Topic: ... - page 31. (Read 61015 times)

Quote from: Lucko on August 19, 2015, 06:47:32 PM

There's a part of the code that describes how it will disconnect you so you reconnect and then it gets your info for the blacklist, that's part of how it compromises tor or proxy anonymity. That's mentioned in the original email from the guy who noticed this, and I saw it in the code.

This is for banning IPs, that's not up for debate. The debate is whether this is just for DoS offenders or if it can be used to blacklist anyone. I think the answer is quite obvious but you guys read the code and decide for yourself.

I'm going to search through the rest of the XT source and see if there's anything else disagreeable. What I posted is just 1 part of the source.

Well no. You posted just a comments not a code. And search didn't find one part...

To say it is for banning you would really need to give me your definition of that. If banning it drooping same TOR connections wham attack from TOR forces you then it really isn't a debate. But if it is anything else it is a lie...

And Peter Todd figure out that he was looking at the wrong code and that code that XT is using will not do that. Read: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: madjules007 on August 19, 2015, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: Greendragon on August 19, 2015, 06:23:15 PM

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?

This issue is being used as a red herring. Does no one have a problem with the idea that XT is supposed to address the block size issue, but so much code that is irrelevant to that is being pushed out? We can argue all day about one detail or another -- but can you XT supporters explain why the hell it's all there? And why it's being presented solely as a solution to the block size debate?

Strip it down and stop trying to force other changes down our throats.....

Quote

Let's not get bogged down by the details. What the hell are these pages and pages of code that have absolutely fuck all to do with block size? And why is it being pushed then solely as a fix for the block size issue?

Not really. XT is compatible with QT now. And it will be with XT and QT+BIP101. You can also run QT+BIP101 if you are worried... And there is a QT made by Mike if you don't like XT. Only BIP101.

That's not really addressing what I said. Yes, I run QT. I'm not really concerned about that and won't change unless forced. I'm concerned about a primarily political push to drive the community to adopt a new protocol under the pretense of a need for larger blocks, but that a) includes other protocol changes (relaying double spends, querying the UTXO set, DNS seed changes, others like the TOR deprioritization code which I still don't quite understand, etc) that aren't widely consented to and b) that the 8MB/double every two years limit does not adequately consider the stake that [largely Chinese] miners with low bandwidth have in the protocol.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:48:04 PM

This is for banning IPs, that's not up for debate. The debate is whether this is just for DoS offenders or if it can be used to blacklist anyone.

I think this is a fair assessment. Arguing over "banning" vs. "deprioritizing" is playing with semantics. The question I have, as someone who is not particularly technical, is whether there are implications here that go further than simply "deprioritizing TOR nodes that are actively DOS attacking" and haven't really seen an adequate answer.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

The offensive comment and code you mentioned :

Code:

//A group of logically related IP addresses. Useful for banning or deprioritising sources of abusive traffic/DoS attacks.

... refers to Tor proxy peers. Not the originating (connecting) peer. Which it wouldn't know anyway because...tor.

Yes just a coment. But it is "Useful for banning or deprioritising" not "Will be used for banning and deprioritising"

The code then uses it for "deprioritising" but not for "banning" when attacked from TOR

You can't use only one line

EDIT: And no idea what you talking about hire

Quote

Not the originating (connecting) peer. Which it wouldn't know anyway because...tor.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

The offending comment and code you mentioned :

Code:

//A group of logically related IP addresses. Useful for banning or deprioritising sources of abusive traffic/DoS attacks.

... refers to Tor proxy peers. Not the originating (connecting) peer. Which it wouldn't know anyway because...tor.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: madjules007 on August 19, 2015, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: Greendragon on August 19, 2015, 06:23:15 PM

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?

This issue is being used as a red herring. Does no one have a problem with the idea that XT is supposed to address the block size issue, but so much code that is irrelevant to that is being pushed out? We can argue all day about one detail or another -- but can you XT supporters explain why the hell it's all there? And why it's being presented solely as a solution to the block size debate?

Strip it down and stop trying to force other changes down our throats.....

Quote

Let's not get bogged down by the details. What the hell are these pages and pages of code that have absolutely fuck all to do with block size? And why is it being pushed then solely as a fix for the block size issue?

Not really. XT is compatible with QT now. And it will be with XT and QT+BIP101. You can also run QT+BIP101 if you are worried... And there is a QT made by Mike if you don't like XT. Only BIP101.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Hazir on August 19, 2015, 06:40:02 PM

I don't like this. I don't like this at all, I was preaching in the past about government involvement in the bitcoin and it is happening - disguised as security option.
Things that restrict and limit you are always camouflaged as tools crafted to make you safe, it is disgusting approach. What we are seeing now is a lot like government action against bitcoin, including the core protocol.

