Topic: ... - page 6. (Read 61015 times)

I'm combing through the code and it's not looking good.





Basically they will disconnect you if your address has 'low priority', which might hurt new addresses. If you have a negative priority score that means you're an attacker according to them, and you are disconnected.

Also mapping the tor network, lots of code aside from this to break through the anonymity of TOR.



These changes are massive and BitcoinXT has not mentioned them at all, clearly the block size debate is a distraction.

Using google translate, I posted in the China section. It seems to have the intended effect. All the miners in the China section are for Bitcoin core, not XT.

BTW, google translate seems to make gibberish in Chinese if you use long sentences. However, if you keep the sentences to small phrases, as in Arnold Schwartzeneggar in "Terminator" short, google translate seems to do o.k.

I don't know if cryptocurrency will become widely adopted or not. I mean, it might be like Linux or Esperanto, great ideas but nobody wants to use them. However, I am betting that it will be as popular as email in 20 to 30 years. Which cryptocurrency? Litecoin? Bitcoin? Monero? Or something else not yet released into the wild? Who knows? The future will be very interesting, indeed.

No, Hearn is a dictator and says you must run XT. BIP101 will be introduced as a new law in Congress in 2016, applying globally. Yes, even places like Antartica and the Moon.

PS. I also heard Hearn's behind fluoridation.

No, Hearn is a dictator and says you must run XT. BIP101 will be introduced as a new law in Congress in 2016, applying globally. Yes, even places like Antartica and the Moon.

PS. I also heard Hearn's behind fluoridation.

I don't know why there still so much war against XT.
XT is a falied project from beginning, even the minted blocks almost have no more BIP101 acceptance, the XT fork will never happen.

Hearn already introduced blacklists -- first to Core, which was rejected, then to XT, which is included in the download since he is the "benevolent dictator" of XT.  Hence the topic.  

Heh...I haven't forgotten the luke-jr gentoo update. With that said, do you really think that Hearn and/or Gavin are going to quietly try to introduce auto-updates, blacklists or anything else? Even if they managed to pull it off and a few early upgraders got snared, it would be the end of their reputations. Call me just not that concerned.

Damn couldn't ignore that
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512

Specifically in comment 4 what gentoo bitcoind was doing by default for all who didn't change it:
2014-10-05 11:38:09 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : ignoring transaction                289673d37df1a709829b3f3ea7b8549703f4251f26f5721863aacbccc47b95a9 with blacklisted output (SatoshiDice)

Of course the issue being that people run clients without checking in detail what they do, so you can get a large number of people accepting a client change without even asking them.

The issue here being that people are arguing how they want the XT client where it would seem at least some of them have no idea about what "other" changes other than BIP101 they will get ... and why those other changes are in there.

It becomes: yeah if you don't want what the majority are downloading we have the modified non-standard version that you can get ... that isn't what most people are running who download.

...
You can insert anything in "Xyz developer might introduce [insert here] in the future. It's a strawman argument and it's a waste of everyone's time discussing what someone might do with FOSS since we can all vote with our feet BEFORE that has any effect.
...

It isn't completely theoretical when you consider his previous proposals.  He has proposed repeatedly putting central trust-based control into Bitcoin, and he has complete irrevocable control over XT.   Yes, it is possible he won't do all this bad stuff in XT.  But, you have to consider how he could do this BEFORE he does it in order to avoid it, because control is a sneaky thing that can creap in over time.  

Here is a possible plan that could create an irreversible situation, one where you cannot just escape by quitting using XT:

1. Obtains a critical mass of clients.  Let's say 75% of miners are running XT code.
2. Introduces automatic updates for "security reasons".  This will help relieve the pesky decision making progress with upgrades.
3. Introduces ability to identify XT clients.
4. Puts in DoS code based on blacklists and prioritization that are distributed and signed by XT nodes, giving a higher priority to XT connections.  This effectively de-prioritizes non-XT nodes.  Can also easily adds non-XT nodes to lower priority lists (blacklists).  He already put the code into XT, with documented plans to make it utilize more node coordination.  Clearly, the only nodes that are candidates for doing this coordination today are XT nodes, as Core rejected this proposal.  
5. In order to "combat crime", introduces coin tainting (another one of his famous ideas) that can revoke the wealth of those who object, with a negative bias towards non-conforming (non-XT) nodes.

Now, people wake up and realize this is bad stuff.  What happens when you use a non-XT client?  At this point, it is too late to undo.  Technically, you can accomplish all of this without changing the Bitcoin protocol, although this would presumably require different chains and protocols.  With 75% critical mass, however, one could just as easily change the consensus protocol to make it more irreversible.  He's already proved he is willing to do that.  

Yes, there is theory here, as we are talking about a possible future.  Yet, given past proposals to add centralized control to Bitcoin, and his completely control over XT, this is not out of the realm of possibility.  The core risk of Mike's previous proposals which he has become known for is the introduction of central control and trust to our decentralized trust-less Bitcoin.  So, the better question is why would he not use XT to implement his vision?

More importantly it compromises trust as it necessarily introduces a third-party who manages this list.

Do not reply to satoshi fan club if you value a sane argument lol

Did you even understand what Carlton wrote? You basically fell into the same logical trap he pointed out.

Logical fallacy my ass.

If I want to blacklist you, I will create an ipset 'blacklist' of type hash:ip

Then I ill add your address by


Thats how its done. You cont need Core or XT to do that.  Any node can do that to you right now, running Core 0.11 or any other version.

And how do you stop other nodes from using the feature against you? Turning it off stops your node from deprioritising others, not others from deprioritising you. This is an elementary logical fallacy; you cannot control the behaviour of other nodes, only your own.

ipset add blacklist n.n.n.n 

Config file is Hearn's stated plan. It's still a bad idea, most people will not touch the defaults. Also, I will believe it when I see it, this is Mike we're talking about.