Bitcoin core developers attack BU?

[Quickseller]

2 - The allegation is the blockstream core devs were behind the malicious attacks against the BU nodes this afternoon. There is also no question that Peter Todd (a blockstream core dev) did not responsibly disclose the bug that he was made aware of in the BU code.

This is not true. The bug was discovered and patched by BU devs first. Todd simply tweeted about it.

It still violates responsible disclosure principals and was very unethical.

[1714031987]

1714031987

[1714031987]

1714031987

[1714031987]

1714031987

[Holliday]

The amount of spin in this thread is astonishing. I don't know if some of you are actually that dishonest or simply ignorant. I hope it's the latter, but I have a feeling it isn't.

[ImHash]

ok guys

if there was a bug on core (imagining shoe on other foot)
those blockstream lovers would hope that core got informed first. to fix the bug and release an update, once X% of nodes were running the fix to negate any exploiters, then publicly releasing the exploit

EG
2013 levelDB bug.
not explain what went wrong until days after the fix was released and everyone updated.

..
but when the shoe is on the other foot.. core/blockstream do not believe in diversity of nodes and decentralisation to protect the network by offering the same moral stance of offer fix first, then release exploit publicly.

it proves core devs are NOT "independent"

seems to me that its obvious that "attack and rekt anything not blockstream, protect anything that is blockstream" (centralist mindset) is the game here

What are you talking about? this isn't a geek little community of coding nerds any more, moral has no place here this is serious human lives at stake  here, $20B potential hard cash at least a million lives depending on the day by day functional and operational network. you want us to rely on a version that could go under this easy? we shouldn't put our faith and money in something this much vulnerable, in case if you missed it bitcoin network is constantly under attack from every angle yet the dominant version(Core) stands firmly.
People want strong steel system not a 2 man team wishing to take the wheels and steer.
BU is like a 6 years old kid trying to ride 1000cc motorcycle, I once tried to ride a 250cc Suzuki when I was 8 and I pulled the front brake on sandy ground caused me to slip and crashed to the ground burning my stuck leg with hot cylinder.

My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.

[Foxpup]

Code:

void SendXThinBlock(CBlock &block, CNode* pfrom, const CInv &inv)
{
    if (inv.type == MSG_XTHINBLOCK)
    {
        ...
    }
    else if (inv.type == MSG_THINBLOCK)
    {
        ...
    }
    else
      {
	assert(0);  // inv type is not correct 
      }
    ...
}

I shouldn't even be surprised by BU's incompetence any more.

[franky1]

What are you talking about? this isn't a geek little community of coding nerds any more, moral has no place here this is serious human lives at stake  here, $20B potential hard cash at least a million lives depending on the day by day functional and operational network. you want us to rely on a version that could go under this easy? we shouldn't put our faith and money in something this much vulnerable, in case if you missed it bitcoin network is constantly under attack from every angle yet the dominant version(Core) stands firmly.
People want strong steel system not a 2 man team wishing to take the wheels and steer.


My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.

in short.
if YOU found a core bug..
exploit it and public release info for everyone to exploit it?
or
inform them quietly to fix first

My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.

in charge?
there should be no one in charge. the devs should be independent and helping each other..

but if bitcoin can only function without diversity and with only one codebase running. then bitcoin becomes no better than a bank with 6000 local town bank branches with 1 head office.


think about it
BU crashes.
bitcoin network still runs because it has alternatives such as classic, xt, core still communicating to import keys into and continue..

but (under your utopia of only core running the show) where core had a bug.. all nodes go down

diversity is GOOD not bad

[Holliday]

Franky1, you do understand that BU themselves were the first to publicly release this info, right?

[AngryDwarf]

Looking at order of events:

BU fix is committed into repository.
Details of exploit is posted on reddit.
Most BU nodes fallover.

This bug has existed for quite sometime so no one attacked it before it was pointed out.
It is possible that the mining nodes where made aware of this first and patched it.
The bug fix has to go in github before precompiled binaries can be released to the wider public.

Saying core developers attacked it is quite an accusation. They don't need to. There are plenty of others willing to do it.
Since BU is becoming more popular, it will be under increased scrutiny to ensure bugs are minimised before wider adoption (if that happens). This is a good thing.

There are plenty of assertions in core code. They are there to prevent unanticipated execution. If you can find a situation which cause a core node to fail to evaluate an assertion all core nodes would fallover, and probably all those nodes forked from core code. I would not recommend anyone do this.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

It looks like Peter Todd maliciously published information about a bug/exploit that had just been fixed in BU. 

It is not fair to assign intent without evidence.

It also appears that the attacks on the BU nodes started before his tweeting, which would indicate those attacking the nodes found out about the exploit the same way Peter Todd did - by looking at the git commit that fixed the issue.

Peter Todd can be very arrogant and his tweet seemed to carry an air of arrogance, but I do not think it is fair to assign malicious intent to his action.

[rico666]

Bringing supporters like AntPool down either physically by sabotage, or software exploits/CyberAttacks.
Why not? Seems the time to reason is over and the time of power play has arrived.

BU supporters were not open to reason, they maliciously attack Bitcoin in an attempt to centralize power, hell yeah they should be attacked.


Rico

[Slark]

Amazing how view of community on Core developers changes over years. From the bastion of decentralization they become censors and attackers.
But as far I am concerned there is no hard evidence that info about this exploit leaked by Core devs caused this situation to escalate.
All in all Bitcoin Unlimited is faulty piece of code, fix it first, we have new bug every month so far.

[Lauda]

AFAIK, and judging from the comments on r/btc, the attack began before Peter Todd posted on twitter about it. Stop with this bullshit propaganda.

I've been under the impression, and somewhat taken for granted, that Ciphera is Eric Lombrozo, a prominent Bitcoin Core developer and a spokesperson for the Bitcoin Core client.

Who paid for this article?
To make matters worse, the fake incident report that "allegedly affected Core": https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/buir-2017-2-23-statement-regarding-network-wide-bitcoin-client-failure-28a59ffffeaa#.7rqgmlmb4
https://archive.fo/Sx31y

[AngryDwarf]

AFAIK, and judging from the comments on r/btc, the attack began before Peter Todd posted on twitter about it. Stop with this bullshit propaganda.

There is a log of bullshit propaganda going on in both sides. It certainly seems that different bitcoin news websites have their own agenda, just like the newspapers and TV broadcasters. That's why I obtain my news from various sources just to keep my objective sanity.

[franky1]

Franky1, you do understand that BU themselves were the first to publicly release this info, right?

i was actually putting a critical/unbiased hat on and playing with the blockstreamers mindset that:
"BU couldnt fix their own problems and found out after things went public."
(their rhetoric)

and putting shoe on the other foot and switching it, to ask
if those events were involving blockstream(core) code where the community exploited first. rather than secretly inform first(peer review) what would they do

point being.
if core are "independent" then they should help each other out. not kiss ass of one team and only one team. as thats just centralist mindset
EG if core prefer to dominate and stick to a higher TIER, then they have no PEER.

bitcoin should be about PEER review not TIER review

xt, classic, btcd, btcc, statoshi, core, knots, BU etc should all be on the same level playing field in regards to a open community of PEER REVIEW
and not the cat and mouse game of
'im not gonna peer review their code'
then same person
'its not peer reviewed so cant be good'
meaning if your not going to review it. then dont complain about it not being reviewed

EG like a book critic not reading a book. then crying it must be bad because its not been critiqued

[Lernerz]

Bringing supporters like AntPool down either physically by sabotage, or software exploits/CyberAttacks.
Why not? Seems the time to reason is over and the time of power play has arrived.

BU supporters were not open to reason, they maliciously attack Bitcoin in an attempt to centralize power, hell yeah they should be attacked.


Rico

Yeah!

The banksters paid Roger Ver and the antpul hard fork for bitcoin network. They also pay network trolls....

This is a battle without rules! We must show that Bitcoin Core also have strength!

[AngryDwarf]

Bringing supporters like AntPool down either physically by sabotage, or software exploits/CyberAttacks.
Why not? Seems the time to reason is over and the time of power play has arrived.

BU supporters were not open to reason, they maliciously attack Bitcoin in an attempt to centralize power, hell yeah they should be attacked.


Rico

Yeah!

The banksters paid Roger Ver and the antpul hard fork for bitcoin network. They also pay network trolls....

This is a battle without rules! We must show that Bitcoin Core also have strength!

Careful what you wish for, unless you have a warehouse full of asics at the ready.

[fuckitall]

read that article out loud to yourself. it's pure hysteria. anyone who was on the fence before would get straight off it after reading that.

So True and this is what i felt

[Lauda]

There is a log of bullshit propaganda going on in both sides. It certainly seems that different bitcoin news websites have their own agenda, just like the newspapers and TV broadcasters. That's why I obtain my news from various sources just to keep my objective sanity.

You may say that I'm biased, but I am more inclined to say that there is much more bullshit coming from r/btc than the other side. Note: I have never, and will never participate in either one of those places.

xt, classic, btcd, btcc, statoshi, core, knots, BU etc should all be on the same level playing field in regards to a open community of PEER REVIEW

Who is playing the Utopian dream scenario now? You can't really have that if some* players attempt to diverge from the protocol without attaining prior consensus from the whole network.

Careful what you wish for, unless you have a warehouse full of asics at the ready.

Two words: PoW change.

[Ayers]

Franky1, you do understand that BU themselves were the first to publicly release this info, right?

so this is all fud again right? if they were aware of the bug exploit, why the article say that the team from core is reproaching it? i thinkt he core team is afraid that antpool can start a crusade that can raise the attention form other pool and want to kill BU now that has still a low percentage of consensus

[AngryDwarf]

Careful what you wish for, unless you have a warehouse full of asics at the ready.

Two words: PoW change.

What a wonderful consensus change. Along with Shaolin Fry's UASF and forced activation proposals, the 2 tier spoon fed network and the ability to whitelist/blacklist nodes, it looks like one side is fully prepared for a bilateral split to protect blockstreams investment.

[Lauda]

What a wonderful consensus change. Along with Shaolin Fry's UASF and forced activation proposals, the 2 tier spoon fed network and the ability to whitelist/blacklist nodes, it looks like one side is fully prepared for a bilateral split to protect blockstreams investment.

That has nothing to do with Blockstream. If the miners coerce to attack the network for whatever reason, they deserve to get fired. Simple as that.
Here's some comedy found on reddit: