Bitcoin core developers attack BU?

[franky1]

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.

xt, classic, btcd, btcc, statoshi, core, knots, BU

the ones not crossed out want consensus and happily not put in deadlines. and nodes have not decided to split off in the 2+ years of their implementations being running on mainnet.

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)
and at worse split at a lower threshold UASF

so im guessing your 'if some* players' has the * referring to core and knots.

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

non core implementations want to use bitcoins consensus to keep to a single network.
its only core that is shouting opposite to point the blame in the other direction when they themselves pull the ban hammer trigger

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

Two words: PoW change.

so logically
blockstream proposals:
removing PoW
removing changing native keys to segwit keys
removing changing peer-to-peer to peer-to-LN
removing node consensus for pool only consensus
bypassing pool only consensus by having upstream filter FIBRE activated UASF

can you not see the big picture?

all thats then left is for them to stroke their sheep into agreeing to a nice licence..
(sarcasm) Hmmm.. i wonder have they hinted they are going to swap to a new licence(we know they have)
oh look so they have
Defensive Patent License

[1713585968]

1713585968

[1713585968]

1713585968

[1713585968]

1713585968

[1713585968]

1713585968

[Gimpeline]

[hv_]

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger... how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bitcoin cannot die that way.

[AngryDwarf]

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation)  0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

[hv_]

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation)  0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

Good case. Try to SW-sent this (in case SW gets enough hashpower) . Does this get cheaper ?

[BillyBobZorton]

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

Very possible.  

Now that BU is gaining serious momentum, Core is pulling out all the stops and resorting to dirty tricks.   They are terrified of losing control.

Looks like you BUcoiners are on some severe denial.

Facts:

1) This was released by BU developers, once it's in the wild it's BU developers problem if something goes south
2) Peter tweeted about this 1+ hour after release, so this is not a 0day
3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

BU is dead, and it's all due BU's dev incompetence.

[IadixDev]

 

[Xester]

this article seems to imply so

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/

This is another sad story in bitcoin history. We all keep saying that bitcoin is decentralized yet there are groups who are forming as one and trying to make bitcoin a centralized currency. This attack by the core developers is just one of the evidence that groups wanted that the miners will use their system to mine bitcoins. This is just a display how bad they wanted to have control over bitcoin production and get profit.

[-ck]

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

[Lauda]

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why.

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525926.msg17607303#msg17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like that, then all of that would vanish into thin air.

[BillyBobZorton]

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why.

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525926.msg17607303#msg17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like then, all that would vanish into thin air.

There are only 2 groups of people still defending BU:

-The ones that still think it is the best for bitcoin because they don't know any better
-The ones paid to keep promoting it in order to meet certain agendas

[jonald_fyookball]

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why.

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525926.msg17607303#msg17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like then, all that would vanish into thin air.

There are only 2 groups of people still defending BU:

-The ones that still think it is the best for bitcoin because they don't know any better
-The ones paid to keep promoting it in order to meet certain agendas

i'm in the former group.  I would appreciate it if you can direct me to the place where I can get paid.  thanks in advance. 

[dinofelis]

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation)  0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

And you also see why some other people like to keep it that way...

[vamosrafa]

If you read the "authors" other "articles" you will understand he/she does not know the first thing about writing, journalism, or Bitcoin.

this article seems to imply so

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/

[matt11235]

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

I don't think he really had any malicious intent. Sure, he doesn't approve of Unlimited but he seems like a good guy/not a terrorist.

[franky1]

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation)  0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

Good case. Try to SW-sent this (in case SW gets enough hashpower) . Does this get cheaper ?

nope.
because although lets say average fee today was 200sat/byte

with the grace period of activation. followed by the few weeks to wait for a SW wallet active release. and then people sync to it.
(atleast a month)
the fee might be 400sat/byte.

then spending all them outputs(native keys) cost 400sat/byte.. to put into a SW key.. to then and only then only cost 100sat/byte to respend that day...

whereby then your playing the fee war game again because not everyone is on SW keys(thus not getting a real 2mb block) and mempools are still bloated. and that 100sat/byte SWfee wars into 200 sat/byte SWfee and 800sat/byte nativefee

thus no end benefit, because the fee war will catch up with the possible discount.

forget ever going back to 1c/tx average. all your doing is TEMPORARILY back dating fee's by a couple months.

[Bitcoin_Mafia_Me]

Wow...what a horrible piece of yellow journalism. Even if it is an op-ed piece, any reporter worth his / her salt
would gather facts to support his / her position. This is fearmongering, plain and simple. So some guy named
cipher said he was going to exploit bugs. So what. There is no proof that he is or was ever tied to the Bitcoin
core group. In fact, CCN noted that in a correction to the article.

Do I believe that certain persons in the Bitcoin core could stoop to this level to try to knock BU off its pedestal?

Sure. Do I have proof? No, i do not.

Bet the article got a lot of eyes on it, though, and at the end of the day that seems to be the only goal for some
folks.

[AT-N-T101]

Wow...what a horrible piece of yellow journalism. Even if it is an op-ed piece, any reporter worth his / her salt
would gather facts to support his / her position. This is fearmongering, plain and simple. So some guy named
cipher said he was going to exploit bugs. So what. There is no proof that he is or was ever tied to the Bitcoin
core group. In fact, CCN noted that in a correction to the article.

Do I believe that certain persons in the Bitcoin core could stoop to this level to try to knock BU off its pedestal?

Sure. Do I have proof? No, i do not.

Bet the article got a lot of eyes on it, though, and at the end of the day that seems to be the only goal for some
folks.

This is apparently an exercise in journalism, or it is someone who needs an order of the article, so that the information of such a composition would come out to the masses.

[Abdussamad]

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.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

if it was public info, it wasn't fixed because...?