4th Major Crash Bug Exploit on BU

[Iranus]

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.

Spot on.  Even if the devs are corrupt, they're not naturally/inherently that way.  Miners have a profit motive, so voting from miners is solely based around who has the most money to throw around for Bitcoin.

Core has been consistent enough not to cause a giant crash in the number of nodes being ran.  Anyone committed enough to run a full node will have an understanding that alternative implementations exist, and yet most of them don't choose BU or other nodes, simply because Core comparatively know what they're doing. 

BU's status as a kind of miner uprising is terrible.  It's basically just miners hoping to increase the transaction capacity directly for profit who are terrified of offchain transactions to make microtransactions convenient or other solutions to actual problems in the protocol.

[1713988847]

1713988847

[1713988847]

1713988847

[1713988847]

1713988847

[1713988847]

1713988847

[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.

The network is already diversified:

if core was humans.. it would be called several generations of imbreds

lol i think you need to learn diversity. you know totally different groups/families with different genetic makeup (code/language) all co-existing

and as for lauda

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

your the one that mentions BU in nearly every topic. you keep failing to pigeon hole me into one brand. because i am not someone that wants just one brand..
while i try to talk about diverse decentralised bitcoin peer network that way it minimises risks

EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
... oh wait that happened..
and that was not just a 5 minute bit of comedy/drama..

now imagine if there was btcd (written in go) and other implementations that didnt have the berkeley db...
we would not have had much of an issue in 2013 as what actually happened.

please dont have the blockstream defender hat on and scream KNOTS because that too is blockstream.. im talking real diversity..

even to the point of where the devs allowed users to set their own settings at runtime to not be spoon fed from the same group of devs.
= real independence and diversity.

seriously, take just a 10 minute break from the keyboard and remove your blockstream adoration cap.. and think critically about bitcoin 120 years
not blockstreams next 3 years.

devs come and go. and kissing one butt cheek will leave u lonely when they retire, get bored, or move onto something else.
think beyond blockstream and think about bitcoin

[HaXX0R1337]

your the one that mentions BU in nearly every topic. while i try to talk about diverse decentralised bitcoin peer network
you keep failing to pigeon hole me into one brand. because i am not someone that wants just one brand..
i would prefer a diverse decentralised peer network. that way it minimises risks
EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
 seriously, take just a 10 minute break from the keyboard and remove your blockstream adoration cap.. and think critically about bitcoin 120 years
not blockstreams next 3 years.

I even like the thinking of having a diverse decentralized peer network but some people are really trying to monopolies things and that is when the problem arises,look at the course of actions done by BU,they created a paper monster but the monster keeps on failing on the real test,let us critically think about the future of bitcoin,would you stand by people who are driven by monetary gains or those who knows about maintaining a certain protocol.

[cellard]

It's so fake how everytime BU crashes, all the nodes go up again pretty much at the same time. Someone is obviously running a ton of BU nodes and he turns it on all at the same time.

Also no, we don't need a lot of different clients to "diversify the network", the different versions running at the same time are enough. Satoshi was against anything that wasn't the Satoshi client for a reason.

[FiendCoin]

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:

if core was humans.. it would be called several generations of imbreds

lol i think you need to learn diversity. you know totally different groups/families with different genetic makeup (code/language) all co-existing

and as for lauda

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

your the one that mentions BU in nearly every topic. you keep failing to pigeon hole me into one brand. because i am not someone that wants just one brand..
while i try to talk about diverse decentralised bitcoin peer network that way it minimises risks

EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
... oh wait that happened..
and that was not just a 5 minute bit of comedy/drama..

now imagine if there was btcd (written in go) and other implementations that didnt have the berkeley db...
we would not have had much of an issue in 2013 as what actually happened.

please dont have the blockstream defender hat on and scream KNOTS because that too is blockstream.. im talking real diversity..

even to the point of where the devs allowed users to set their own settings at runtime to not be spoon fed from the same group of devs.
= real independence and diversity.

seriously, take just a 10 minute break from the keyboard and remove your blockstream adoration cap.. and think critically about bitcoin 120 years
not blockstreams next 3 years.

devs come and go. and kissing one butt cheek will leave u lonely when they retire, get bored, or move onto something else.
think beyond blockstream and think about bitcoin

franky1 is a known anti-Core, anti-Blockstream, pro-big blocks shill.

[franky1]

Also no, we don't need a lot of different clients to "diversify the network", the different versions running at the same time are enough. Satoshi was against anything that wasn't the Satoshi client for a reason.

EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
oh wait that happened in 2013

imagine if..
all the network had was
core v0.13.x core v.014.x core v.15.x next year and there was a bug in all 3

think about it

[classicsucks]

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?

Someone is feeding hackers all of the bugs that were fixed in Bitcoin Core since version 0.11.2 (or whatever version Unlimited forked from). I'm guessing they slam the BU nodes with a "new" exploit monthly, to keep pace with the news cycle and have "BU HAXXED OMFG" in the headlines once per month.

Not that big of a deal. BU is not the greatest code because it doesn't have enough devs. Core is a good team doing bad work for some financial saboteurs... Choose your posion.

[Lauda]

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

Everything is Core && Core supporters fault, even the amateur coding of the BU team.

imagine if..
all the network had was
core v0.13.x core v.014.x core v.15.x next year and there was a bug in all 3

think about it

That is not going to happen unless you force the network into a hard fork. You are actually shilling for a hard fork, therefore you are being hypocritical again.

[bitsolutions]

Someone is feeding hackers all of the bugs that were fixed in Bitcoin Core since version 0.11.2 (or whatever version Unlimited forked from). I'm guessing they slam the BU nodes with a "new" exploit monthly, to keep pace with the news cycle and have "BU HAXXED OMFG" in the headlines once per month.

