Bitmain fucked up, with no malice as is revealed by the open nature of their code on github. Malware writers do not publish their code for the whole world to see.
Their fuck-up does NOT make Segwit less dangerous and more acceptable. Segwit, BU - both of them are garbage and insecure solutions. Bitcoin should be left as a safe haven crypto with no changes to the protocol.
Topic: Antbleed: A remote shutdown backdoor in antminers - page 5. (Read 8076 times)
Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.
+1
Here we have it R.I.P BU Troll Jonald Fyookball and paid shill Franky1.
Is that for real? I was under the impression that Jonald was intelligent. "I don't care if Stalin is shady I like his uniform" ... holy crap
the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.
proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter
No one could realistically claim that BITMAIN don't have too much control. If they managed to cause a problem with other people's miners (which they probably could) they could use their own vast mining power to do a 51% attack.
Decentralisation is necessary in all aspects of Bitcoin.
Is this the main reason of the drastic drop in BU hashing rate, and the increase in price over these two days? Has Jihan provided any argument or explanation?
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fib2xnNn.png&t=576&c=OC-lDjgqk4tzvA
Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.
Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.
+1
Here we have it R.I.P BU Troll Jonald Fyookball and paid shill Franky1.
the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.
proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter
the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.
proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter
P.S achow, remember last year i presented the anyonecanspend issue and for a month you said it was nothing.
now ask yourself a year later
1. why is core is coded to prevent old nodes (downstream) from getting unconfirmed segwit keys
2. why is core is coded to prevent old pools allowed to add a segwit tx in a non segwit block
have a nice day.. it only took months for them to realise the risks and then change a few things, including waiting till way after segwit activates before releasing the wallet activated version of segwit on mainnetp.p.s
are you and lauda still making money from people with core issues, and not even bothering to report the issue to core to fix so fture people dont run into the issue?
if you think jihan owns the whole 9time of posting) 67% nay sayer/abstainers.. then maybe its time you done some research
No one claims that Jihan directly controls 70% of the hashrate. Rather the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware. With this vulnerability, they (or anyone who can MITM or DNS hijack) can stop all of that hashrate from mining.A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network?
if you think jihan owns the whole 9time of posting) 67% nay sayer/abstainers.. then maybe its time you done some research
i find it funny how all the blockstreamists are throwing around the 70% 'control' and blame jihan, bomb jihan bomb china, without doing any realistic and rational thinking
reddit scripts are sounding too much like fox new scripts these days..
western countries wants the middle-east (1900-2000)
western countries bomb the middle east (otterman war-iraq/gulf wars)
middle east fight back
western countries throw a victim card and do the fox news media stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them'
blockstream wants bitcoin as theirs, where blockstream is the engine and at the centre of bitcoin.. at its 'core'
blockstream REKT anything outside of blockstream support
anything outside of blockstream support fight back
blockstream throw a victim card and do the reddit script stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them'
Bitmain has officially reponded: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/
They claim that it was intended to be a feature but was never completed. The code in question has been removed from some of the publicly available sources on Github and in the firmware update they published.
They claim that it was intended to be a feature but was never completed. The code in question has been removed from some of the publicly available sources on Github and in the firmware update they published.
Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.
....
This is very very old 'news' and been mentioned lord how many times in the past.
As mentioned earlier it was for the Minerlink service. The early s7's used to have a page on the Bitmain GUI to set it, was removed after maybe batch-10 or so.
Like ANY remote monitor program/service (Awesome Miner comes to mind) the miners must periodically be polled to see how they are doing. Only difference here is it was a cloud service and ran by Bitmain.
As posted earlier: If ya don't like it just re-direct the query to localhost. 'Problem' solved.
Yes for whatever reason, the code still remains and YES Bitmain should remove it since it serves no purpose and is a needless 'possible feature'.
This is very very old 'news' and been mentioned lord how many times in the past.
As mentioned earlier it was for the Minerlink service. The early s7's used to have a page on the Bitmain GUI to set it, was removed after maybe batch-10 or so.
Like ANY remote monitor program/service (Awesome Miner comes to mind) the miners must periodically be polled to see how they are doing. Only difference here is it was a cloud service and ran by Bitmain.
As posted earlier: If ya don't like it just re-direct the query to localhost. 'Problem' solved.
Yes for whatever reason, the code still remains and YES Bitmain should remove it since it serves no purpose and is a needless 'possible feature'.
One purpose of the feature is that it can remotely turn off the miner if it is stolen. Is that a good feature?
bip 9
deadline from november 2016 - november 2017
Describing what could happen has nothing to do with threats, bombs or anything that you've specified. BIP9 is much better than the previous way of activating soft forks (if miners are acting rationally, which currently they are not).deadline from november 2016 - november 2017
UASF deadline from august 2017 to november 2017
Core has nothing to do with UASF.if they are going to pull a pin actually recode sgwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features.
dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network
Nonsense from you, yet again.dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network
this topic is about finding a bug in anything thats not in full core support. where the core group are trying to find any excuse to pull the UASF pin on pools to get their way
Proof that Core found this/exposed it? Oh right, there isn't any. 3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demenads or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen
This has no relevance to my post, the thread or anything at all actually (putting aside it being nonsensical). this topic is about finding a bug in anything thats not in full core support. where the core group are trying to find any excuse to pull the UASF pin on pools to get their way
2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network
Which is completely far-fetched from reality. Statements like these prove that you're either a delusional individual or a paid shill. bip 9
deadline from november 2016 - november 2017
BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach. basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)
a->b->c
UASF deadline from august 2017 to november 2017
if there are still nay sayers.. a mandatory activation by late 2018
blockstream cannot take no for an answer
instead of doubling down on threats.. the blockstream team and fanboys should think of plan B
if they are going to pull a pin actually recode sgwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features.
dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network
1. if any brand thats not blockstream wanted to kill bitcoin they would have pulled the pin already or atleast set deadlines
They can't kill it, they can only harm it or attempt to kill/harm/control it. That's the whole point. 2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network
Which is completely far-fetched from reality. Statements like these prove that you're either a delusional individual or a paid shill. Choose the lesser evil.3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demenads or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen
This has no relevance to my post, the thread or anything at all actually (putting aside it being nonsensical). https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/
Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
Nonsense. This code does what it was intended to do, therefore not a bug per definition. This makes them even look more ridiculous. Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
Classic example of a shill:
1. if any brand thats not blockstream wanted to kill bitcoin they would have pulled the pin already or atleast set deadlines
2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network
3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demands or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/
Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
Nonsense. This code does what it was intended to do, therefore not a bug per definition. This makes them even look more ridiculous. Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
Classic example of a shill:
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/
Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
Patched.
I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.
This is the fruits of monopoly and nothing can be done against it , which is ridiculous.
Just buy some other hardware of some other vendor. What is the problem? The problem is that most private (and even wide-scaled) miners are greedy, they need shortest possible ROI, maximum possible profit, at any cost. Even at the cost of their own safety and calmness...
Jump to: