... - page 15. | Bitcointalksearch.org

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

@VirosaGITS

LOL
You can even add all the possible IPs to the list, then they will have all the same priority, and just during a DoS attack Roll Eyes

Do you know that will happen when a dev will add other IP to this list? Someone will see it because ... it's an open source project!

Do you check every day what devs add to the Bitcoin Core?

Again, it isn't a black list, it is a "low priority list", that enable it self only IF there is a DoS attack.

So, because of this, it's better to put all the Bitcoin network in a trash can a let the market go somewhere else Roll Eyes

If you don't like this list, fork it, it is just a click on the github repository.

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 09:07:44 PM

I have no idea what would be the effect on the network if a portion of the network did not use the default and used -disableipprio instead.

It will be as the Bitcoin Core works now. Someone thinks that nodes now are easy target for DoS attack.
You think not, then, better for yourself.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 09:03:12 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:34:29 PM

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

Indeed. Nothing to argue about.

I don't think the educated portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list. That is such a massive security flaw, its no wonder BIP100 gained 30 time the support of XT in 1 day.

Of course that's just what i believe. I could be totally wrong and people may decide to purposely vote in a fork that allow a certain person to destroy bitcoin if he desire.

Aren't you tired of going on and on about a feature that can be disabled by one line? -disableipprio

Nope. I don't like how it allow people to trigger code that deprioritize certain IPs. Just the thought of adding this kind of code is heading down the wrong path.

I have no idea what would be the effect on the network if a portion of the network did not use the default and used -disableipprio instead.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 08:22:36 PM

Quote from: dooglus on August 26, 2015, 07:58:11 PM

Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?

1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support.
2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1.

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

You haven't done the math. It's far easier to accommodate 100,000 transactions with a $0.05 fee/trx in a block than get 1000 transactions with a $5 fee/trx. Larger blocks = more trx = more users = more fees.

Also, there is no guarantee that demand will come because max block sizes are larger. We aren't in the "Bitcoin's success is guaranteed" universe. It's going to take a crapload of work to get 100m people using Bitcoin and higher fees are not the way to get there.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:34:29 PM

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

Indeed. Nothing to argue about.

I don't think the educated portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list. That is such a massive security flaw, its no wonder BIP100 gained 30 time the support of XT in 1 day.

Of course that's just what i believe. I could be totally wrong and people may decide to purposely vote in a fork that allow a certain person to destroy bitcoin if he desire.

Aren't you tired of going on and on about a feature that can be disabled by one line? -disableipprio

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:57:58 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:53:40 PM

Here's the part you missed:

The IP list thats included in the commit:
http://pastebin.com/F15aHDMJ

It doesn't need to be downloaded from tor project.

They are just all tor exit nodes! Roll Eyes

What do you think that they'll care about this?
They are public servers, they work as public servers!

XT isn't even going to give a shit about them until it receives a possible DoS attack.
And it isn't going to connect them, it will just put them under a low priority, to avoid getting too many connections from them (because the DoS attack)

See? I guess you're the parrot. I said they put up a list of black listed ip. And they did. They get low priority. How can this be exploited, how easily can ips be added to the list is beside the point thats up to the code engineers to decide and i trust them over you;

Leave me alone.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:53:40 PM

Here's the part you missed:

The IP list thats included in the commit:
http://pastebin.com/F15aHDMJ

It doesn't need to be downloaded from tor project.

They are just all tor exit nodes! Roll Eyes

What do you think that they'll care about this?
They are public servers, they work as public servers!

XT isn't even going to give a shit about them until it receives a possible DoS attack.
And it isn't going to connect them, it will just put them under a low priority, to avoid getting too many connections from them (because the DoS attack)

Damn it! You don't really know what you are talking about, just repeating repeating ...

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:51:11 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:41:03 PM

Are you kidding?

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Quote

The code has both a static list and a list that's downloaded when the node starts.

Quote from: VirosaGITS

portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list.

Do you know the difference betwean the words "uploading" and "downloading"?

Do you know that if you set a proxy then XT will not download any list from torproject.org ?
Do you know that you can just start the node with this flag -disableipprio flag XT will not download any list from torproject.org ?

And one more thing, do you know what does this code on Bitcoin Core? Shocked

Code:

vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.sipa.be", "seed.bitcoin.sipa.be")); // Pieter Wuille
vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bluematt.me", "dnsseed.bluematt.me")); // Matt Corallo
vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("dashjr.org", "dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org")); // Luke Dashjr
vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoinstats.com", "seed.bitcoinstats.com")); // Christian Decker
vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("xf2.org", "bitseed.xf2.org")); // Jeff Garzik
vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch", "seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch")); // Jonas Schnelli

You are just another parrot.

