The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.
There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.
Topic: ... - page 33. (Read 61015 times)
I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack...Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision.
But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
This is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy.
78 contributors
@sipa
@gavinandresen
@laanwj
@Diapolo
@TheBlueMatt
@luke-jr
@jtimon
@gmaxwell
@jgarzik
@CodeShark
@rebroad
@sdaftuar
@petertodd
@theuni
@morcos
@cozz
@dgenr8
@muggenhor
@domob1812
@paveljanik
@jordanlewis
@fanquake
@mikehearn
@rdponticelli
@SergioDemianLerner
@ashleyholman
and others
Bad enough that you don't know, who Peter Todd is, but you are even to lazy to look him up.
You and icebreaker, really make a nice couple.
Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...
And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...
I meant it was standard for most modern software to identify itself in the useragent, Bitcoin core doesn't identify itself to torproject.org like this. Sorry, I edited the post for clarity. I haven't commented on the "banning" thing because right now it's a list of IPs for connection priority reasons, I'm just voicing concern on a separate but related issue.
Everyboddy Shut up! here is a song to explain everything : 
Yo..
Lets Go!
Mike Hearn i thought you"re cool but you have a scary rule.
How can i use my money while you have a dark hole.
You wanna watch me from a virtual door.
You think i wont see it cause im a fool.
Who told you to do that? will fuck him on the floor.
You said im just Dreaming and nothing on the code
And Im just blind and trolling on the road.
Fuck you bitch with a crypted long rope ,
Sometimes i get high but not a stupid noob.
change your minde for that future we hope.
i know your mother she's so nice and good
She might even knows how to suck and cook.
Why are you like this; gay and sneaky with a fucktard look.
Please be a good man and come to our brothhood.
....................
Do you think i should finish this crazy song ? if so make a tip : 12fugikkyFdPF6FDFCoa4ExzMt86JmDaLA
Do you think im crazy and its sucks ? if so tip here : 1Cg8m122d3WrYF3sGt6oF3SPtaGLvDKr8U
Thank u.
Yo..
Lets Go!
Mike Hearn i thought you"re cool but you have a scary rule.
How can i use my money while you have a dark hole.
You wanna watch me from a virtual door.
You think i wont see it cause im a fool.
Who told you to do that? will fuck him on the floor.
You said im just Dreaming and nothing on the code
And Im just blind and trolling on the road.
Fuck you bitch with a crypted long rope ,
Sometimes i get high but not a stupid noob.
change your minde for that future we hope.
i know your mother she's so nice and good
She might even knows how to suck and cook.
Why are you like this; gay and sneaky with a fucktard look.
Please be a good man and come to our brothhood.
....................
Do you think i should finish this crazy song ? if so make a tip : 12fugikkyFdPF6FDFCoa4ExzMt86JmDaLA
Do you think im crazy and its sucks ? if so tip here : 1Cg8m122d3WrYF3sGt6oF3SPtaGLvDKr8U
Thank u.
I don't list seeing IP lists in bitcoin, but when I take off my tinfoil hat I can understand why that code exists.
IMO, the problem is here:
Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.
It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly
To be fair, this is normal application behavior. But I don't like it.
Code referenced:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172
Where is a banning part. This only download a list if you are not using proxy or TOR. No banning... I asked for banning part...IMO, the problem is here:
Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.
It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly
To be fair, this is normal application behavior. But I don't like it.
Code referenced:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172
And the rest is as you say same as QT but you just don't like it...
Hey guys,
I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
All the public comments from Hearn make it sound benign, he says repeatedly this code is not active unless there's a DoS attack. However there are tens of thousands of lines of code, and if you scan through it you can see it's advanced blacklist/whitelist software. I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
I'm not the one who discovered this for the record, someone on the bitcoin mailing list found it while giving all of XT's code a thorough review.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010435.html
But since none care about reality on form we have this...
But if you are so sure that he was right then go ahead and point part of the code that shows that...
I don't list seeing IP lists in Bitcoin XT, but when I take off my tinfoil hat I can understand why that code exists.
IMO, the problem is here:
Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.
It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly
To be fair, this is normal application behavior by regular standards, but it's not in Bitcoin core.
Code referenced:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172
IMO, the problem is here:
Having every single bitcoin XT client ping torproject.org (which is 100% definitely logging our IPs) doesn't sit right with me, considering the project is openly funded by the DOD/govt.
It even gives a nice "Bitcoin XT" useragent to identify us properly
To be fair, this is normal application behavior by regular standards, but it's not in Bitcoin core.
Code referenced:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/2b918beb7e822fdc4450165e2a0162a75b5160ff/contrib/torips/gen-tor-ips.py
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/ipgroups.cpp#L172
Ridiculous bullshit.
The desperation of the Core fanboys is pathetic.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20
Grow up.
The desperation of the Core fanboys is pathetic.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20
Grow up.
Hey guys,
I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
OMG you're a rare species.... i thought we're extinct.
Seriously, i dont expect to see a level head guy in here that actually take time to validate the FUD.
Hey guys,
I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
I was quite concerned up on the news of the DoS patch in Bitcoin XT. I had begun writing a big post to Mike addressing the issue. But I found this post and it has dramatically calmed me down about the patch:
http://imgur.com/gallery/LX11bIT/new
The key part is highlighted in yellow, but I suggest reading the entire thing because it explains why and how it came to be. It makes a lot more sense.
A node has a maximum number of 125 incoming connections. These would only typically be all full if a DoS attack was occuring. The DoS patch ONLY becomes active when all 125 incoming connections are full. Otherwise it does nothing. So in ordinary circumstances when no attack is occuring, the patch doesn't even run at all.
Also i bet major service providers like exchanges and merchant processor would implement their own rule to protect them from DoS.
We had DoS attack before.
From what I understand server operators can protect against DoS attacks themselves, this secondary layer of 'protection' isn't necessary, and considering how controversial it is it would be best for XT to drop it. I'm under the impression at this point that this code is the whole point of forking XT, but would love to see XT prove me wrong by getting rid of this code.We had DoS attack before.
But if you like conspiracy theories is it you attacking? And looking for a way to get over the defences? I hope you know I'm joking...
So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?
There is no banning. Don't listen to the screamers who have not read and understood the code.
So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
No its not the first time, you're just too new to know crap.
SatoshiDice was effectively banned with their dust tx spams.
>jr. member
Oh, you sure fooled me meono, you are a master of deception.
I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack...Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision.
But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
This is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy.
78 contributors
@sipa
@gavinandresen
@laanwj
@Diapolo
@TheBlueMatt
@luke-jr
@jtimon
@gmaxwell
@jgarzik
@CodeShark
@rebroad
@sdaftuar
@petertodd
@theuni
@morcos
@cozz
@dgenr8
@muggenhor
@domob1812
@paveljanik
@jordanlewis
@fanquake
@mikehearn
@rdponticelli
@SergioDemianLerner
@ashleyholman
and others
Uh oh.... you better make a new thread to start a new campaign to call out that sneaky bastard.
DOOOO EET
Also i bet major service providers like exchanges and merchant processor would implement their own rule to protect them from DoS.
We had DoS attack before.
From what I understand server operators can protect against DoS attacks themselves, this secondary layer of 'protection' isn't necessary, and considering how controversial it is it would be best for XT to drop it. I'm under the impression at this point that this code is the whole point of forking XT, but would love to see XT prove me wrong by getting rid of this code.We had DoS attack before.
Yes, the bold part is the key. It discredit everything followed after that.
You dont understand jack. Sorry
So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Luke-jr anyone? And how is that ban? Can you give me a definition?
So for the first time in history we are going to IP ban Bitcoin users... for our own safety?
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Sounds alot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
No its not the first time, you're just too new to know crap.
SatoshiDice was effectively banned with their dust tx spams.
I can't read the code. I'm not a coder. What I'd like to know is whether the code is a) necessary and b) has implications beyond the stated intentions. I wrote a post that went unanswered and I reposted it above. If some of you supposed experts could address my questions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
Look at my post. It is quick fix since XT is under attack... EDIT: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12187102Some of you just keep on spraying insults, ad hominem and patting each other on the back. I'd really appreciate some substantive information.
In particular, I would like to know why there is all this emphasis on TOR and "anonymous proxy networks." Is this really an adequate response to distributed botnets and IP spoofing? I'm still at a loss for why this code is necessary.
But if you can't read code there is no way for you to know if this is what the code does. So you need to trust someone. That might be me or it might not be. Your decision.
But you might look at this post to help you: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
This is from someone who is not supporting XT... If you don't knwo who that is and you are not ready to google it you can see that at the end of his mail calling Mike sloppy.
This is not okay, in any way. This is not what Bitcoin was meant to be, and we cannot let this be the future.
LOL wut? how are you gonna force a wallet user NOT to have their own rule? Do you even understand the bitcoin network?
Jump to: