BUg Unlimited - newb here

[felipehermanns]

What is that? Another attack? can someone explain. I am newb. LOL but i m not comunist....

 

[NattyLiteCoin]

Some would consider it attack, others believe it's the future of Bitcoin. It's a hardfork proposal that would allow for dynamic block sizing effectively removing the bottleneck of unconfirmed transactions. Do a search on the forum, go to Bitcoin.com, etc. it's pretty much a crossroads for the Bitcoin ecosystem and why you see altcoins performing well as this dumpster fire ignites itself. There will be blood.

[pereira4]

What is that? Another attack? can someone explain. I am newb. LOL but i m not comunist....

 

Yep, BUgcoin strikes back:

Code:

BU node version 1.0.1.1 on linux 64bit error: ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: OpenBlockFile failed for CBlockDiskPos(nFile=-1, nPos=0)

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/issues/386

Totally SAFE to store your money there!

Can't wait to dump this trash if Jihan actually splits the blockchain.

[msti]

What is that? Another attack? can someone explain. I am newb. LOL but i m not comunist....

 

The Bitcoin Core developers have failed to deal with the scaling issues. Segwit, which is the proposal of the Bitcoin Core team to solve the issues was not very popular. 
Bitcoin Unlimited propose the very big block sizes and they say that this will solve the scaling issues. But at the same time, Bitcoin will become even more centralized, because as far as I understand it will be more difficult to mine.

At this time, there is no consensus in the community so a hard fork will probably bring chaos.

[franky1]

i hope the subtle hint is not too subtle here...(i did write the hint in more codified manner but then chose to make it more layman understandable)

Code:

core developers: "ill pretend to be independent"
core developers: "i'm not going to help the community, only core"
core developers: "ill pretend to be independant"
core developers: "i'm not going to help the community, i refuse to help BU"
core developers: "BU is not getting support by independent developers."
core developers: "lets abuse BU and say they are centralist because WE refuse to help them as independent devs"

^ logic problem exposed (error code: core is not independent, please contact core vendors @blockstream for solution)

[zyzzbrah]

Code:

franky1: "ill pretend the newest BUcoin bug is core's fault"

^ logic problem exposed (error code: BUcoin is dogshit)

[franky1]

Code:

franky1: "ill pretend the newest BUcoin bug is core's fault"

^ logic problem exposed (error code: BUcoin is dogshit)

BU was actually just a fork of core 0.12 (all core 0.12 bugs included)
bu just tweaked a few lines of code to allow dynamics and left it out there for the community of independent devs

it wasnt until fixes were done that people spotted some nodes hadnt upgraded post-fix. so exploited such.

funny part is assert(0) was actually a exploit that was able to harm core 0.12 too

also funny part is that BU devs didnt create it, and people didnt exploit it ntil it was patched.. which then made exploiters realsie that some users were not yet patched against it..

P.S
having BU screw up is actually a good promotion of why diverse brands SHOULD exist on bitcoins main net.

imagine however if EVERYONE was just running core and only core.
then imagine there was a issue with the db locks of the blockchain data..

oh wait.. no need to imagine it.. 2013's leveldb update which  didnt factor in something when moving forward .. causing several hour stall and orphan event.
...

but now imagine if bitcoin remained diverse with many different implementations . if one codebase goes down.. only a few nodes go offline and everything else continues as normal.

so all you crybabies that want core centralisation .. imagine future events like the 2013 leveldb event
anyone who wants diversity. imagine this months 'oh well a few nodes went offline' no big deal

diversity is good. not bad.
keep bitcoin diverse and decentralised and independent. dont advocate for centralised power house

[xyzzy099]

funny part is assert(0) was actually a exploit that was able to harm core 0.12 too

There are still 0.12 nodes running...  Let's see you exploit that bug on one of them :p

[ASHLIUSZ]

Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't have any activation schedule or any agenda similar to forking. Some believe it to be a successive code implementation over forking. In reality things quoted by Franky1 seems to be right, because it's moving forward with bugs getting initiated by independent developers as it pretends to be under independent control.

[Paashaas]

Updated chart from the buggy BU;

[Holliday]

Updated chart from the buggy BU;

No need to worry, they've patched it... :/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60rwye/bu_is_now_running_closed_source_patches/

[Sadlife]

Lol is this another attack?
Is the community sure to trust bitcoin crypto currency in there hands?
I wonder what would happen to bitcoin if a hardfork would happen. Meanwhile Segwit is being ignored how sad.

[anonymoustroll420]

funny part is assert(0) was actually a exploit that was able to harm core 0.12 too

No it wasn't.

Assert is only used in Core when an unexpected state is reached, as a way to prevent subtle bugs from being exploitable. Maybe instead of using assert they could write a function like crash_node(msg), but if your code has reached an unexpected state it's better to crash right away.

The problem with the first BU critical bug is that they were trusting user input. Never trust user input.

The problem with the second BU critical bug is they were crashing when there was a block fetch failure but they forgot to check the cause of the failure.

By the way you used the word "was". This is not the same critical bug as last week, that was patched. This is a new critical bug found today.

Lets leave politics out of this. The BU codebase is a complete mess, I don't know how they managed to fuck it up so bad. Actually I do know how, they simply don't know how the code works. They've moved around code and created their own new functions because they can't figure out how the original ones works. They're incompetent. Get a new dev team, have proper QA and unit testing procedures in place. Even if I agreed with their ideas, I would never install BU on my machine, it's too much of a risk.

Edit: Now they want people to run a closed source binary to fix this issue, and trust them that this binary doesn't have anything malicious in it. I want to kill myself.

Double edit: apparently the closed source binary has already been reverse engineered and the changes now publicly known, demonstrating the pointlessness and stupidity of releasing it closed source.

https://0bin.net/paste/3OazwrnDdmMz8X33#w5XLswFoBu7KstF8YKlAYulTrsUPmNwnj3HU2UV1xFZ

[zyzzbrah]

Code:

franky1: "ill pretend the newest BUcoin bug is core's fault"

^ logic problem exposed (error code: BUcoin is dogshit)

BU was actually just a fork of core 0.12 (all core 0.12 bugs included)
bu just tweaked a few lines of code to allow dynamics and left it out there for the community of independent devs

it wasnt until fixes were done that people spotted some nodes hadnt upgraded post-fix. so exploited such.

funny part is assert(0) was actually a exploit that was able to harm core 0.12 too

also funny part is that BU devs didnt create it, and people didnt exploit it ntil it was patched.. which then made exploiters realsie that some users were not yet patched against it..

P.S
having BU screw up is actually a good promotion of why diverse brands SHOULD exist on bitcoins main net.

imagine however if EVERYONE was just running core and only core.
then imagine there was a issue with the db locks of the blockchain data..

oh wait.. no need to imagine it.. 2013's leveldb update which  didnt factor in something when moving forward .. causing several hour stall and orphan event.
...

but now imagine if bitcoin remained diverse with many different implementations . if one codebase goes down.. only a few nodes go offline and everything else continues as normal.

so all you crybabies that want core centralisation .. imagine future events like the 2013 leveldb event
anyone who wants diversity. imagine this months 'oh well a few nodes went offline' no big deal

diversity is good. not bad.
keep bitcoin diverse and decentralised and independent. dont advocate for centralised power house

this is nonsense

there is enough diversity in core node versions, so if core screws up with an update, we fall back on the big amount of sub-latest core update nodes

bu adds no value