Major crash no. 5 for BU nodes.

[-ck]

I count 5 major crashes by now, no?

I don't know what this one is yet, but no doubt it's more of their crappy code crashing, and of course they'll blame core somehow... 

[gadman2]

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

[Qartada]

<snip>

You have a point, so let's just say that what matters is significant drops in the nodes.  For BU there are drops of basically half whereas with Core they're fairly insignificant on the charts.

If you only count significant drops in nodes, BU nodes have had three crashes and Core have had zero (in a much longer time).

[-ck]

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

I don't see any major crashes there, as the thread title stipulates...

[AngryDwarf]

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

I don't see any major crashes there, as the thread title stipulates...

The blips in the core software could be caused by ISP disruption, or newly released software update downtime.

Besides, I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. BU is showing consistent behavour.

ck, did this really have to be a self moderated thread?

[Lauda]

Prepare for the shills to start defending BU again. Here we go again:

ck, did this really have to be a self moderated thread?

Yes, due to shills and signature spam.

[-ck]

ck, did this really have to be a self moderated thread?

Maybe not but I'm sick of seeing the same names with empty entries in threads because I have them on ignore. It'd be nice if someone else got a chance to post instead of this whole section being their personal troll flood wall.

It looks like r/btc is using the term "being attacked again" as their explanation although it's just another out of memory bug to do with their x-thin implementation 

[Paashaas]

Is this a joke?

This has to be stopped asap, i'm done with Jihan Wu and Roger Ver with there BUG Unlimited... freaking clowns.

BU is truely one of the most crappy software I've seen so far.

Segwitt now!

Edit; Those delicious BU tears at reddit/btc are priceless.  Harsh reality meets shattered dreams 

[-ck]

Edit; Those delicious BU tears at reddit/btc are priceless.  Harsh reality meets shattered dreams 

It's actually horrific watching them try so hard to convince themselves and each other that things are still okay (and worse, that this is still somehow core's fault). It's like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff - he's there for a ages suspended in mid air, doomed a long time ago, but nothing happens until he finally realises. I remember seeing a great Ted talk which was entitled something like "what does it feel like to be wrong" and the summary was that "it feels exactly the same as it feels like when you're right... until you realise you're wrong".

[Lauda]

This has to be stopped asap, i'm done with Jihan Wu and Roger Ver with there BUG Unlimited... freaking clowns.

BU is truely one of the most crappy software I've seen so far.

Segwitt now!

It is not possible to be objective and still support BU considering the horrible quality of their software. This leads to the conclusion that anyone who is still supporting BU is some sort of shill or delusional.

Edit; Those delicious BU tears at reddit/btc are priceless.  Harsh reality meets shattered dreams  

They whine about "attacks" every time not realizing that Bitcoin Core is probably much more actively attacked each time. The major difference here is that Bitcoin Core is high-quality software, while BU is high-school quality.

I remember seeing a great Ted talk which was entitled something like "what does it feel like to be wrong" and the summary was that "it feels exactly the same as it feels like when you're right... until you realise you're wrong".

This sounds interesting. I'll look up that video.

[franky1]

Seriously though imagine the consequences if BU became the main chain, the price alone would drop so hard due to major bugs every week. Bitcoin is too valuable to let such joker's have their way.

reality check
bitcoin holders see that a brand crashed but network survived, giving hop/proof that their funds/assets are safe in a diverse network.

reality check
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin(?maybe not), btcd, bitcoinj, and all the other implementations want a PEER NETWORK of diverse decentralisation on a single chain

reality check
"Seriously though imagine the consequences if blockstream became the only codebase, the price alone would drop so hard if there was a bug in the only codebase. Bitcoin is too valuable to let such joker's have their way."
FTFY
hope this opens your mind to why diversity=good vs blockstream control=bad... rather than the opposite


P.S i have made no insults but i predict my post would get deleted as it does not fit the propaganda of REKTing anything not blockstream endorsed.

[franky1]

The issue here is that we have BU who is actively trying to discredit core and take over as the mainchain and actively has bugs on their live "production ready" software. The what ifs with core are just that but currently BU has a terrible track record and has essentially vile people behind it like Jihan Wu who has talked about attacking competing chains and mines empty blocks during backlogged transactions.

1. if you stop reading reddit, you will see that no threats are actually made. the non-blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along, no deadlines no PoW nukes, no mandatory threats..

