BU is closed source??? WTF?

[South Park]

https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/844495349528055810

Call me ignorant, but I always thought BU - as shitty as it may be - did at least release the source.
They didn't? So this hostile chink BTC takeover experiment is even more blatant than I thought it to be?

Ok - I try to be as benevolent as possible. So I assume the chinese government has grabbed dem yellow miners by the balls and demands this course of action and they have no choice but to obey. My condolences for having a mining operation in China.



Rico

You believe that the Chinese government cares about mining?Pretty solid conspiracy theory.
Who cares about BU being open source or closed source.BU is dying after all and this is good for all bitcoin users.

A project being open source or closed source is important, just look at windows there are strong suspicions there are backdoors in their software that can be accessed by governments, so no one in their right mind should trust uncle Bill with their data.

[1715352275]

1715352275

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

[jonald_fyookball]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

[Gimpeline]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

[jonald_fyookball]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

Did I say "its cores fault"?  No, I did not.

Do you have poor reading comprehension?

[Gimpeline]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

Did I say "its cores fault"?  No, I did not.

Do you have poor reading comprehension?

No. Do you have poor memory?
..but sensationalized by core supporters. Implying that it's cores fault

[jonald_fyookball]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

Did I say "its cores fault"?  No, I did not.

Do you have poor reading comprehension?

No. Do you have poor memory?
..but sensationalized by core supporters. Implying that it's cores fault

Sensationalism means that people are trying to make a bigger deal out of something than it actually is.
Like having a thread saying "BU is closed source??? WTF?" when the project is not closed source,
only 1 patch very temporarily for a high priority bug.

...or like what you're trying to do right now.

[marada]

I think these 12 hours is a real problem for following reasons:
1) The fix concerned security and as such it had to be adopted immediately. Someone citing "emergency" character should understand this is rather aggravating circumstance, not an excuse.
2) They must have had the sources before released binaries. What was the reason/purpose for not disclosing them for 12 hours? It had to be done intentionally. Are there better and worse players, some who award the security and the rest that do not?
3) Do you think an exchange or any other serious company can work straight with binaries, especially unsigned? Aren't their operators supposed to audit the sources?
4) How much can a crypto change it's value within 12 hours? Can you imagine such a rapid change while all your assets are frozen and you can't do nothing because all major exchanges disabled your wallets? Isn't it like someone deleted your Bitcoin by erasing it's value while locking it "temporary"?

I have not yet got involved in BTC vs. BTU discussion till now and my opinion is not partial for that.
Did BTU team give any explanation for that what has happened? Did they encounter HDD failure?
Do they find such a practice normal and are going to exercise it in the future?

[taxmanmt5]

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

Yes, Closed source is not good as it will make someone Dev of the source owner of the BU in the indirect way and it is of course wont be accepted. I have heard that BU has failed and  i hope it is the correct news.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I think these 12 hours is a real problem for following reasons:
1) The fix concerned security and as such it had to be adopted immediately. Someone citing "emergency" character should understand this is rather aggravating circumstance, not an excuse.
2) They must have had the sources before released binaries. What was the reason/purpose for not disclosing them for 12 hours? It had to be done intentionally. Are there better and worse players, some who award the security and the rest that do not?
3) Do you think an exchange or any other serious company can work straight with binaries, especially unsigned? Aren't their operators supposed to audit the sources?
4) How much can a crypto change it's value within 12 hours? Can you imagine such a rapid change while all your assets are frozen and you can't do nothing because all major exchanges disabled your wallets? Isn't it like someone deleted your Bitcoin by erasing it's value while locking it "temporary"?

I have not yet got involved in BTC vs. BTU discussion till now and my opinion is not partial for that.
Did BTU team give any explanation for that what has happened? Did they encounter HDD failure?
Do they find such a practice normal and are going to exercise it in the future?

I agree they should not have released a binary based upon code not in the public git repository. That was a mistake.

The git commit/push should have taken place before they released the binary.

It was a mistake and it was corrected. For people like me who only build from git, that means we had to wait, though honestly - the git repo had been updated by the time I found out about it and I suspect that is the case for many people.

[kolloh]

I think these 12 hours is a real problem for following reasons:
1) The fix concerned security and as such it had to be adopted immediately. Someone citing "emergency" character should understand this is rather aggravating circumstance, not an excuse.
2) They must have had the sources before released binaries. What was the reason/purpose for not disclosing them for 12 hours? It had to be done intentionally. Are there better and worse players, some who award the security and the rest that do not?
3) Do you think an exchange or any other serious company can work straight with binaries, especially unsigned? Aren't their operators supposed to audit the sources?
4) How much can a crypto change it's value within 12 hours? Can you imagine such a rapid change while all your assets are frozen and you can't do nothing because all major exchanges disabled your wallets? Isn't it like someone deleted your Bitcoin by erasing it's value while locking it "temporary"?

I have not yet got involved in BTC vs. BTU discussion till now and my opinion is not partial for that.
Did BTU team give any explanation for that what has happened? Did they encounter HDD failure?
Do they find such a practice normal and are going to exercise it in the future?

I agree they should not have released a binary based upon code not in the public git repository. That was a mistake.

The git commit/push should have taken place before they released the binary.

It was a mistake and it was corrected. For people like me who only build from git, that means we had to wait, though honestly - the git repo had been updated by the time I found out about it and I suspect that is the case for many people.

Yeah, releasing a closed source patch doesn't really make much sense as it can't be properly audited by the community. Definitely an interesting choice in the way it was deployed.