Topic: 4th Major Crash Bug Exploit on BU - page 2. (Read 2571 times)

franky1 is a known anti-Core, anti-Blockstream, pro-big blocks shill.

It's so fake how everytime BU crashes, all the nodes go up again pretty much at the same time. Someone is obviously running a ton of BU nodes and he turns it on all at the same time.

Also no, we don't need a lot of different clients to "diversify the network", the different versions running at the same time are enough. Satoshi was against anything that wasn't the Satoshi client for a reason.

I even like the thinking of having a diverse decentralized peer network but some people are really trying to monopolies things and that is when the problem arises,look at the course of actions done by BU,they created a paper monster but the monster keeps on failing on the real test,let us critically think about the future of bitcoin,would you stand by people who are driven by monetary gains or those who knows about maintaining a certain protocol.

if core was humans.. it would be called several generations of imbreds

lol i think you need to learn diversity. you know totally different groups/families with different genetic makeup (code/language) all co-existing

and as for lauda

your the one that mentions BU in nearly every topic. you keep failing to pigeon hole me into one brand. because i am not someone that wants just one brand..
while i try to talk about diverse decentralised bitcoin peer network that way it minimises risks

EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
... oh wait that happened..
and that was not just a 5 minute bit of comedy/drama..

now imagine if there was btcd (written in go) and other implementations that didnt have the berkeley db...
we would not have had much of an issue in 2013 as what actually happened.

please dont have the blockstream defender hat on and scream KNOTS because that too is blockstream.. im talking real diversity..

even to the point of where the devs allowed users to set their own settings at runtime to not be spoon fed from the same group of devs.
= real independence and diversity.

seriously, take just a 10 minute break from the keyboard and remove your blockstream adoration cap.. and think critically about bitcoin 120 years
not blockstreams next 3 years.

devs come and go. and kissing one butt cheek will leave u lonely when they retire, get bored, or move onto something else.
think beyond blockstream and think about bitcoin

Spot on.  Even if the devs are corrupt, they're not naturally/inherently that way.  Miners have a profit motive, so voting from miners is solely based around who has the most money to throw around for Bitcoin.

Core has been consistent enough not to cause a giant crash in the number of nodes being ran.  Anyone committed enough to run a full node will have an understanding that alternative implementations exist, and yet most of them don't choose BU or other nodes, simply because Core comparatively know what they're doing. 

BU's status as a kind of miner uprising is terrible.  It's basically just miners hoping to increase the transaction capacity directly for profit who are terrified of offchain transactions to make microtransactions convenient or other solutions to actual problems in the protocol.

This pic is telling uss exactly what BU supporters think about this situation. Like always, they love to blame and trash everything and everyone exept there 'mighty' bug unlimited

Edit: they even blame the media and social media for this attack..LOL

lol.. that's ... a good one.. having to turn btctalk.. off - as I can't stop laughing and I'm sitting at my desk at work..

What kinds of rules or protocols can be changed and at the same time other versions accept them?
Let me simplify my question here, imagine all Core nodes crash, now what can BU nodes do that Core nodes couldn't? they can not change anything that Core nodes wouldn't accept and if BU nodes try to change anything then miners would not accept and if they do then they would be forking away from the Core code/ version.

By all means let BU nodes stay active so everyone could see which version is superior and is more stable.

If Core nodes crash then BU nodes which are standing still have to follow the Core rules or else they will be forking away from the network which were ruled by Core code.
When hospitals have no grid power their reserve generators kicks in and provides them with electricity but if Core nodes fail then BU nodes will have to provide the same electricity Core was providing the network and they can't instead start providing WIFI signals I hope you get what I mean.

Well, i'm not even suprised seeing this bug ore whatever happend to BU. This whole BU project is one major joke, BU software is bugged, nodes are bugged... screw this shit man freaking amateurs.

Why cant Jihan and Roger just admid BU is dead? The only thing they got left is hashing power, both will continue talking FUD on Twitter and pushing for a HF  

My thoughts exactly. The network is pretty diversified when it comes to versioning.

---

While franky1 continues to shill for the disaster that is BU, we are back to this again:

The network is already diversified:



No need to diversify on shitty software that steals 99% of code, adds 1% and this 1% is always the code that makes the nodes be prone to all kinds of exploits.

Different versions of reliable Core software to guarantee in the rare case the latest version has a bug the entire network doesn't go down is already in place as you can see. Im sorry that people only trust Core with their money, must be a hard pill to swallow for antiCore shills.

thats the titanic, big bank "too big to fail" mindset... especially ignoring past fails to pretend it will never fail

2013 leveldb transition
now imagine if in 2013 there were implementations wrote in Go and other implementations that had other databases that would not have been hit by the berkely locks

the implementations running non-berkely db's would have been fine and that includes the one running Go too and only the small amount using the old Berkeley with the lock problem would have been held up

I edited the source and changed the background color of the GUI to orange, so it matches my wallpaper, and added my name to the list of contributors. I now run my own "alternative implementation"

Hopefully this change that I made will prevent my client from getting affected by some bug in Core.

And despite so many core implementations out there, no instances of crashes taking down large numbers of any version of them. The stability record of core is exemplary.

all nodes you highlighted are all blockstream managed..
yep knots=blockstream too
=not true diversity, just pretend diversity

your still not seeing the big picture

It is already diversified with actually safe-to-run code:

---

Among a few other thing such as Knots.

There are other node implementations, but BU is out of consensus.

Ehh obviously there's people genuinely pushing for BU, Roger Ver himself im convinced doesn't have any machiavelian intentions when it comes to wanting to leave bitcoin as it is. He genuinely things BU is better than Core which is insane, as we can see the code keeps crashing continuously because BU is a failure developed my amateurs. No one with a functional brain will trust BU over Core with their money.

its about some people thinking core should be king. or thinking th debate is only about BU vs core and who gts to be king

there should be no king. just a diverse decentralised peer network
meaning
lots of "brands" all uniting with a consensus of rules they all follow

that way we dont have a issue with core should they have a bug (EG 2013 leveldb would not have been such a drama event) because there would be other brands keeping core the network alive while core sort out their implementation

that way we dont have a issue with BU should they have a bug (EG assert drama event) because there would be other brands keeping the network alive while BU sort out their implementation

trying to get everyone using just one implementation is where attacks externally can cause mega issues, and dictators internally can cause mega issues

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture