Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 02:08:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin.com almost forks the blockchain with buggy BU  (Read 2468 times)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 11:33:48 AM
 #21

I earnestly suggest to franky1 to learn something elementary, research harder, run some code, begin with 'hello world' then research, research research, just not to look like complete oaf,
but he prefer not to wake up, to act like Ver constantly takes care of him, continue dreaming in his imaginary world... 

sounds familiar.
oh i forgot you are in the r/bitcoin tribe that loves to read and repeat. rather then learn and think independently.

time for you stop rehearsing lines,

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
1513433329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513433329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513433329
Reply with quote  #2

1513433329
Report to moderator
1513433329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513433329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513433329
Reply with quote  #2

1513433329
Report to moderator
1513433329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513433329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513433329
Reply with quote  #2

1513433329
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
aarturka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 12:03:45 PM
 #22

I earnestly suggest to franky1 to learn something elementary, research harder, run some code, begin with 'hello world' then research, research research, just not to look like complete oaf,
but he prefer not to wake up, to act like Ver constantly takes care of him, continue dreaming in his imaginary world... 

sounds familiar.
oh i forgot you are in the r/bitcoin tribe that loves to read and repeat. rather then learn and think independently.

time for you stop rehearsing lines,

lol
Why do you always do what Ver tells you?
Dont you have your own thoughts and your own feeling?

stop acting like Roger Ver will always be with you,  you dont need him holding your hand...  today he lost $12000... he cant always pay his shills...
...As I said before, my errant friend, researh, research, research, try different ways to broaden your horizons and someday you will hear way to go!..

untill learn something begin now, dont waste your time posting here it would have no relevance anyway...
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 12:10:25 PM
 #23

lol
Why do you always do what Ver tells you?
Dont you have your own thoughts and your own feeling?

stop acting like Roger Ver will always be with you,  you dont need him holding your hand...  today he lost $12000... he cant always pay his shills...
...As I said before, my errant friend, researh, research, research, try different ways to broaden your horizons and someday you will hear way to go!..

untill learn something begin now, dont waste your time posting here it would have no relevance anyway...


here is the funny part
you have said nothing original. you repeat what others have said. you dont even care who says it.
and it has been a few days since you yourself were told to research. and all you manage to do is repeat other peoples words.

i see nothing new and you are just trolling.

for your own sake atleast spend a few minutes reading the truth and not just reading r/bitcoin scripts. or copying other people.

p.s
i dont even run a BU node. i have my own Cheesy
funnier part is icebreaker tried to sideline me into classic camp, then xt camp last year.. rather then admit the truth and just realise i simply hate blockstreams corporate paid backing and core paid devs employee contracted terms to meet certain code/commercial service objectives to make financial returns for their investors.

pretty much a shame that you are wanting blockstream to be king..
where as i prefer diverse USER consensus with no dev control.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
aarturka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 12:31:18 PM
 #24

i prefer diverse USER consensus with no dev control.

then research harder... Ver is not the one you want to be under
have a good researchin'!  Wink
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2017, 01:18:57 PM
 #25

"Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing"




██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 01:24:04 PM
 #26

Nice shill parade.


BU code seems to be recognized.


And it has a luxury issue: It's been used.


And yes it's code.


And yes, code has bugs


All begining is hard.


And  yes bitcoin is strong and will stay.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
 #27

"Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing"


Where is all this 'quality' and 'testing' that they are speaking of?

Nice shill parade.
Who exactly are the shills? Known members of the community?  Roll Eyes

BU code seems to be recognized trash.
FTFY.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 02:51:59 PM
 #28

Until yesterday I was not totally against Bitcoin Unlimited - at a first glance it seems to be an attractive way to adapt block size to the needs of users and miners. But this event shows us that it's basically beta (or even alpha) software. And I really fear worse things could happen to BTC if BU really becomes the dominant chain, as after looking into the details even from my layman's view the consensus method could lead to different types of "attacks" from interest groups to rise or shrink the maximal block size.

Changes of this magnitude should really be tested and reviewed extensively.

