BIP-110 / Knots Designed To Fork Off From The Beginning (and fail)

[PepeLapiu]

Aside, the preferential peering thing probably causes luke-jr's node counter to massively overestimate the number of knots nodes.

This is absurd. Luke doesn't use preferencial peering for node counts.

You keep clutching at your pearls, always pretending the Knots nodes are faked and over-estimated. Good job. I welcome your complaisance and arrogance.

[gmaxwell]

Knots uses preferential peering, the code was posted here-- you even (eventually) admitted to it.  The node counting mechanism he's used could easily be distorted by it-- and would *obviously* be distorted by it without special handling.  Is there any? who knows. The methodology is a secret.  However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

[PepeLapiu]

Yeah, you're right. All Knots nodes are basically fake and all those who complain about core removing a filter and gaslighting use about, they are just bots.

Only a minority of idiots who think bitcoin should be money are making noise about it.

Go back to sleep, don't worry about it.

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

You are the one clutching your pearls over the idea that Knots does preferential peering as some sort of secret conspiracy to abandon Bitcoin and surrender Bitcoin to spammers. [/tin_foil_hat]

So if Knots does preferencial peering, and we do, you would see a lot fewer Knots nodes connecting to you.

That should be no problem for you as you think any Knots peer would somehow prevent all other peers you are connected with to relay malware to you.

Point being, you would see far fewer Knots nodes if we were doing preferencial peering, and we are, so....

And the black list spamware I posted, they compile their black list from bitnodes.io. I imagine they think bitnode.io to be fairly accurate if they use it.

And before it went down, bitnodes.io was showing 22% Knots nodes and 9% BIP110 nodes. Luke claims 25% and 10%. So if he's pumping his numbers, he's not doing a good job of it.

[NotATether]

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

This is not 2017 anymore. Exchanges are going to be wary before listing new Bitcoin forks. Bcash forked and then crashed hard, and exchanges learned the hard way about forks.

[ABCbits]

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

From few website i checked, the number have some difference.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html currently says 19045 (20.65%) nodes (that probably reach his seed server) use Knots.
https://bitref.com/nodes/ currently says 3075 (16.7%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://coin.dance/nodes currently says 5390 (22.65%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://www.dsn.kastel.kit.edu/bitcoin/#useragents, the raw data shows at 1777341751 says there are 301 (5.07%) nodes connected to their own node use Knots.
https://bitdis.org/ currently says 6061 (22.06) nodes (probably only listening ones) use Knots.

Is there anything i missed?

[PepeLapiu]

Is there anything i missed?

Keep in mind that node count is a wildly innacure thing. It's often more of a guessing and extrapolating game than anything else. It's not like we have a list of government registered nodes. Even Luke Dashjr tells me his numbers are as accurate as he can make them, but still not very accurate.
And furthermore, many of them go on and off all the time.

But here are more sites that put out node counts:

https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/
20.51% Knots/BIP110 nodes

https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=knots
23% Knots/BIP110 nodes the last time I checked before it went down

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html
10.20% BIP110 nodes, no figures for Knots nodes.

Also, keep in mind that Ocean pool grew from 2% pool dominance last year before the spam war kicked off to double that at 4% now. Some miners, especially pleb miners are switching from centralized pools to Ocean in order to mine their own blocks, build their own templates, and signal for BIP110.

In fact there is only 0.5% of the hash rate signalling for BIP110 right now, but they are all with Ocean.

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

You were lied to. BIP110 proponents have absolutely no desire whatsoever to walk away from bitcoin and surrender bitcoin to coretards and spammers.

The same coretards who have been telling us for the last 6 months that we should just hard fork away from bitcoin are now telling us we actually were secretly planning to hard fork away all along.

They are full of shit.

They have been begging us and teasing us for the last 6-8 months to hard fork off to "lukecoin" already and leave them alone with their dickbutt.jpegs.

Now they claim a hard fork is what we wanted all along?

We are going to set Bitcoin back on the right path as money. We are not giving up to malware.

[DaveF]

Knots uses preferential peering, the code was posted here-- you even (eventually) admitted to it.  The node counting mechanism he's used could easily be distorted by it-- and would *obviously* be distorted by it without special handling.  Is there any? who knows. The methodology is a secret.  However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

Yup, I posted about it a while ago about the minimal numbers of knots nodes I saw connecting to any of my nodes vs the percentages that were supposed to be out there.
Since we all now know that knots peers more to itself then others that was probably part of it. And the fact that so many of the knots nodes appear to just be a few nodes with multiple .onion addresses and very lite machines just acting as a proxy for a few nodes.

Here is a hint guys, when dozens and dozens and dozens of .onion nodes appear at once that have never been seen before all fully synced they were easy to spot.
With bitnodes offline it's more difficult to see, but I am sure nothing has really changed.

-Dave

[Satofan44]

However, people have observed his numbers diverged wildly from the observations of others.  (including myself! I see fairly few knots nodes!)

From few website i checked, the number have some difference.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html currently says 19045 (20.65%) nodes (that probably reach his seed server) use Knots.
https://bitref.com/nodes/ currently says 3075 (16.7%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://coin.dance/nodes currently says 5390 (22.65%) listening nodes use Knots.
https://www.dsn.kastel.kit.edu/bitcoin/#useragents, the raw data shows at 1777341751 says there are 301 (5.07%) nodes connected to their own node use Knots.
https://bitdis.org/ currently says 6061 (22.06) nodes (probably only listening ones) use Knots.

Is there anything i missed?

With such variance (from 5% to 22%) and preferential peer selection, you can't trust the numbers or conclude anything at all. After looking at these numbers, I checked my own node which has been running for a very long time without interruption. I have about 15% connections being Knots. So yes gmaxwell is right, his number differ wildly from actual observations. One may think that it is only a 5% difference, but 20% is higher by 35% than 15% which is a big divergence and this is with my numbers being high. If you have something like 5% like the source number 4, then you could even claim that the data from Luke is completely fake based on how much it diverges from his own.

However, it is quite easy for them. Create many sybil nodes, and when you have preferential peering you will catch them all easily. 

What was the point of making BIP-110 then if this was going to be an outcome? This was all just a waste of time, as no exchange is going to list BIP-110coin.

This is not 2017 anymore. Exchanges are going to be wary before listing new Bitcoin forks. Bcash forked and then crashed hard, and exchanges learned the hard way about forks.

With the ETFs and whole financial system involvement combined with the experience of past scam attempts by Roger Ver and the other fake retard the chance of any scammy fork like this one succeeding is exactly 0%.