All new nodes are virtual server ... attack in progress to switch to 2Mb

[Meuh6879]

Official Classic Team

    Development
        Gavin Andresen
        Jeff Garzik
        Pedro Pinheiro
        Tom Zander
        Jon Rumion
    Mining
        Marshall Long
    Facilitator
        Olivier Janssens
    External advisors
        Jonathan Toomim
        Peter Rizun

https://coin.dance/nodes




Shit hit the fan !

[Lauda]

You should read:A date with Sybil. I wonder how come this isn't obvious to everyone; i.e. why some believe that these are genuine nodes run by many users (they're not).

[unamis76]

Funny try. Stats sites got tricked again! Is the attacker already known?

I wonder how come this isn't obvious to everyone; i.e. why some believe that these are genuine nodes run by many users (they're not).

That's why the OP probably named the thread "virtual server" because that's what they are

[Meuh6879]

  thank to http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/ to have added somes graphics about the IP nodes hosting.

[chek2fire]

how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?

[Meuh6879]

because they pay you to do this.
but after 3 months, all nodes will evaporate ... and the 2Mb switch stay.

job done.

[Jet Cash]

If core wanted to discredit classic, thius would be a great tactic. Nobody in their right mind would want to run with Classic if they really are playing these games - makes you wonder how they intend to recover the costs in the future.

[BellaBitBit]

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

[franky1]

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

it means that bitcoin users are pissed off with laying down and taking it in the ass from the blockstream overlord.. waving a carrot infront of users but then ramming the stick right in there..

so people noticed that core started sybil attacking bymaking lots of raspberry pi nodes and dotting them about. throwing incentives to get people to run nodes to try sticking with the blockstream agenda.

and now other implementations want to expand before blockstreams agenda. to show the world that we should not be controlled by blockstream.. blockstream fanboys see it as an attack.

i see is as a revolt,

now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.
by not even providing code to be part of the network is them sticking their head in the sand being left behind holding the clams

dont be fooled by the doomsday scenarios. they are all blockstream creations.

[exstasie]

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

it means that bitcoin users are pissed off with laying down and taking it in the ass from the blockstream overlord..

How do you know? It doesn't take much for a small group of people to spin up thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service. What does that have to do with bitcoin users?

My node isn't reachable, but it's Core 0.12.... do I not exist? Node counts are beyond dumb.

Classikkers are in for a rude awakening when they realize that none of this blatant fuckery is going to make us fork onto your network. Even if you claimed a majority of users (as if, haha) based on these McNode counts, that won't force anything on me. The handful of friends I have in bitcoin think the idea is just funny. Why would we let you force this kind of bullshit on us?

[25hashcoin]

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

it means that bitcoin users are pissed off with laying down and taking it in the ass from the blockstream overlord.. waving a carrot infront of users but then ramming the stick right in there..

so people noticed that core started sybil attacking bymaking lots of raspberry pi nodes and dotting them about. throwing incentives to get people to run nodes to try sticking with the blockstream agenda.

and now other implementations want to expand before blockstreams agenda. to show the world that we should not be controlled by blockstream.. blockstream fanboys see it as an attack.

i see is as a revolt,

now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.
by not even providing code to be part of the network is them sticking their head in the sand being left behind holding the clams

dont be fooled by the doomsday scenarios. they are all blockstream creations.

Yawn. More bullshit FUD.

[vinaha]

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

it means that bitcoin users are pissed off with laying down and taking it in the ass from the blockstream overlord.. waving a carrot infront of users but then ramming the stick right in there..

so people noticed that core started sybil attacking bymaking lots of raspberry pi nodes and dotting them about. throwing incentives to get people to run nodes to try sticking with the blockstream agenda.

and now other implementations want to expand before blockstreams agenda. to show the world that we should not be controlled by blockstream.. blockstream fanboys see it as an attack.

i see is as a revolt,

now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.
by not even providing code to be part of the network is them sticking their head in the sand being left behind holding the clams

dont be fooled by the doomsday scenarios. they are all blockstream creations.

What's wrong with Blockstream?

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

[Kakmakr]

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules. If these people can do that, anyone else can do that to. They should IP block all <fake> nodes being run on these services and subtract them from the totals. Someone should also notify these services that a attack is being launched from their services and they should take action to prevent or stop this.

There has to be something in these services ToS that prohibits people from using their services to attack / hack or sabotage other services. 

[exstasie]

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules.

Basically. That's why we call it a Sybil attack. A couple entities controlling thousands of nodes through a few datacenters isn't what I'd call "p2p." They won't even have any economic activity since they are not operated at home (I bet a good deal of their donators probably use Coinbase as a wallet LOL)...pathetic.