Here's the part you missed:

The IP list thats included in the commit:
http://pastebin.com/F15aHDMJ

It doesn't need to be downloaded from tor project.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:41:03 PM

Are you kidding?

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Quote

The code has both a static list and a list that's downloaded when the node starts.

Quote from: VirosaGITS

portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list.

Do you know the difference betwean the words "uploading" and "downloading"?

Do you know that if you set a proxy then XT will not download any list from torproject.org ?
Do you know that you can just start the node with this flag -disableipprio flag XT will not download any list from torproject.org ?

And one more thing, do you know what does this code on Bitcoin Core?
OMG all of them will know your IP! Shocked

Code:

vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.sipa.be", "seed.bitcoin.sipa.be")); // Pieter Wuille
   vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bluematt.me", "dnsseed.bluematt.me")); // Matt Corallo
   vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("dashjr.org", "dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org")); // Luke Dashjr
   vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoinstats.com", "seed.bitcoinstats.com")); // Christian Decker
   vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("xf2.org", "bitseed.xf2.org")); // Jeff Garzik
   vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch", "seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch")); // Jonas Schnelli

You are just another parrot.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:35:16 PM

If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase?

The connection of the common nodes aren't able to share easily this kind of blocks, so there will be orphan blocks, miners will lose money.
Do you know what happen when a miner lose money by doing something? Easy, he will stop doing it, because he wants more money. Shocked

It is easy, a simple logic, but all of you are full of propaganda.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:38:22 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:34:29 PM

portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list.

There isn't any fork that allow devs to upload any IP black list, you are just parrot that repeat the first word that you hear without know the meaning.

Are you kidding?

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Quote

The code has both a static list and a list that's downloaded when the node starts.

It starts with a blacklist of Tor exit nodes that allow when there is a heavy load on the network to prioritize transaction coming from Tor nodes.

In simpler terms. This allow to kick off certain transactions if the load remain for a certain period of time.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:32:34 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:23:08 PM

I can actually tell you right now Grin

Fees will be raised !

Yes, I'm sure about this. Grin

And then you will hear users screaming around because they are paying up to 1$ or more (some thinks that it's ok to pay 20$) to get confirmations.
For some, the confirmation will arrive after hours or days.

What do you think that will happen after this? Do you think that users will continue to use Bitcoin or just one of the other 500 alternatives? (and there are some that are pointing to take the place of Bitcoin)

Less users = higher price?
I think NOT Wink

Some of you have no clue about all of this Roll Eyes

(or are in bad faith, maybe you just own other coins ...)

Where did you get the impression that transactions was all the rage in Bitcoin?

An important majority of coins are actually sitting pretty in cold storage/paper wallets some untouched for several years already.

We're a long way from 1$ fees anyway.

Do you think that more users = necessarily higher price?

Maybe, just maybe you're not thinking this through properly?

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:34:29 PM

portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list.

There isn't any fork that allow devs to upload any IP black list, you are just parrot that repeat the first word that you hear without know the meaning.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: RoadStress on August 26, 2015, 08:29:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 07:39:06 PM

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin.

I'm with you on that!

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 08:22:36 PM

Quote from: dooglus on August 26, 2015, 07:58:11 PM

Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?

1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support.
2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1.

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

Indeed. Nothing to argue about.

I don't think the educated portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list. That is such a massive security flaw, its no wonder BIP100 gained 30 time the support of XT in 1 day.

Of course that's just what i believe. I could be totally wrong and people may decide to purposely vote in a fork that allow a certain person to destroy bitcoin if he desire.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 08:23:08 PM

I can actually tell you right now Grin

Fees will be raised !

Yes, I'm sure about this. Grin

And then you will hear users screaming around because they are paying up to 1$ or more (some thinks that it's ok to pay 20$) to get confirmations.
For some, the confirmation will arrive after hours or days.

What do you think that will happen after this? Do you think that users will continue to use Bitcoin or just one of the other 500 alternatives? (and there are some that are pointing to take the place of Bitcoin)

Less users = higher price?
I think NOT Wink

Some of you have no clue about all of this Roll Eyes

(or are in bad faith, maybe you just own other coins ...)

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 07:39:06 PM

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 26, 2015, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 08:20:49 PM

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached ... I hope that this will happen soon.

I can actually tell you right now Grin

Fees will be raised !

Topic: ... - page 15. (Read 61003 times)