So where is that part. Let me know... Not in a code... To this moment none show the part of the code that do this...

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: Greendragon on August 19, 2015, 06:23:15 PM

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?

This issue is being used as a red herring. Does no one have a problem with the idea that XT is supposed to address the block size issue, but so much code that is irrelevant to that is being pushed out? We can argue all day about one detail or another -- but can you XT supporters explain why the hell it's all there? And why it's being presented solely as a solution to the block size debate?

Strip it down and stop trying to force other changes down our throats.....

Quote

Let's not get bogged down by the details. What the hell are these pages and pages of code that have absolutely fuck all to do with block size? And why is it being pushed then solely as a fix for the block size issue?

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Greendragon on August 19, 2015, 06:23:15 PM

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?

Rite my friend

So you agree that he needs to show where this is. Negative is that this is not in a code. Positive is to show it...

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

I don't like this. I don't like this at all, I was preaching in the past about government involvement in the bitcoin and it is happening - disguised as security option.
Things that restrict and limit you are always camouflaged as tools crafted to make you safe, it is disgusting approach. What we are seeing now is a lot like government action against bitcoin, including the core protocol.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: Lucko on August 19, 2015, 06:05:43 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Again point to it. It is impossible to show that something doesn't exist since there is nowhere to point to that shows that. But if you show me where you think it is I can show you why you are wrong... To this point none did that.

He has at least 3 major commits in XT that have been refused from Core that have nothing to do with blocksize. I don't even need to point to any of them because this is well known.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Greendragon on August 19, 2015, 06:23:15 PM

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

None can. You cant prove an negative only positive. The only way would be to exclude every part of a code... So copy pase the code? But that doesn't help right?

Liquid71

hero member

Activity: 835

Merit: 1000

There is NO Freedom without Privacy

So basically Bitcoin is subject to a hostile takeover and the price is crashing..yet people still defend XT.

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: meono on August 19, 2015, 06:16:23 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

The debate is about block size. Can you show me the section of the XT code that addresses block size? Then, can you show me everything else in the code? Then explain why such code is being included in a fork that is supposed to address block size?

Let's not get bogged down by the details. What the hell are these pages and pages of code that have absolutely fuck all to do with block size? And why is it being pushed then solely as a fix for the block size issue?

The issue here is philosophical first and foremost -- secondarily, it's what's actually in the code.

Greendragon

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Can you bro?

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: meono on August 19, 2015, 06:16:23 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

Here is the code https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Read it, actually click on the view button so you see all of it for each part of the program.

You can't point to a part that do what you say it is doing? Just look at the code? Just point... For now you posted this that is not in a code

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: meono on August 19, 2015, 06:16:23 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

Yet you cant back your statement with a code right?

Yup thats what i guess

Here is the code https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Read it, actually click on the view button so you see all of it for each part of the program.

So you cant give us any part of the code to support your statement? Yup you're not a programmer just a dumb ass who got told what it is.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lucko on August 19, 2015, 05:55:05 PM

No you don't know how to read a code. This is a comment. But you can also read a comments... But you can't read just one. EDIT:(Just to be more clear) "It describes for what it can be used but that doesn't mean it is used for that. So go and find a line that says this bans IPs."

What code dose(if you are read it) is when node is attacked by TOR DOS it just drops any TOR connection in exchange for not TOR connection. And for this to even happen there needs to be 125 connections to a node. This is not banning... This replace the need to block TOR with FW permanently since XT nodes do get a lot of attacks from TOR. So it is a good thing for TOR.

EDIT2: You do know that the comment you posted is not in https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

This part:

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;

I can't find it...

No shit it's a comment, a comment that describes a section of code. The "its not in the code" strategy isnt gonna work, stop cluttering the thread with useless bullshit.

The fact you cant find it indicates how incompetent you are. It's directly in the BitcoinXT source.

I used find function of chrome.

//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;

Is not there... You are not looking at the code you linked... It has noting to do with me. It just isn't there...

tupelo

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

Thank you for your hard work turtlehurricane, it is much needed.

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on August 19, 2015, 06:02:34 PM

Why does Hearn want to cram huge controversial poison-pill commits into XT along with the popular blocksize commit of Gavin's is the real question.

It's like those politicians cramming all the surveillance shit in the "Schumer Bill For The Protection of Widows Orphans and Kiddies."

Its a rule that you can turn off anytime. Reason its a controversy because someone make it be.

The XT was under DDoS attack, he had to write a defense mechanism quick. This feature does not affect anyone's privacy. You cant let emotion and prejudice to blind you

It logs your IP and potentially puts it on a blacklist, even if you're on tor or a proxy. That is the definition of compromising privacy.

How and where... You are reading wrong code. At lest from the aprt that you posted a comment form a code that it is not a part of XT

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100