If fork goes through, what are they gonna do, keep donating to spin up nodes that they can't run at home? Sounds sustainable. Amazon running over 800 Classic nodes, Choopa LLC just brought over 1000 Classic nodes online in the past 1-2 days.

LOL. Not falling for that crap. Running my Core node.

[Lauda]

how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?

That's a good question actually. I don't see a valid reason for somebody to support such foul play.

If core wanted to discredit classic, thius would be a great tactic. Nobody in their right mind would want to run with Classic if they really are playing these games - makes you wonder how they intend to recover the costs in the future.

False. Core has nothing to do with this. Even Brian Armstrong is promoting the service that let's you join in on this for 10$ a month (IIRC).

What does this mean for those of us less technical on btc. thanks!

Nothing. Ignore it and stay with status quo.

What's wrong with Blockstream? Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Currently, nothing. Basically if you simplify the problem you have two groups with different views on how to approach scaling. Blockstream is part of that one group. The other group wants something else. Blockstream disagrees with us, ergo Blockstream must be evil. This is foolish reasoning at best.

[pedrog]

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules.

Basically. That's why we call it a Sybil attack. A couple entities controlling thousands of nodes through a few datacenters isn't what I'd call "p2p." They won't even have any economic activity since they are not operated at home (I bet a good deal of their donators probably use Coinbase as a wallet LOL)...pathetic.

If fork goes through, what are they gonna do, keep donating to spin up nodes that they can't run at home? Sounds sustainable. Amazon running over 800 Classic nodes, Choopa LLC just brought over 1000 Classic nodes online in the past 1-2 days.

LOL. Not falling for that crap. Running my Core node.

Fork only happens if miners want to, it doesn't matter how many or which nodes there are.

You been told that running a node is important and if block chain grows too much there will be few nodes, but the truth is nodes don't have any real power in the network, it doesn't matter if there are 10000 or just 100 huge ones.

[exstasie]

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules.

Basically. That's why we call it a Sybil attack. A couple entities controlling thousands of nodes through a few datacenters isn't what I'd call "p2p." They won't even have any economic activity since they are not operated at home (I bet a good deal of their donators probably use Coinbase as a wallet LOL)...pathetic.

If fork goes through, what are they gonna do, keep donating to spin up nodes that they can't run at home? Sounds sustainable. Amazon running over 800 Classic nodes, Choopa LLC just brought over 1000 Classic nodes online in the past 1-2 days.

LOL. Not falling for that crap. Running my Core node.

Fork only happens if miners want to, it doesn't matter how many or which nodes there are.

You been told that running a node is important and if block chain grows too much there will be few nodes, but the truth is nodes don't have any real power in the network, it doesn't matter if there are 10000 or just 100 huge ones.

Actually you are very wrong. Nodes make the rules. Hashpower doesn't. Miners can point hashpower at another invalid chain if they want. That doesn't force the users to follow them onto a forked network. If users do not follow, miners will simply go back to the original chain, where the network remains and where it is profitable to mine.

Miners are nothing without the users.

[Amph]

in theory it's impossib le to stop, who can stop someone that have multiple server all across the globe that are node in the system?

it's not like there is something that can idenfity the owner(not talking about the ip...) of those servers

[chek2fire]

If this is seen as a legitimate tactic, anyone with enough funding could start thousands of nodes for a few months on a centralized cloud service and make the rules.

Basically. That's why we call it a Sybil attack. A couple entities controlling thousands of nodes through a few datacenters isn't what I'd call "p2p." They won't even have any economic activity since they are not operated at home (I bet a good deal of their donators probably use Coinbase as a wallet LOL)...pathetic.

If fork goes through, what are they gonna do, keep donating to spin up nodes that they can't run at home? Sounds sustainable. Amazon running over 800 Classic nodes, Choopa LLC just brought over 1000 Classic nodes online in the past 1-2 days.

LOL. Not falling for that crap. Running my Core node.

Fork only happens if miners want to, it doesn't matter how many or which nodes there are.

You been told that running a node is important and if block chain grows too much there will be few nodes, but the truth is nodes don't have any real power in the network, it doesn't matter if there are 10000 or just 100 huge ones.

you are wrong with this. Nodes is a very important part of bitcoin ecosystem and the last defend in malicious attack from miners. For example in 51% malicious attack nodes can prevent the miner to destroy the network. In a hard fork scenario again nodes can block to relay the the new blocks and transactions.
The other danger think with such a sybil attack is that someone can easy use all of this nodes to get some informations from bitcoin transactions like to identify from where this transactions came from

[chek2fire]

In one of my nodes which i had 115 connections atm about 20% is Classic nodes.