For now, because of this event, I am again more in favour of the Core fraction, although I would prefer a conservative maximal block size increase of 10 or 20% per year.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
 #29

For now, because of this event, I am again more in favour of the Core fraction, although I would prefer a conservative maximal block size increase of 10 or 20% per year.
Most definitely. I'm certain that there would be a fair amount of support for a proposal (post SegWit) that increases it somewhere between 10-20% yearly. However, there is definitely going to be very little-to-no support for proposal such as the one from Luke-jr. That proposal even goes as far as reducing the current block size. Cheesy


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


17kKQppUsngUiByDsce4JXoZEjjpvX9bpR


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2017, 06:03:34 PM
 #30

Absolute nonsense.  Unless you are saying that a significant majority of all mining nodes are willing to accept a block larger than 1 megabyte (in which case it is Core that is trying to create a consensus split by refusing to accept the longest chain). No. In this case, a minority of miners would be willing to accept such a block.  As a result the valid chain would quickly grow longer.  Only those nodes foolish enough to accept and mine on top of an invalid block (such as so-called SPV miners) would be affected, and any miner dumb enough to accept an invalid block deserves to waste hash power on a dead chain.
...
No. Not in any real way, it couldn't.  That's a whole lot of FUD and nonsense.  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were just another sig ad spammer.
A fork most certainly could have happened because of the BU and SPV miners. Those miners make up nearly half of the entire hash rate of the network. If the SPV miners and BU miners began building on the invalid block, then there would be two branches that are just about the same length. As we have seen in the July 2015 fork, the SPV miners could accidentally cause this to happen. One chain would probably die off once the human operators got involved as happened with the July 2015 fork.

Now those miners should have learned from the July 2015 fork that SPV mining can be problematic, but I don't think any of them have stopped doing SPV mining. It really all depends on how their validation systems work, but such a scenario is entirely possible as we have seen in the past.

I apologize about some poor word choice in my earlier posts. I will fix them.



Most definitely. I'm certain that there would be a fair amount of support for a proposal (post SegWit) that increases it somewhere between 10-20% yearly. However, there is definitely going to be very little-to-no support for proposal such as the one from Luke-jr. That proposal even goes as far as reducing the current block size. Cheesy
Supposedly Luke-Jr is going to modify it so that by the time the hard fork is predicted to be ready to activate, the period of the smaller blocks has already passed.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 06:25:24 PM
 #31

A fork most certainly could have happened because of the BU and SPV miners. Those miners make up nearly half of the entire hash rate of the network. If the SPV miners and BU miners began building on the invalid block, then there would be two branches that are just about the same length. As we have seen in the July 2015 fork, the SPV miners could accidentally cause this to happen. One chain would probably die off once the human operators got involved as happened with the July 2015 fork.

it was disregarded in 3 seconds.. a new block would not have built ontop if it..
if it stupidly did. then the reject would "officially" be named an orphan event in your eyes because the reject becomes the parents of the child and the parent and child still end up being cast aside.

WAKE UP

stop making mountains out of mole hills about events that didnt happen and then you meandering into fake narratives of if's and maybes..
. especially when the real problem of the real non event.. which you worry about concerting a bilateral split, would have been caused only by CORES REACTION to the mole hill. by banning the nodes to make the mountain... not due simply to a reject/bad block/invalid block/orphan.

rejects occur alot. orphans happen too. but CORE banning NODES is what would cause bilateral forks.
however sticking to consensus would have just dropped the dodgy block and thats it.. no drama.. gone, forgot about, life moves on without it.. non event

CORE have set the 'banscore' biasedly high for this event. but its funny that core then went and blamed it on non-core nodes for why CORE had so much biased in such a non event.

Now those miners should have learned from the July 2015 fork that SPV mining can be problematic, but I don't think any of them have stopped doing SPV mining. It really all depends on how their validation systems work, but such a scenario is entirely possible as we have seen in the past.

I apologize about some poor word choice in my earlier posts. I will fix them.



Most definitely. I'm certain that there would be a fair amount of support for a proposal (post SegWit) that increases it somewhere between 10-20% yearly. However, there is definitely going to be very little-to-no support for proposal such as the one from Luke-jr. That proposal even goes as far as reducing the current block size. Cheesy
Supposedly Luke-Jr is going to modify it so that by the time the hard fork is predicted to be ready to activate, the period of the smaller blocks has already passed.

both luke Jr and Gmaxwell are devising the worse methods of dynamic block implementation.. maybe not for the intention of breaking the chain to make a point.. but to just to scare people from wanting to accept them as the ruse to then pretend people dont want dynamic blocks..

EG here is a banana, but if i wipe it under my armpit after a sweaty game of tennis, i can make a banana lover decline wanting a banana and then tell the world banana's are now bad because banana lovers refuse to eat banana's.

Gmaxwell wants to mess with the block reward and luke wants to make blocks shrink.. both are silly and are going to fail the user desire.
lets delve into lukes idea.
if all nodes can accept 1.5mb blocks.. they by default wont reject a block of 0.75mb or an 'empty block'.. because bitcoins consensus in that activation is that anything under 1.5mb is acceptable. so there is no need to dowgrade nodes.
much like todays reality we dont need to downgrade nodes consensus rules if a pool decides to create 'empty blocks'

lets delve into gmaxwells desire of an idea.
if pools X wants to increase 25% the pool C makes block with 75% reward. and the the other 25% is handed over to the next block solver.
firstly messing with the block reward is dangerous, so using it as a ploy. makes a dynamic block more dangerous to get people confident about

but not to due with lack of desire for dynamic blocks, but for HOW they are implemented and what penalties/downsides the core devs decide to add to scare their sheep. its obvious even now what their insidious plan is.

like they said 'look the community asked for 2mb or even 4mb.. we are offering them 4mb weight and they are declining' - fully aware of why the community is declining 4mb weight.. but core devs not being ethical to admit the reason for not wanting 4mb of empty gesture

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2002



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 07:30:49 PM
 #32

A fork most certainly could have happened because of the BU and SPV miners.

As I said, not in any real way, it couldn't.

Those miners make up nearly half of the entire hash rate of the network. If the SPV miners and BU miners began building on the invalid block, then there would be two branches that are just about the same length.

And the moment that the valid chain was 1 block longer than the invalid chain, all miners would abandon the invalid chain.  It might even happen sooner if people looked at what was happening and realized they were wasting time and resources.  Either way, it wouldn't have any real effect on the valid chain.

As we have seen in the July 2015 fork, the SPV miners could accidentally cause this to happen.

And they deserve to waste their time and resources on an invalid chain if they are dumb enough to mine on it.  It won't matter to me or anyone else on the valid chain.  Why should we care?

One chain would probably die off once the human operators got involved as happened with the July 2015 fork eventually, one way or another.

Fixed that for you.

Now those miners should have learned from the July 2015 fork that SPV mining can be problematic, but I don't think any of them have stopped doing SPV mining.

Then they are foolish.  A fool and his money are soon parted.  That's the way bitcoin (And the world) works.

It really all depends on how their validation systems work, but such a scenario is entirely possible as we have seen in the past.

A scenario where foolish people waste time and resources on a foolis endeavor?  Sure, it has happened throughout all of human history.  It isn't going to stop anytime soon.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2017, 11:09:49 AM
 #33

Must see:

https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/826418860731535360

lol rekt  Cheesy Cheesy


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
February 01, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
 #34

A fork most certainly could have happened because of the BU and SPV miners.

As I said, not in any real way, it couldn't.

Those miners make up nearly half of the entire hash rate of the network. If the SPV miners and BU miners began building on the invalid block, then there would be two branches that are just about the same length.

And the moment that the valid chain was 1 block longer than the invalid chain, all miners would abandon the invalid chain.  It might even happen sooner if people looked at what was happening and realized they were wasting time and resources.  Either way, it wouldn't have any real effect on the valid chain.

Riiiiiiiight. So you're saying that because only a minority of the hashrate chose the Unlimited fork, the design of BU doesn't massively lower the bar for those wishing to design and promote their own forks?

"If Bitcoin can't handle it, it was a failure to begin with"

Yes, but you're not talking about Bitcoin, you're talking about a Bitcoin fork. Bitcoin wasn't designed to let users provoke a fork with the GUI, that's how your Bitcoin fork BU was designed.

A fool and his money are soon parted.  That's the way bitcoin (And the world) works.

And if you proceed with your present course of action, you will be parted from yours. There is no value in a system that can be so easily denuded of it's Metcalffe network effect when it splinters into several forks per week.


So, I have a futures contract for you: I will sell you 0.2 ULC: 1 BTC, after any BU chainfork. I will buy in bulk. Generous offer, ends at the end of February.

Vires in numeris
Daedra
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 11:47:12 AM
 #35

How could that have happened? Huh Seems those BU guys dont care of anything except their proceeds  Sad
Cubic Earth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
February 01, 2017, 12:16:51 PM
 #36

Yes, but you're not talking about Bitcoin, you're talking about a Bitcoin fork. Bitcoin wasn't designed to let users provoke a fork with the GUI, that's how your Bitcoin fork BU was designed.

So much for Honey Badger, it seems bitcoin might have a serious flaw, if what you are saying is correct.
Much cheaper than a 51% attack. Just spin up a handful of non-conforming nodes and mine an invalid block. Boom! And Bitcoin is done for.

Invincible
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 12:26:11 PM
 #37


So much for Honey Badger, it seems bitcoin might have a serious flaw, if what you are saying is correct.
Much cheaper than a 51% attack. Just spin up a handful of non-conforming nodes and mine an invalid block. Boom! And Bitcoin is done for.
People would deny fork as other alts
Xester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
February 01, 2017, 12:30:38 PM
 #38

I thought only Chinese Miners are using BU but according to the author and I read it clearly even Bitcoin.com is using BU in their mining activities. But I guess there is no wrong with it and the mining community should just be wary if an invalid block or a block that is considered illegal with pertains to consensus has been mined. The best thing for bitcoin.com to do is to specify in the contract with the miners that are mining under them that they are using BU. They must also specify the advantages and disadvantages this style of mining will give to the miners.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
February 01, 2017, 12:49:18 PM
 #39

Yes, but you're not talking about Bitcoin, you're talking about a Bitcoin fork. Bitcoin wasn't designed to let users provoke a fork with the GUI, that's how your Bitcoin fork BU was designed.

So much for Honey Badger, it seems bitcoin might have a serious flaw, if what you are saying is correct.
Much cheaper than a 51% attack. Just spin up a handful of non-conforming nodes and mine an invalid block. Boom! And Bitcoin is done for.

and yet this non event of just a reject occuring and thrown aside in 3 seconds. proves consensus works.

what would actually cause the bilateral split. is what core done next in this non-event. by over using the banscore tweaks to drop connections to NODES even when the nodes were not the cause.

leaving the connection open would have done no harm because core nodes already rejected the block.. and the block drama was over in 3 seconds.
but by dropping the connections aswell, they then no longer play by consensus rules and the two non-communicating nodes could end up following different data. because they no longer allow communication with each other to reject/accept the same data.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044



View Profile
February 01, 2017, 01:02:13 PM
 #40

How could that have happened? Huh
They changed the code that calculates the block size without understanding how it works, and pushed out the change without any review or testing. This is standard practice for Bitcoin Unlimited developers, and nobody is the least bit surprised that it blew up in their faces. It may be the first time Bitcoin Unlimited users have lost money as a direct result of the developers' incompetence, but it's unlikely to be the last.



leaving the connection open would have done no harm because core nodes already rejected the block..
It harms nodes with limited connection slots. Banning misbehaving nodes frees up slots for correctly behaving nodes. Any node that relays an invalid block is either defective or malicious, and there's no point in maintaining a connection to such nodes.

but by dropping the connections then no longer plays by consensus rules and the two non-communicating nodes could end up following different data. because they no longer allow communication with each other to reject/accept the same data.
They're already following different data, whether they're communicating or not. By definition, there can be no consensus when one node thinks a block is valid and another does not.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!