4th Major Crash Bug Exploit on BU

[-ck]

https://twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/856405606630133761



I'm more worried about other sorts of exploits in code of this quality...

I wonder if there will be a closed or open source update for this one?

[1714173937]

1714173937

[1714173937]

1714173937

[1714173937]

1714173937

[AngryDwarf]

Okay you win on the direct title thread, but I prefer my ironic one Popularity of XT/Classic nodes rise in proportion to BU nodes.

This attacks comes just over a month after the last, so I wonder if bugs responsibly disclosed have not been fixed and are now public knowledge?

Or perhaps everybody gets afraid when I decide to fire up my 2 GH/s USB miner against BU. 

[Weatherby]

I'm more worried about other sorts of exploits in code of this quality...
I wonder if there will be a closed or open source update for this one?

It is really funny to see that the BU bug once again bit Roger Ver when he tweeted that bitcoin unlimited is production ready,poor Roger Ver ,he is a laughing stock now a days and i do not know how he is going to over come this and it looks like his dream of getting a general consensus for Bitcoin Unlimited is far from over.

[Lauda]

This attacks comes just over a month after the last, so I wonder if bugs responsibly disclosed have not been fixed and are now public knowledge?

That is just the thing. Bitcoin software is being attacked every single day. Every type of hacker is looking for potential holes in the code (all ranging from white hackers to government paid 'master' level hackers). This is the primary reason for which Bitcoin software needs to be "top-notch" quality in terms of security. If BU developers spent less time trying to lobby miners in China, they could have avoided some of these.

It is really funny to see that the BU bug once again bit Roger Ver when he tweeted that bitcoin unlimited is production ready..

Roger Ver has zero credibility when it comes to technicalities. This reminds me of the time he said Mt. Gox was solvent, not long before everything went up in flames.

Comedy relief from social media:

In Soviet Russia, BU sticks fork in Bitcoin.

Then you have people showing signs of delusion:

[digaran]

Yeah we should definitely diversify so if one type of node is full of bugs and crashes all of a sudden the entire network doesn't go under.

Someone said that too many times. now picture bitcoin forked by BU and that happens literally people should trust millions and billions to such forks of Core?

Time when I believed BU was only a change of 2 lines of code which were only about increasing max block size after someone I considered viable said it to me has past.

Funny thing is that, they want you to privately tell them about any bug that you find so that they could go and fix it in their comfortable chairs in green and safe zone like the wolves out there in the world going to wake the watch dog up before they attack the herd lol.

[1Referee]

It only show the incompetence of the entire BU gang as they can't squeeze out bugs before releasing their garbage (but most of the people were already aware of that). Anyone supporting BU contributes to his own downfall. In that regard, I consider everyone pointing his gear towards a pool that votes/supports BU to be equally as worse.

[anonymoustroll420]

Not a bug, it's how emergent consensus works. All the nodes crash and the last node standing decides the consensus rules. Better known as consensus by DoS.

[ImHash]

Not a bug, it's how emergent consensus works. All the nodes crash and the last node standing decides the consensus rules. Better known as consensus by DoS.

And you are?
Last man standing?
I don't know why bother competing with Core/ original bitcoin?
Why not creating a version of their liking totally and point their hash power towards mining that?
I can guess, because they want the virgin, they want BTC if they were confident enough then starting an altcoin shouldn't be a problem.

Please let BTC be only one version since only one version's rules are being followed and blocks mined under the one version's protocol, just start BTCU already, how many times people should say this? there are only 6 up to 10 people which I suspect 4 of their accounts belong to 1 person here are defending BU.

You can't hijack the brand put it in to your skulls.

[Red-Apple]

can someone explain to me in a non-drama kind of way, why is this becoming a common thing with BU? specially since it is a fork of bitcoin! i mean they literary forked bitcoin/bitcoin on github, so what did they change to lead to bug after bug and crash after crash?

[Lauda]

Not a bug, it's how emergent consensus works. All the nodes crash and the last node standing decides the consensus rules. Better known as consensus by DoS.

And you are?
Last man standing?

He was being sarcastic.

can someone explain to me in a non-drama kind of way, why is this becoming a common thing with BU? specially since it is a fork of bitcoin! i mean they literary forked bitcoin/bitcoin on github, so what did they change to lead to bug after bug and crash after crash?

They have forked an old version of Bitcoin Core (0.12.x) and have written their own code for things such as Emergent Consensus, Xthin, et. al. However, their developers are extremely incompetent and there is basically no quality assurance process.

[AngryDwarf]

can someone explain to me in a non-drama kind of way, why is this becoming a common thing with BU? specially since it is a fork of bitcoin! i mean they literary forked bitcoin/bitcoin on github, so what did they change to lead to bug after bug and crash after crash?

