Topic: ... - page 2. (Read 5420 times)

I would also prefer if XT only changed the block size since having several other changes in their just complicates the issue irregardless of what we think of them. There is however another version of XT that does not include these other changes and only increases the block size, and since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork it makes the other changes optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way you would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. There is even an option to turn off these other patches within the standard XT client itself.

Praise the Lord for that. Judging current situation with XT, unknown code properties possible ability to blacklist bitcoin users disguised ad DoS protection system etc.
I think there is no way that XT nodes will ever reach majority. Some serious changes in the code of XT needs to be done before that.

Just so you know that these fake XT nodes are being put up by Core supporters. This does constitute an attack on the network and is in fact a Malicious and incredible irresponsible thing to do, trying to make it so that a fork is impossible is the equivalent of hijacking Bitcoin.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.

A "majority of miners" is not relevant.  The Knights of Satoshi's Core Defense Team only needs to bribe incentivize defection such that XT/NotXT's ostensible fledgling economic plurality is fukkin' rekt.

IOW, just wait until Eligius offers a port for NotXT mining, and upon observation of its success more pools follow suit.

No its not, Why are you digging deeper?

This post might have worked if it was 3 days ago.

By now, most ppl who cares enough about the topic would have known, XT only forks if 750 of the last 1000 blocks mined by XT


Ofcourse you're gonna say they can be mined using fake XTnodes. Sadly to inform you, majority of miners are not dumb like you to fck around.

Someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

We won't know how much of that supposed "super majority" is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (perhaps prematurely) activated.

      
I just knew that they were scammers

BitcoinXT won't fork until it reaches a super majority. Until then it uses the same blockchain and there is no fork. Stop acting like this :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768

You could also write some code instead of just keep bitching about it.

lol no.

forking <=> altcoin.
there is plenty other coins with larger blocks so just go enjoy yourselves with them.

I agree, if Gavin had continued as lead developer instead of stepping down to work at the Bitcoin Foundation, we could instead have been doing this debate from the opposite stance; given those circumstances I'd be favouring the hard fork upstart that was promoting liberty and transaction rate scaling, and I support the Bitcoin Core people for the same reason in the reality we actually have.

Very well said.

Personally I'm more and more convinced that Blockstream is the real attack.


 

I need to correct this, XT is not attacking the network. If you truly believe that we should never hard fork then the core development team essentially has absolute power over Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be completely centralized, the ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. It is not the core development team that should control Bitcoin it is the masses that should control Bitcoin, so everyone vote with your nodes and help keep Bitcoin free and decentralized.

Yes, I know how does DDOS work and can confirm that blocking Tor is stupid and ineffective method.
There are huge botnets around with over 15K IPs each, that you cannot identify because, unlike Tor nodes, they are not listed somewhere.
If someone wants to run devastating DDOs again bitcoin network, they will succeed without help of Tor.

I think im going to stick with core too. After much research, I don't like Hearncoin. They are introducing a lot of fishy as hell stuff that they don't talk about with the excuse of the blocksize raise.

The two pieces of software, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin-XT, are very similar. Bitcoin-XT is actually just a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features added that Bitcoin Core developers didn't deem appropriate, such as a larger block size (BIP 101) and relaying of double spends.

Bitcoin Core is more up-to-date with all of the work that the community doing. Additionally, Bitcoin-XT now has a different consensus protocol regarding the maximum size of blocks. There has been much debate within the bitcoin community about if/how/when to increase the artificially imposed block size limit (of 1 MB), and one attempt to resolve this debate is being done through Bitcoin-XT.

The Bitcoin-XT README.md has these notes on how it is different than Bitcoin Core:

Support for larger blocks. XT has support for BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen, which schedules an increase from the one megabyte limit Bitcoin is now hitting.
Relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core will simply drop unconfirmed transactions that double spend other unconfirmed transactions, forcing merchants who want to know about them to connect to thousands of nodes in the hope of spotting them. This is unreliable, wastes resources and isn't feasible on mobile devices. Bitcoin XT incorporates work by Tom Harding and Gavin Andresen that relays the first observed double spend of a transaction. Additionally, it will highlight it in red in the user interface. Other wallets also have the opportunity to use the new information to alert the user that there is a fraud attempt against them.
Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent.
DNS seed changes: bitseed.xf2.org is removed as it no longer works, and seeds from Addy Yeow and Mike Hearn are (re)added to increase seed diversity and redundancy.
So, if you support these changes and/or the possible future changes on the consensus-block-size-limit, run Bitcoin-XT. The releases are available here: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=%2FBitcoin+XT%3A0.11.0%2F

Do you understand how anti DoS attack work?

I expect much better from you Zeroday, i think you should not listen to chanting "blacklist IP, blacklist coins".

But right now he added blacklists for Tor in their XT client. Didn't he ?