2. if you read all the REKT campaigns and comments gmaxwell writes you will see where the real threats are made
3. you keep thinking its a "take over" rather then keeping the network diverse while upgrading to new limits in a way that avoids blockstream domination
4. all the 'rekt xt 2014' rekt classic 2015 rekt BU 2016-17 are all dramatic distractions purely to try getting people to cower down and sumbit themselves over to relying on blockstream.
5. blockstream/core are not perfect. they even admit they prefer to hid their issues for atleast 30 days AFTER a fix is found

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

but we do not publicly announce bugs even after they have been fixed for some time.
..
announcing bugs with exploit guidelines 30 days after a fix is released would put a ton of our users at massive risk.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

if you think that prtending blockstream(core) is perfect and should be treated as the supreme being of bitcoin control. then you are not thinking about bitcoin the network. your only thinking about FIAT2.0

..
oh and lastly
https://blockchain.info/block-height/465117

Relayed By    BTCC Pool
Number Of Transactions    1
Output Total    12.5 BTC
Estimated Transaction Volume    0 BTC
Size    0.266 KB

[gmaxwell]

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

Wow, repeating proven fraudulent claims from the BU folks, good for you.


Those ticks are spider restarts, a data artifact.  There has never been an exploited node crasher for the Bitcoin project (and AFAIR there has only been one potential one, which we fixed before it was exploited-- The BIP37 integer divide by zero bug)

[franky1]

I count about 11.

Honestly though, I don't care either way. I just want to stir the pot also.

Wow, repeating proven fraudulent claims from the BU folks, good for you.


Those ticks are spider restarts, a data artifact.  There has never been an exploited node crasher for the Bitcoin project (and AFAIR there has only been one potential one, which we fixed before it was exploited-- The BIP37 integer divide by zero bug)

gmaxwell uses a bug found on TESTNET.. as a fake way to suggest that classic doesnt work..

UM. testnet is suppose to break. thats the point of it.. throw every attack vector at it..
by trying to presume that testnet should have rules is like saying a cat litter box should only contain diamonds and the cat is not allowed to defecate in it.


so gmaxwell.. never says he cant recall a bug that causes an error in core?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9997
... wait..is this gmaxwell himself having an error with his own client!!!!!!!

[Lauda]

reality check
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin(?maybe not), btcd, bitcoinj, and all the other implementations want a PEER NETWORK of diverse decentralisation on a single chain

Reality check:
You aren't in support of true network diversification, you are shilling crapware also known as BU.

1. if you stop reading reddit, you will see that no threats are actually made. the non-blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along, no deadlines no PoW nukes, no mandatory threats..

They are making threats every other day. It looks like you are a nobody, thus also uninformed.

2. if you read all the REKT campaigns and comments gmaxwell writes you will see where the real threats are made

Outright lie.

4. all the 'rekt xt 2014' rekt classic 2015 rekt BU 2016-17 are all dramatic distractions purely to try getting people to cower down and sumbit themselves over to relying on blockstream.

Blockstream has nothing to do with those threads.

5. blockstream/core are not perfect. they even admit they prefer to hid their issues for atleast 30 days AFTER a fix is found

At least their code does not crash all of their nodes every now of then. BU is trash. Period.

[Hakkane]

A new attack, obviously. Unlimited is derived from Core v12 code versions, so an attacker familiar with the fixes done in the Core code in recent versions just have to use those vulnerabilities, one at a time, until the Unlimited developers keep in track with Core v14 fixes and their game will be over: no attacker will attack Unlimited without damaging Core too.

Who attacks Unlimited? Someone interested on the success of a different implementation. Who is interested in that success of Core v14/Segwit? Blockstream and those shills with an economic stake on Lightning implementation. It is so obvious who is doing this, and yet some people think they'll convince the rest it is because of Unlimited developers...

Some people (Blockstream among others) would burn to ashes the Bitcoin network if they'll could just be the kings of those ashes For that reason, Unlimited supporters are not going to change our minds and we will keep running our nodes. Just disabling XThin as developers are recommending, until they release a patch. In two weeks we will have another attack and we will repeat the protocol. Not a big deal :-)

It looks like r/btc is using the term "being attacked again" as their explanation although it's just another out of memory bug to do with their x-thin implementation

Do you really want to make us believe that a synchronized leak of memory in the majority of the nodes is bug and not an intended attack? Oh, come on -ck, you are a reputable developer...