They have forked an old version of Bitcoin Core (0.12.x) and have written their own code for things such as Emergent Consensus, Xthin, et. al. However, their developers are extremely incompetent and there is basically no quality assurance process.

Of course they have forked from bitcoin core 0.12.x, as they are against the segwit soft fork so don't want the pollution from that code. Unfortunately, it seems some of the alternative development teams are not keeping up with other fixes and improvements.

[anonymoustroll420]

can someone explain to me in a non-drama kind of way, why is this becoming a common thing with BU? specially since it is a fork of bitcoin! i mean they literary forked bitcoin/bitcoin on github, so what did they change to lead to bug after bug and crash after crash?

They have made 920KB of changes to the code and completely muddied the entire codebase. I debated listing the major problems they have introduced, but I really don't know where to start and don't have the strength to list them all. To sum it up, they clearly do not understand how the codebase works at all. They are willy-nilly making changes without understanding the full ramifications of those changes. Their code is very messy and hard to read. They have broken compatibility with Core so cannot accept patches from Core and are stuck on an old outdated version. They moved core functionality out of their own separate modules and hacked it in all over the place. They do not understand how Bitcoin uses asserts to detect situations where it is running in an impossible state and crashes to prevent exploitation, so instead they straight up removed this entire system putting them at huge risk. They do not have any test or QA procedures. Often developers commit code without any third party review. The developers have no experience developing anything like Bitcoin at all and have crazy ideas about how it works (recently a BU dev tried to convince me CAP theory applies to Bitcoin). Thats just some stuff I can remember off the top of my head.

[Lauda]

Of course they have forked from bitcoin core 0.12.x, as they are against the segwit soft fork so don't want the pollution from that code. Unfortunately, it seems some of the alternative development teams are not keeping up with other fixes and improvements.

Pollute what? Segwit has been running on testnet for months and even on some live networks (altcoins). Number of crashes caused by Segwit since it was 'production ready': 0. The BTU team has polluted the code with their own amateur coding.

[AngryDwarf]

Of course they have forked from bitcoin core 0.12.x, as they are against the segwit soft fork so don't want the pollution from that code. Unfortunately, it seems some of the alternative development teams are not keeping up with other fixes and improvements.

Pollute what? Segwit has been running on testnet for months and even on some live networks (altcoins). Number of crashes caused by Segwit since it was 'production ready': 0. The BTU team has polluted the code with their own amateur coding.

'Pollution' is obviously subjective as whether you agree with the segwit soft fork direction not. If it activates, alternative implementations would have to implement it to remain on the true p2p network.

[Lauda]

'Pollution' is obviously subjective as whether you agree with the segwit soft fork direction not. If it activates, alternative implementations would have to implement it to remain on the true p2p network.

If EC activates, alternative implementations would have to implement it to remain on the true p2p network. In other words, water is water only when I want it to be wet? What is your point?

[-ck]

Reading further into comments it's not even clear this is an exploit being attacked at all and could well be a spontaneous 'coordinated' bug due to network conditions causing a massive memory leak on the BU client. One person said he didn't have problems on his PC with 256GB ram 

[anonymoustroll420]

Reading further into comments it's not even clear this is an exploit being attacked at all and could well be a spontaneous 'coordinated' bug due to network conditions causing a massive memory leak on the BU client. One person said he didn't have problems on his PC with 256GB ram  

Yeah I was thinking that too. Reading between the lines of what the devs are saying it could be related to the large mempool. It may not be an exploit at all.

The person with 256GB RAM was a dev too. Takes the old saying "works on my machine" to a whole new level.

[AngryDwarf]

Reading further into comments it's not even clear this is an exploit being attacked at all and could well be a spontaneous 'coordinated' bug due to network conditions causing a massive memory leak on the BU client. One person said he didn't have problems on his PC with 256GB ram  

Quite possible. I did read an issue in their repository where mining nodes were increasing in memory usage overtime.

EDIT: Yep, looks like OOM killer did its job.

[dinofelis]

But is anybody really thinking that BU is anything else but an "I don't want Segwit" thing, in other words "I want to keep bitcoin exactly as it is, but I want to make you think that I want also a "solution" for crashing the lucrative fee market" ?

[anonymoustroll420]

But is anybody really thinking that BU is anything else but an "I don't want Segwit" thing, in other words "I want to keep bitcoin exactly as it is, but I want to make you think that I want also a "solution" for crashing the lucrative fee market" ?

For some people it's:

I want Bitcoin to split in two, so I can 'double' my coins!
I hate the censorship theymos is doing on his privately owned forums, therefore I am going to express my anger of this by supporting BU
I think the devs have full control over Bitcoin and I trust the miners more than I trust the devs, so I want miners to have the power to make economic policy.