... - page 36. | Bitcointalksearch.org

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:56:21 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this.

So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda.

Yes indeed that's what I mean - what is your agenda for ignoring all the other changes in your statement?
It isn't just block size as you stated.

Ahhhh... look at the title of the thread. Just following the topic.

edit: to clarify,..

Quote

The thread above was based on a flawed premise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:53:56 AM

I simply looked on the main page.

https://bitcoinxt.software/

I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see

"Decision making is quick and clear."
Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get.

Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page Tongue

They put this patch at the (surprise) patch Tab.
Acting like Mike Hearn is hiding something an 8-year old could find with a 5 minute search, is just another ridiculous aspect of this whole discussion.

Same with ignoring the only-bigblocks branch, I already mentioned in this thread:

Quote from: turvarya on August 19, 2015, 04:35:09 AM

There is an only-bigblocks-branch on Github:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

If you have concerns about the other features but want to support bigger blocks, use this branch.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:53:56 AM

I simply looked on the main page.

https://bitcoinxt.software/

I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see

"Decision making is quick and clear."
Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get.

Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page Tongue

WHAT is your AGENDA ignoring this:

Quote

Anti-DoS attack improvements, by Mike Hearn. It's currently possible to jam a Bitcoin node by connecting to it repeatedly via different IP addresses, as there is a fixed limit on how many connections a node will accept. Once full, no other peers or wallets can connect to it any more and serving capacity for new nodes and P2P wallets is reduced. If the attack is repeated against every node, the entire network could become jammed.
This patch set introduces code that runs when a node is full and otherwise could not accept new connections. It labels and prioritises connections according to lists of IP ranges: if a high priority IP address connects and the node is full, it will disconnect a lower priority connection to make room. Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed, and most users/merchants don't use it. In normal operation this new code will never run. If someone performs a DoS attack via Tor, then legitimate Tor users will get the existing behaviour of being unable to connect, but mobile and home users will still be able to use the network without disruption.

Also stop with the FUDing about IP blacklist BS. You're a programmer i expect much better from you.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

Really did you read it at all?

Especially the part : Anti DOS attack?

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this.

So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda.

Yes indeed that's what I mean - what is your agenda for ignoring all the other changes in your statement?
It isn't just block size as you stated.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

I simply looked on the main page.

https://bitcoinxt.software/

I'd expect blacklists and fungibility changes to be listed there, but instead I see

"Decision making is quick and clear."
Followed by a paragraph about as vague as you could get.

Yeah I guess it's bad press to mention their blacklists on the front page Tongue

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this.

So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

Are you blind?

Quote

Anti-DoS attack improvements, by Mike Hearn. It's currently possible to jam a Bitcoin node by connecting to it repeatedly via different IP addresses, as there is a fixed limit on how many connections a node will accept. Once full, no other peers or wallets can connect to it any more and serving capacity for new nodes and P2P wallets is reduced. If the attack is repeated against every node, the entire network could become jammed.
This patch set introduces code that runs when a node is full and otherwise could not accept new connections. It labels and prioritises connections according to lists of IP ranges: if a high priority IP address connects and the node is full, it will disconnect a lower priority connection to make room. Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed, and most users/merchants don't use it. In normal operation this new code will never run. If someone performs a DoS attack via Tor, then legitimate Tor users will get the existing behaviour of being unable to connect, but mobile and home users will still be able to use the network without disruption.

https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

Where exactly have you looked?

kelsey

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kano on August 19, 2015, 08:06:25 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

what about this; "The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

no one could honestly with even half a brain not see that none of this is actually about blocksize, thats the distraction.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 19, 2015, 06:37:28 AM

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason?

If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases.

... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page.

Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years.

blacklists in there mean I wont support it

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: valiz on August 19, 2015, 06:32:09 AM

And only active in certain situations. Lips sealed

Yes, in situations where the person running the node configures it that way.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled.

Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening)

If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete.

valiz

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

BTC trader

Quote from: okae on August 19, 2015, 06:26:16 AM

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

They will say this is for your own protection, of course. And only active in certain situations. Lips sealed

Meanwhile, they will put new ugly stuff in there, which perhaps none will discover in time.

okae

legendary

Activity: 1401

Merit: 1008

northern exposure

i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.

i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs (i mean whats their excuse to include this feature) and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.

edited: this is just the beginning of a nice try to start to control the bitcoin world, if people cant see it, maybe people are blind, now is just this "configurable" feature, whats next?, this will not stop here man... with all those "configurables features" we are giving power to
others on us.

desired_username

hero member

Activity: 886

Merit: 1013

BS propaganda.

Quote

At least 75% of the mined blocks have to be on XT nodes after January.2016 for 2 weeks for the blocksize increase to take place. If super majority does not form around XT then everything stays the same.

You cannot use the number of nodes as metric, as it can be easily spoofed.

On the other hand, the existence of miners depend on the userbase, so they are restricted to follow the user's needs.

Anyone can make their own decision.

Personally, when I got into bitcoin I subscribed to independence, transparency and freedom. Not tyranny, censorship and serving a company (Blockstream).

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Rampion on August 19, 2015, 05:26:58 AM

I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.

What? you want to be laughed at there as well? Cheesy

Quote from: PeterTodd

so the OP may have been looking at the wrong code by accident.

Krypt0Fr3ak

member

Activity: 85

Merit: 10

Quote from: JackH on August 19, 2015, 03:23:58 AM

I think we can clearly see now that XT is just an altcoin and nothing but a hostile takeover from a few people that are most likely bought by an interest group. Stay away from XT, it is cancer to the Bitcoin community.

That's a very fair way to summarize what this whole farce is all about.. power play under the guise of betterment for the core project / community.
Its all BS and stinks!

Calabi–Yau Manifold

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: S4VV4S on August 19, 2015, 05:29:37 AM

I am really curious to see when the core dev team will actually implement larger blocks so that we avoid all this drama and war between bitcoiners.
And of course the XT hard fork.
We should just stick to core.

Quote from: kelsey on August 18, 2015, 08:51:46 PM

yes more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism Lips sealed

Like the war on terror.

this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

I am really curious to see when the core dev team will actually implement larger blocks so that we avoid all this drama and war between bitcoiners.
And of course the XT hard fork.
We should just stick to core.

Quote from: kelsey on August 18, 2015, 08:51:46 PM

yes more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism Lips sealed

Like the war on terror.

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.

Topic: ... - page 36. (Read 61003 times)