Not that big of a deal. BU is not the greatest code because it doesn't have enough devs. Core is a good team doing bad work for some financial saboteurs... Choose your posion.

This doesn't look to be the case, it would appear all the crashes so far have been due to a single very buggy feature(thin/xthin blocks) that was written by BU devs, it was never present in Core.

[-ck]

It's so fake how everytime BU crashes, all the nodes go up again pretty much at the same time. Someone is obviously running a ton of BU nodes and he turns it on all at the same time.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming all kinds of malice going on just because they're doing something wrong in the first place. A lot of bitcoin nodes are almost certainly being run as services on linux machines which are designed to restart in the event of a crash. This last crash was an out of memory error so restarting the node probably will be all that's needed until the memory gets out of control again. I'm pretty sure that none of them even are using a bugfix yet for this latest issue. They just have their nodes set to restart in the event of a crash... or actually what it looks like to me is they're set to crash in the event of a restart 

[freedomno1]

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.

Wow 256GB Ram much wow so impressed it runs.
Geez use it on a clunker that is how you test if stuff really works.

[Yakamoto]

Someone is feeding hackers all of the bugs that were fixed in Bitcoin Core since version 0.11.2 (or whatever version Unlimited forked from). I'm guessing they slam the BU nodes with a "new" exploit monthly, to keep pace with the news cycle and have "BU HAXXED OMFG" in the headlines once per month.

Not that big of a deal. BU is not the greatest code because it doesn't have enough devs. Core is a good team doing bad work for some financial saboteurs... Choose your posion.

This doesn't look to be the case, it would appear all the crashes so far have been due to a single very buggy feature(thin/xthin blocks) that was written by BU devs, it was never present in Core.

This is what I was assuming to be the case, it was confusing me constantly when people would try to argue that the crashes aren't due to something going on with the network or coding itself and rather some other reason, often more external.

I won't say that the Core devs are good guys. I won't say that the BU can't code, but I don't think that all these crashes are coming from something outside the network. I might be wrong, but I'll assume I have a decent idea of the issue for now.

[DoomDumas]

not so long ago.. I saw a tweet from Roger Ver..  something about Core dev being coder and not economist/merchants..

wich one would you trust between very good coders or very good economists/merchants ?

I'm all in with Core coders (very very good)..

Just take a serious look at where "economic leader" bringed us to in history, specially recent history (10 years)..  HODL to your BTC and buy some more

[Paashaas]

not so long ago.. I saw a tweet from Roger Ver..  something about Core dev being coder and not economist/merchants..

wich one would you trust between very good coders or very good economists/merchants ?

I'm all in with Core coders (very very good)..

Just take a serious look at where "economic leader" bringed us to in history, specially recent history (10 years)..  HODL to your BTC and buy some more

I go for good coders, without them you cant run a succesfull business.

Oh, and Roger is talking Bullshit with his BU buds...

[leopard2]

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..

You are so mean, now my belly hurts from laughing 

[leopard2]

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.

Wow 256GB Ram much wow so impressed it runs.
Geez use it on a clunker that is how you test if stuff really works.

No, oh no, this is getting more mental every day. Segwit is supposed to have messy code, say the BU supporters, and they may be right...but look who's talking 

256GB RAM, and maybe 10TB hard disks every year, but they probably think: BITMAIN can easily afford it, and they will be the only ones left mining anyways with Asicboost+BU

And mind you, Roger already said, passive nodes are useless, so ONE BIG NODE in CHINA with 256000 GB RAM and 10000000 TB harddrives, Bitcoin is safe until 2140.

*hitting head at desk*

[Wind_FURY]

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.

That shows that they do not respect the users. They cannot not admit that they made a mistake or they made an inferior implementation and a buggy version of Bitcoin. They are now a joke, I cannot find a reason why some of the Legendary members here still defend them.

[Kakmakr]

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.

That shows that they do not respect the users. They cannot not admit that they made a mistake or they made an inferior implementation and a buggy version of Bitcoin. They are now a joke, I cannot find a reason why some of the Legendary members here still defend them.

Could it be that they are paid to do it? Who will ever know? You have to hate someone or something with a lot of passion to support something that fails 4 times in a time span of a few months. Some of these people might be invested in some Alt coin or even a developer on their team, so they will naturally want Bitcoin to fail.

Some of these people are employed by financial institutions in the Fiat financial system that are being disrupted by Bitcoin. There are a lot of hidden agendas behind this BU support you are seeing. ^hmmmmm^

[Amph]

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.

would not surprise me if chinese farm are pushing for this alone, just to have more coins to dump, they are known to be greedy and care only about their profit in fiat

because it's beyond me how they can still support bu after all this bug and exploit that are discovered each week..

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.)

so he tried to corrupt you too? all this under the table drama, make me think there is more than meets the eye here

[Wind_FURY]

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.

That shows that they do not respect the users. They cannot not admit that they made a mistake or they made an inferior implementation and a buggy version of Bitcoin. They are now a joke, I cannot find a reason why some of the Legendary members here still defend them.

Could it be that they are paid to do it? Who will ever know? You have to hate someone or something with a lot of passion to support something that fails 4 times in a time span of a few months. Some of these people might be invested in some Alt coin or even a developer on their team, so they will naturally want Bitcoin to fail.

No, they honorable people from what I have noticed and they are only against Core because they are for the reformation of how things are done today. There is no harm in that. The real harm though is when we hard fork and find out that it will cause bigger problems.

Some of these people are employed by financial institutions in the Fiat financial system that are being disrupted by Bitcoin. There are a lot of hidden agendas behind this BU support you are seeing. ^hmmmmm^

Really? I believe you are reaching.