Topic: ... - page 25. (Read 61003 times)

There isn't an issue.  Problem solved.

The (highly misleading) premise of the thread is that using Bitcoin core means you're somehow magically immune from IP logging and blacklisting but XT has just suddenly introduced those concepts because they are teh evils.  This is empirically false.  Any peer to peer software, whether it be filesharing networks, Bitcoin or something else entirely, can log your IP.  Whoever has logged your IP can then attempt to trace it.  They can pass your IP on to third parties including law enforcement agencies.  They can ban or blacklist your IP from their server.  That's ANY network, INCLUDING Bitcoin core.  This is not something unique to XT and anyone who believes it is doesn't know how the internet works, let alone Bitcoin.  

If I run a node, whether it's Core or XT, I can log your IP and ban you from my node.  It's my node.  I can do whatever I want with it.  If I want to ban you, I'm within my right to do that.  Core or XT makes no difference in this regard.

Hell, the admins of this very forum can log/trace/forward/ban your IP if they want.  If you are fearful about the issue of protecting your IP, please disconnect your device from the internet now.

Everyone needs to stop jumping at shadows and calm the fuck down.

Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.

How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.

IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???

and XTNOW which forks as soon as it syncs ..

Funny that no one seems curious about what the motives of Blockstream may be...



You own a bus company and you are losing money because you have 1 bus, only enough customers to fill 60% of its capacity on average, and 20 employees  with fat salaries in an expensive rented office. You are charging 1 $ of fare, but you are spending 200 $ for each passenger that your carry. However passengers are increasing and by next year you know that you will have to leave passengers waiting for hours at peak hours and times.  What would you do to fix your financial situation:

(1) get a loan from the bank, buy another 7 buses and hope that somehow it will be enough

(2) raise the fare to 200 $ per passenger

(3) wait until next year and then let the passengers negotiate the fare with the driver by a blind auction on the platform.

(4) fire all employees except 1 driver and 1 mechanic, close the main office and move to a back-office in the garage

(5) file for bankruptcy protection.


It is increasing at 0.2 MB per year, the max effective capacity is 0.8 MB, and traffic jams will start to occur when it is 0.6-0.7 MB

(Have a plane to catch, more on return)

Yes, let's keep forking XT.

So far, we have XT and NotXT.

I like your suggestions for GoodXT and XT90.

So we'll also need NotGoodXT and NotXT90.

Oh, and GoodXT90/NotGoodXT90.

Can we make a BadXT, which has all the evil anti-Tor/blacklist BS but no block increase?

We'll get everyone so confused, both sides will somehow be deploying hundreds of NotBadXT nodes thinking that's helpful. 

XT wallet uses the list of IP to find the order of disconnection of nodes when max connection is reached. When number of connections is below max limit, is the list not used? I think tor nodes are most affected, home wallet users send a few transactions a day will not receive negative score.

That does not work because any BIP101 blocks would also be counted to the 75%.

75% is plenty. the minority of miners got two weeks to switch to majority side. Economic incentives would sort this out. I'm sure at 75% we will all see forking is inevitable.

Keep bringing irrelevant shit does not make your post any creditable.



The OP is lying all this time because apparently he cant code, cant even read code and just destroy his every ounce of integrity by making bogus claim.

When asked, he responsed : its in the code!

WOW.. the best he could was, intentionally posting some comments which have nothing to do with his claim.

You can call me a troll but you couldnt help him or could you? Quote any line of code to support this stupid FUD or else you're just as low as him.

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

I explained about 3 times already. You can't point to something that not there. So I can't show you code that doesn't ban since that is all the code. That is why I would like you to point to a code that ban. So you know for things that are bad? Grate show them. Just one. For now wee seen code that is in QT(core) that bans IP's if they really misbehave and since XT is made from QT code it has the same code and a comment that states that list can be used to deprioritized or ban IPs. But after that there is no ban code only deprioritization... So where is that code. If you can't find it experts shuld... Or is this just a lie... It is like 40 hours now...

Just ignore the troll.  In doing so, this thread will remain free of further drivel that does nothing but derail the thread.  no attention = no shitposts.

Oh dear...

What a bloody mess.

It appears that the "leader-less model" doesn't work...(big surprise, I know)

It's like trying to herd cats!

Divide and conquer, I suppose..

But who are the "bad guys"?

I propose a name-change to "Splitcoin".

no it has not,

since that gross meono sock puppet account didn't have any to begin with. The sole purpose of the meono account is to derail the discussion and fling poo.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064824


But the cat is out of the bag: The issue of course is no longer about block size, but about sneaking in something extra into BTC.
And of course even if it could be deactivated by the most tech savvy users, once the foot is in the door, of course it will be expanded incrementally.
That is the strategy and so all that whining and bitching about how it is only optionally is a malicious little smokescreen that fools no one.



yeah right- that makes meono a credible expert on what exactly?

I'm not the one making misleading claim and statement, why would i have to show evidence?
What a fcked up mental you got there. You make a claim, its your responsibility to back that up,

Go on keep dodging requests for evidence to back your bogus claim. Your reputation has gone to shit by your action not my words.

If you still have any ounce of self respect in you , you would have stopped posting here and only came back after having an "expert" to "analyze" . Hopefully by then you would have something to prove us wrong.

You know any self respecting person would have done that b4 making this thread to mislead people and intentionally spread FUD.

It seems like they just want to force control with this new BTC XT nonsense...

At the beginning of this thread when reading what Turtlehurricane had posted I asked if any coders could weigh in. FUD was called a bit too quickly, although I admit, there are some posts from Turtlehurrican which are often inflammatory in nature. I don't consider this a bad thing necessarily, as it draws attention and debate to things which may or may not be of concern.

But...

After reading all of this thread and others elsewhere, I find that although people who code have made their point - and it seems Turtlehurricane hasn't yet been able to exactly point to the code he refers to that isn't already in core - this subject is still confusing, for want of a better word.

So far, this is what I understand.

1. Blacklisting/whitelisting is either already within the core code, or they are code terms that don't actually mean blacklisting/whitelisting in view of the English language usage, per se.

2. The above referred to blacklisting/whitelisting doesn't ban anyone, it simply deprioritizes Tor, as this is a defence against possible spam attacks. It only does this for the period of time of the spam attack, and then resumes as normal.

3. The blacklisting/whitelisting code in fact doesn't get (hidden) IP's, the only IP it's concerned with is a Tor operating IP(?) This is maybe/maybe not (as far as my understanding goes at the moment) a somewhat unfair penalization for Tor users, but at least it doesn't compromise the Tor users IP's.

4. Although many node users may not be aware of it, they are able to disable this part of the blacklisting/whitelisting code, but it is set to default.

I'm sure I've missed something, so anyone feel free to add logic/proof based points.


Although the above seems (somewhat) clear to me, I think it's hard to deny the recent spam attacks were quite obviously deliberate and used to push a certain agenda forward, ie. block size.

A considerable amount of finances were used for those attacks and I think it's fairly safe to say that whichever party/parties did it, they stood to (financially) gain in return.

So where do the fingers point to that financial gain? I'm not about to answer that question, and it would be useless to try. But I find it hard to believe Bitcoin has a mysterious benefactor that spends all that money out of the goodness or his/her/their own heart just to push further block size increase adoption for the common good.

I should make it clear that I'm not against block size increase and scaling, undecided, maybe, but not against.


Honestly, the most useful and enlightening post on the subject I've seen was posted in an XT alt coin thread by Canth, who I hope won't mind me posting it here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/does-xt-really-log-your-ip-address-and-want-to-blacklist-addresses-and-coins-1157289 :


The bold is mine. That point surprised me.

ps: I'm grateful for everyone in this thread that has taken their time to go over this as I really wanted to understand it.

 All that XT fork is very much confusing me and not only me,ordinary people who dont know so much about technology
all that fork is done without not or any informations,no transparency,all that is causing  loosing trust in btc
together with margine sales on Bitffinex it looks like that some people want to steal some btcat low prices or thay seriously want to disturb digital currency evolution

^FTFY.

XT is a solution in search of a problem.  Currently there is no problem in Bitcoin for XT to solve.

By presuming there is, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Since Gavinistas often use this fallacy as they seek to mislead the public, allow me to draw you a picture for the sake of clarity.

1. If [Bitcoin problem], then [XT].

2. [XT].

3. Therefore, [Bitcoin problem].

There is a problem -- that bitcoin will eventually need to scale to meet needs for timely confirmations on transactions (or alternatively, we could pay fees that would be adjusted for the amount of transactions backed up in the mempool). But it's not nearly as urgent as some make it out to be. A lot of people pushing for XT make it seem as if tomorrow is doomsday and we need to implement the change today. That is not the case at all. Based on growth over the last year or so in transactions, ideally -- if we are to increase the block size -- we would implement the change before, say, a year from now, at which point natural growth in transaction volume may make the issue more urgent than it is now.

In the meantime, I see no reason why we can't update the limit to 2-4 MB, while the community tries to reach a consensus on the best way to move forward. I support BIP 102 for this reason.