4th Major Crash Bug Exploit on BU

[dinofelis]

I want Bitcoin to split in two, so I can 'double' my coins!

  That one is funny 

[1714842627]

1714842627

[1714842627]

1714842627

[1714842627]

1714842627

[1714842627]

1714842627

[AngryDwarf]

'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?

What does EC stand for? Exchange Circles?

[Clement Kaliyar]

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.

It is proven time and again that they are really not competent enough to handle all these lines of codes,but what i do not understand is that Roger Ver is known to spend money to keep people in his side so that BU has some followers and he is know to be a big whale,but why is he not able to spend those money to get competent developers and testers before boasting about it, after all these failed attemps who is going to believe him.

[-ck]

'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?

What does EC stand for? Exchange Circles?

Extra Crashy

[-ck]

what i do not understand is that Roger Ver is known to spend money to keep people in his side so that BU has some followers and he is know to be a big whale,but why is he not able to spend those money to get competent developers and testers before boasting about it, after all these failed attemps who is going to believe him.

Some people can't be bought? I joke that I'm bitcoin operated since I code for bitcoin, but I'd never code on BU just because he threw money at me (note I'm a mining/pool software developer, not core code.)

[franky1]

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture

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.

[franky1]

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture

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.

But if one type of node is full of bugs, why would you want to run it anyway?  

its about some people thinking core should be king. or thinking th debate is only about BU vs core and who gts to be king

there should be no king. just a diverse decentralised peer network
meaning
lots of "brands" all uniting with a consensus of rules they all follow

that way we dont have a issue with core should they have a bug (EG 2013 leveldb would not have been such a drama event) because there would be other brands keeping core the network alive while core sort out their implementation

that way we dont have a issue with BU should they have a bug (EG assert drama event) because there would be other brands keeping the network alive while BU sort out their implementation

trying to get everyone using just one implementation is where attacks externally can cause mega issues, and dictators internally can cause mega issues

[BillyBobZorton]

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" ?

Ehh obviously there's people genuinely pushing for BU, Roger Ver himself im convinced doesn't have any machiavelian intentions when it comes to wanting to leave bitcoin as it is. He genuinely things BU is better than Core which is insane, as we can see the code keeps crashing continuously because BU is a failure developed my amateurs. No one with a functional brain will trust BU over Core with their money.

[anonymoustroll420]

There are other node implementations, but BU is out of consensus.

[Lauda]

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture

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.

It is already diversified with actually safe-to-run code:

Among a few other thing such as Knots.

[franky1]

It is already diversified with actually safe-to-run code:

Among a few other thing such as Knots.

all nodes you highlighted are all blockstream managed..
yep knots=blockstream too
=not true diversity, just pretend diversity

your still not seeing the big picture

[-ck]

It is already diversified with actually safe-to-run code:

Among a few other thing such as Knots.

And despite so many core implementations out there, no instances of crashes taking down large numbers of any version of them. The stability record of core is exemplary.

[anonymoustroll420]

your still not seeing the big picture

I edited the source and changed the background color of the GUI to orange, so it matches my wallpaper, and added my name to the list of contributors. I now run my own "alternative implementation"

Hopefully this change that I made will prevent my client from getting affected by some bug in Core.

[franky1]

And despite so many core implementations out there, no instances of crashes taking down large numbers of any version of them. The stability record of core is exemplary.

thats the titanic, big bank "too big to fail" mindset... especially ignoring past fails to pretend it will never fail

2013 leveldb transition
now imagine if in 2013 there were implementations wrote in Go and other implementations that had other databases that would not have been hit by the berkely locks

the implementations running non-berkely db's would have been fine and that includes the one running Go too and only the small amount using the old Berkeley with the lock problem would have been held up

[cellard]

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture

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.

The network is already diversified:



No need to diversify on shitty software that steals 99% of code, adds 1% and this 1% is always the code that makes the nodes be prone to all kinds of exploits.

Different versions of reliable Core software to guarantee in the rare case the latest version has a bug the entire network doesn't go down is already in place as you can see. Im sorry that people only trust Core with their money, must be a hard pill to swallow for antiCore shills.

[Lauda]

And despite so many core implementations out there, no instances of crashes taking down large numbers of any version of them. The stability record of core is exemplary.

My thoughts exactly. The network is pretty diversified when it comes to versioning.

While franky1 continues to shill for the disaster that is BU, we are back to this again:

[Paashaas]

Well, i'm not even suprised seeing this bug ore whatever happend to BU. This whole BU project is one major joke, BU software is bugged, nodes are bugged... screw this shit man freaking amateurs.

Why cant Jihan and Roger just admid BU is dead? The only thing they got left is hashing power, both will continue talking FUD on Twitter and pushing for a HF  

[ImHash]

What kinds of rules or protocols can be changed and at the same time other versions accept them?
Let me simplify my question here, imagine all Core nodes crash, now what can BU nodes do that Core nodes couldn't? they can not change anything that Core nodes wouldn't accept and if BU nodes try to change anything then miners would not accept and if they do then they would be forking away from the Core code/ version.

By all means let BU nodes stay active so everyone could see which version is superior and is more stable.

If Core nodes crash then BU nodes which are standing still have to follow the Core rules or else they will be forking away from the network which were ruled by Core code.
When hospitals have no grid power their reserve generators kicks in and provides them with electricity but if Core nodes fail then BU nodes will have to provide the same electricity Core was providing the network and they can't instead start providing WIFI signals I hope you get what I mean.

[spartacusrex]

While franky1 continues to shill for the disaster that is BU, we are back to this again:

lol.. that's ... a good one.. having to turn btctalk.. off - as I can't stop laughing and I'm sitting at my desk at work..

[Paashaas]

While franky1 continues to shill for the disaster that is BU, we are back to this again:

This pic is telling uss exactly what BU supporters think about this situation. Like always, they love to blame and trash everything and everyone exept there 'mighty' bug unlimited

Edit: they even blame the media and social media for this attack..LOL