[Lauda]

A new attack, obviously. Unlimited is derived from Core v12 code versions, so an attacker familiar with the fixes done in the Core code in recent versions just have to use those vulnerabilities, one at a time, until the Unlimited developers keep in track with Core v14 fixes and their game will be over: no attacker will attack Unlimited without damaging Core too.

Do you have brain damage? The exploit, being the 5th so far, has nothing to do with Core code. The exploit is related to Xthin, which is an inferior and crappy version of Compact blocks. Xthin does not exist in Bitcoin Core: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6a49mz/bu_under_attack_temporarily_disable_xthin_as/

Who attacks Unlimited? Someone interested on the success of a different implementation.

A lot of individuals/groups attack Bitcoin Core each day. You have no point.

Who is interested in that success of Core v14/Segwit? Blockstream and those shills with an economic stake on Lightning implementation. It is so obvious who is doing this, and yet some people think they'll convince the rest it is because of Unlimited developers...

All the things that you've mentioned have nothing to do with each other.

Some people (Blockstream among others) would burn to ashes the Bitcoin network if they'll could just be the kings of those ashes For that reason, Unlimited supporters are not going to change our minds and we will keep running our nodes. Just disabling XThin as developers are recommending, until they release a patch. In two weeks we will have another attack and we will repeat the protocol. Not a big deal :-)

Anyone who supports Bitcoin Unlimited at this point is a shill or an outright idiot. Pick the one which better describes yourself.

[-ck]

It looks like r/btc is using the term "being attacked again" as their explanation although it's just another out of memory bug to do with their x-thin implementation

Do you really want to make us believe that a synchronized leak of memory in the majority of the nodes is bug and not an intended attack? Oh, come on -ck, you are a reputable developer...

Yes and when I have a bug that I introduced I call it what it is - my own bug. If I introduce an exploitable flaw in my code it is still my fault.

[franky1]

2. if you read all the REKT campaigns and comments gmaxwell writes you will see where the real threats are made

Outright lie.

4. all the 'rekt xt 2014' rekt classic 2015 rekt BU 2016-17 are all dramatic distractions purely to try getting people to cower down and sumbit themselves over to relying on blockstream.

Blockstream has nothing to do with those threads.

G.max - blockstream had nothing to do with the REKT campaign.. you really wanna push it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13070891#msg13070891

here is gmaxwell both mentioning the testnet bug like its a problem where testnet should not bug out and should flow like a real coin...(facepalm). oh and also being in the REKT campaign topic.

.. oh and the bip9 threat to maybe at 90% kill off 5% to get to 95% and then kill off the other 5% to get to prettmy much above 99%
yep read bip 9, yep it can be changed. even gmaxwell admits this.

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach.  basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)

^ this is where the UASF comes in (A leads to B leads to C)

speaking of UASF
i wonder who is heading up that campaign...
oh yea Samson mow, newest blockstream employee

lauda seriously you are making it too obvious that you are defending blockstream and not a diverse decentralised peer network..

[Hakkane]

Blah, blah, blah

Brain damage

Blah, blah, blah

Anyone who supports Bitcoin Unlimited at this point is a shill or an outright idiot. Pick the one which better describes yourself.

There comes your problem: you consider people idiots. Idiots that are going to be convinced that BU is a bad idea and embrace SegWit just because BU nodes are attacked. This community is stronger and smarter than you think. Is the number of BU nodes droping after the attacks? No, a few days after a patch is released the number is recovered. Is the number of Segwit signaling nodes increasing after each attack? Neither, it has been stagnant for months. What is the majority of people doing? Sticking with v12, because they know BU is constantly attacked, because they don't want SegWit, because they consider the poisonous pill of v14.1 a bad joke. People is smart. Segwit is not going to happen even if UASF is released by Core. They will have to hard fork Bitcoin in minority of nodes and miners if they want to see SegWit activated.

Yes and when I have a bug that I introduced I call it what it is - my own bug. If I introduce an exploitable flaw in my code it is still my fault.

When an innocent is shot by a gun in real life we blame the shooter, not the innocent because he was not wearing a kevlar jacket. Unless you have "alternative ethics", of course

Besides, I think you are wrong when you consider that a good code is the one that does not glitch when attaked. First, it can simply mean that the other implementation have the economic power to hire developers to actively find new exploits.

Secondly, a good code is not the bug-free one. A good code is the one that is useful for people. If some people adopt BU is because they think is more useful for the network, and if the majority rejects to update from v12 to v14 is because they think Segwit is the biggest threat Bitcoin is facing at the moment