Topic: ... - page 34. (Read 61015 times)
I understand that this is being framed as "protection from DOS attacks from TOR nodes." Can anyone explain to me why this is necessary? Has DOS attack by the TOR network ever been a real threat -- and if so, could one provide proof? TOR nodes are easily tracked, easily blacklisted. Aren't serious DOS attacks run off botnets? How does this code actually prevent DOS attacks? It merely "deprioritizes" (to zero access?) IP addresses by mere association.
Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
What TOR DOS is doing to XT nodes is that is asking for a big old blocks that are not in memory so you need to look on a disk. So weary littel traffic is necessary to stop node operating...Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
I would agree that TOR deprioritizing(it is really not banning read the code) will not help much if the attacked would start coming for normal network. For now they are coming from TOR. Mike is making a patch that will deprioritize nodes based on what they are doing but this was a quick fix since XT network was under attack.
If the whole network would be DOS attacked then TOR nodes would have harder time connecting. TOR is deprioritized since attacks are coming from there and since exchanges and payment processors are not using it.
And this is much batter then what I was using. I was using DROP on FW. And I didn't remove it since attacks were repeating itself. Now I serve TOR in time I'm not attacked... So that fix things for to not make them worst...
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.
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.
Please show the part of the code that do that. So I can tell you how wrong you are...
This. FUDsters don't care.
Please show the part of the code that do that. So I can tell you how wrong you are...
This.
So much ad hominem in this thread. So little evidence of technical knowledge. There are real concerns here, and some of us have quite a lot of money on the line. It's nice that there is so much support for XT in this thread, I guess, but perhaps some of you guys could take a moment to answer some questions from a non-technical guy:
Thanks in advance.
I understand that this is being framed as "protection from DOS attacks from TOR nodes." Can anyone explain to me why this is necessary? Has DOS attack by the TOR network ever been a real threat -- and if so, could one provide proof? TOR nodes are easily tracked, easily blacklisted. Aren't serious DOS attacks run off botnets? How does this code actually prevent DOS attacks? It merely "deprioritizes" (to zero access?) IP addresses by mere association.
Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
Thanks in advance.
For a while there I was thinking that iCEBREAKER was one of the biggest trolls on the forum, but I'm now starting to wonder if turtlehurricane and Check2fire might be in with a shout for the title. The moment Bitcoin gets larger blocks and your continuous stream of deceit and misinformation becomes irrelevant, you're all going on my ignore list. How's that for blacklisting?
Seriously, if you were running a node and a malicious user was trying to DDoS it, are you just happy to sit there and take it? Or would you want a way of moving that malicious user the the bottom of the queue so you can continue to process legitimate transactions? This code gives individual nodes a choice. Obviously small-blockians aren't a fan of choice, so they resort to misinformation at every turn.
Seriously, if you were running a node and a malicious user was trying to DDoS it, are you just happy to sit there and take it? Or would you want a way of moving that malicious user the the bottom of the queue so you can continue to process legitimate transactions? This code gives individual nodes a choice. Obviously small-blockians aren't a fan of choice, so they resort to misinformation at every turn.
I am disturbed by the large number of people who are trying to cover this up by saying this doesn't exist, isn't in the code, or we're misunderstanding. The heavy propaganda campaign is the only reason XT is still being discussed.
Nice try ignoring this :
Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the code. If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.
It sets up blacklists and whitelists which can be subjectively changed.
The only reason I'm posting a lot about this is I care about Bitcoin. If XT was truly just about blocksize I wouldn't have posted any of this. I am not gonna watch Bitcoin get destroyed by this without fighting.
The main selling point is no Bitcoin can be frozen or any transaction stopped, that will no longer be true if XT forks, and Bitcoin will lose most of its intrinsic value.
Let me guess, you cant because you're not able to actually understand the code.
From where is coming all this FUD about XT?
An ass of somebody of course. Not that it matters, what matters is some people got goofied by its stinky fart
I understand that this is being framed as "protection from DOS attacks from TOR nodes." Can anyone explain to me why this is necessary? Has DOS attack by the TOR network ever been a real threat -- and if so, could one provide proof? TOR nodes are easily tracked, easily blacklisted. Aren't serious DOS attacks run off botnets? How does this code actually prevent DOS attacks? It merely "deprioritizes" (to zero access?) IP addresses by mere association.
Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
Is DOS a real threat to the bitcoin network? If so, how does effectively IP banning TOR nodes do anything to address that? This is like setting a mouse trap for a plague of locusts. I'm at a loss for how this provides security to the network. At best it seems extraneous, at worst..... let's just say, I don't know that this list will be limited to TOR nodes. And I am concerned that targeting nodes and denying access to the network based on IP address could be a slippery slope when new commits come along down the road.
On what basis are IP addresses deprioritized? Who decides what addresses/batches of addresses are deprioritized? Can this deprioritization be used to prevent nodes from accessing the network entirely? This is supposedly about the TOR network -- though I'd like to see some evidence that the TOR network poses any threat whatsoever to the bitcoin network. Could this potentially be used to target other groups of nodes on some other basis, regional or otherwise?
Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".
It does nothing of the kind. It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes. The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada. UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit. That happens when a node is under a DOS attack. IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference.OMG,..... BLACKLIST.
Why is that general public so easy to scare? I thought bitcoin community is alot better. No wonder the war on drug and terror is an ice on cake for politician.
Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".
It does nothing of the kind. It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes. The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada. UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit. That happens when a node is under a DOS attack. IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference.Tell me how I've fundamentally misunderstood the code. It most definitely bans bitcoin users. Go through the code and search the word "ban".
It does nothing of the kind. It assigns lower priority to known TOR exit nodes. The net result of this is nothing. Zero. Nada. UNLESS the node running the code has reached its connection limit. That happens when a node is under a DOS attack. IN THAT EVENT ONLY, higher priority connections will have preference. Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the code. If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.
It sets up blacklists and whitelists which can be subjectively changed.
The only reason I'm posting a lot about this is I care about Bitcoin. If XT was truly just about blocksize I wouldn't have posted any of this. I am not gonna watch Bitcoin get destroyed by this without fighting.
The main selling point is no Bitcoin can be frozen or any transaction stopped, that will no longer be true if XT forks, and Bitcoin will lose most of its intrinsic value.
EDIT: XT merge BIP101 but it has never stated that it is only about size. They have a core patched with BIP101 that is just about size. But they don't do builds. But if anyone is ready to do it he can...
isislovecruft added a note 5 days ago
@mikehearn @gavinandresen If you use this URL, you're going to block all Tor Exit relays… regardless of whether they allow exiting to the IP:port that your BitcoinXT node is running on. This unfairly punishes people who run Tor Exit relays. (For example, if I ran an Exit relay on my server which only allowed Tor clients to exit to port 443, then — even though no Tor clients could access the normal bitcoind ports from my Exit relay — I also would be unable to do so from my server.
We have a tool which will parse the current exit list for you, and, given an IP (or IP:port) will generate a list of only the Tor Exit relays which allow clients to exit to that IP (or IP:port). The output format from that tool also happens to be much easier to parse: it's just one Tor Exit relay IP address per line (you just have to discard lines which begin with #). The easiest way to use it would be to replace https://check.torproject.org/exit-addresses above with https://check.torproject.org/torbulkexitlist?ip=38.229.72.19&port=443 (filling in whatever is the actual ip[:port] of the Bitcoin node).
@mikehearnOwner
mikehearn added a note 4 days ago
Thanks Isis!
This code doesn't actually block anything, just marks it as being lower priority than non-Tor traffic. It should never do anything unless there's an active DoS attack via Tor. So perfect accuracy isn't really needed here: Tor access still works fine and will do even if you run a Bitcoin node and Tor node on the same machine.
That said, I'll make a mental note to switch to the second URL when I work on this code again (might be soon, given the ongoing DoS attacks via Tor we're seeing).
@mikehearn @gavinandresen If you use this URL, you're going to block all Tor Exit relays… regardless of whether they allow exiting to the IP:port that your BitcoinXT node is running on. This unfairly punishes people who run Tor Exit relays. (For example, if I ran an Exit relay on my server which only allowed Tor clients to exit to port 443, then — even though no Tor clients could access the normal bitcoind ports from my Exit relay — I also would be unable to do so from my server.
We have a tool which will parse the current exit list for you, and, given an IP (or IP:port) will generate a list of only the Tor Exit relays which allow clients to exit to that IP (or IP:port). The output format from that tool also happens to be much easier to parse: it's just one Tor Exit relay IP address per line (you just have to discard lines which begin with #). The easiest way to use it would be to replace https://check.torproject.org/exit-addresses above with https://check.torproject.org/torbulkexitlist?ip=38.229.72.19&port=443 (filling in whatever is the actual ip[:port] of the Bitcoin node).
@mikehearnOwner
mikehearn added a note 4 days ago
Thanks Isis!
This code doesn't actually block anything, just marks it as being lower priority than non-Tor traffic. It should never do anything unless there's an active DoS attack via Tor. So perfect accuracy isn't really needed here: Tor access still works fine and will do even if you run a Bitcoin node and Tor node on the same machine.
That said, I'll make a mental note to switch to the second URL when I work on this code again (might be soon, given the ongoing DoS attacks via Tor we're seeing).
Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the code. If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.
LOL.... that made me laugh.
Bitcoin has never banned/blocked any Bitcoin user for any reason. This is what the code does.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the code. If you're really interested in this, and not just trying to spread FUD, I would advise you to either go through it more carefully, or have an expert explain the code to you.
yep, just look at turtlehurricanes posts and you see that. sad
Peter Todd
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
And it's still in github https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23
I dont know why he keeps digging himself a bigger hole.
When i said : How stupid can you be? , I think he took that as a challenge
Jump to: