks for telling me.


Nobody should argue with you now, they must not understand this.

[VirosaGITS]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

wtf?

This is why stupid FUD got everywhere due to parrots.

Are you not understanding what i am saying? If you take the source and modify the code, its not the same coin anymore. So unless the IP list is exempted...

Oh i didnt know that, thanks for telling me.


Nobody should argue with you now, they must not understand this.

But regardless, you can disable to "DDoS protection" for your node by using a flag. And i also think they released a candidate with absolutely no code except BIP101. So this shouldn't be an issue anymore.

[uxgpf]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

It depends what you modify. DDOS protection among other additions is just a client feature and doesn't affect compatibility with the protocol, while blocksize limit needs to be same in all clients (thus requiring a blockchain fork if changed).

There is no single correct client for bitcoin. As long as the client follows the protocol it works. It's like there's not a single correct web browser. You can use Chrome, Firefox or make one of your own..as long as it's compatible with basic rules it works.

[VirosaGITS]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

It depends what you modify. DDOS protection among other additions is just a client feature and doesn't affect compatibility with the protocol, while blocksize limit needs to be same in all clients (thus requiring a blockchain fork if changed).

Thanks for the clarification. I really just don't know how deeply embedded that portion was. If its purely client side, it also mean even the code isint included in the "core XT" branch, people would still be able to use the DDoS protection module if they so desire by using the other version.

[meono]

If you modify the code and recompile it, then try to run it. Are you sure it will work? Because usually when you change the code, it cause a fork.

wtf?

This is why stupid FUD got everywhere due to parrots.

Are you not understanding what i am saying? If you take the source and modify the code, its not the same coin anymore. So unless the IP list is exempted...

Oh i didnt know that, thanks for telling me.


Nobody should argue with you now, they must not understand this.

But regardless, you can disable to "DDoS protection" for your node by using a flag. And i also think they released a candidate with absolutely no code except BIP101. So this shouldn't be an issue anymore.

LOL speechless.

I think i will vote you to be the lead dev of the core team.

[erik777]

I don't understand what's so hard.

1. You like 1 MB blocksize limit and think there's no need to raise it anytime soon.
Solution: Install Bitcoin Core

2. You want blocksize limit to be increased (BIP 101), but disagree with additions made to Bitcoin XT
Solution: Install Core codebase + BIP 101. You don't even have to compile it yourself, there's precompiled binaries available.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

3. You want blocksize limit to be increased and think other additions in Bitcoin XT are cool.
Solution: Install Bitcoin XT

4. You want blocksize limit to be increased and think other additions in Bitcoin XT are cool, except the evil TOR node dropping DDOS protection.
Solution: Raise discussion with Bitcoin XT devs for that part of code to be removed/disabled by default or be a sport and compile the code yourself without the offending code and put the binaries available for others to download.

5. You're not happy with 1MB blocksize limit and BIP 101 sounds like a stupid idea.
Solution: A.) Wait patiently and someone might make BIP XXX fork that you like better. B) Code something that pleases you and publish your own BIP. 

This is decentralization.

#4 Ahahahahah *deep breath* ahahahhaha

I'll never climb the "leadership hierarchy" if I try that.

You forgot option 6: Vote for XT2

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1165957.0

NOTE: Nay votes may also paint their roofs red, where we will tally via Google Earth.

[uxgpf]

If its purely client side, it also mean even the code isint included in the "core XT" branch, people would still be able to use the DDoS protection module if they so desire by using the other version.

Yes, you're right.

[uxgpf]

I'll never climb the "leadership hierarchy" if I try that.

Yeah, someone might call you a dictator for giving people a choice.

[Velkro]

just vote with client, bitcoin core or xt
this extra features are only temporary since if bitcoin xt will win, bitcoin core will adjust and you could switch back from xt

[erik777]

I'll never climb the "leadership hierarchy" if I try that.

Yeah, someone might call you a dictator for giving people a choice.

Right now, just a dictator of a tiny island with nuclear missiles pointed at the Bitcoin network.  But, if XT succeeds, he could become dictator of the Bitcoin protocol.