Bitcoin core developers attack BU? | Bitcointalksearch.org

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 16, 2017, 08:27:23 AM

Quote from: European Central Bank on March 14, 2017, 10:09:29 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 14, 2017, 10:06:24 PM

Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?

But his statements couldn't be more clear.

don't you think you're going a little far off the deep end with this? i don't get how anyone could treat this article as anything other than squealing.

if they have a point to make then make it in a dignified manner. if they believe core is out to 'get them' then be better people and rise above it.

Yes, you have to ask them "really? this?". There is a concentrated effort to FUD Core, divide the community and then conquer. It began with XT vs. QT. That is where the Core vs. the big blockers argument started. I am all for competition but not the dirty tricks being done from both sides.

Who next to Bullockstream is more responsible for

'divide the community and then conquer'

??

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: European Central Bank on March 14, 2017, 10:09:29 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 14, 2017, 10:06:24 PM

Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?

But his statements couldn't be more clear.

don't you think you're going a little far off the deep end with this? i don't get how anyone could treat this article as anything other than squealing.

if they have a point to make then make it in a dignified manner. if they believe core is out to 'get them' then be better people and rise above it.

Yes, you have to ask them "really? this?". There is a concentrated effort to FUD Core, divide the community and then conquer. It began with XT vs. QT. That is where the Core vs. the big blockers argument started. I am all for competition but not the dirty tricks being done from both sides.

Paashaas

legendary

Activity: 3512

Merit: 4557

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 15, 2017, 08:36:34 PM

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/security-researcher-found-bug-knocked-out-bitcoin-unlimited/?utm_content=buffer6e884&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Quote

the main problem for Bitcoin Unlimited, as pointed out by information security expert Andreas Antonopoulos, is that it lacks a significant development community to perform proper quality analysis. The number of developers working on Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic is relatively small, and the code that included the exploited vulnerability was merged after being reviewed by only one person — not a lot for security-critical code protecting people’s money

Quote

the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb,” she said. “I’m astounded the mining industry are running this software. But since they are, and a lot of people could get harmed, the best I can do, other than recommending they don’t use Bitcoin Unlimited, is to disclose the issues and hope they are competent enough to fix it.”

This guy knows it how BU is in deep shit, thx for sharing this article. All as expected but BU supporters are to stubborn to accept that.

Sadlife

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 269

Dont jump to conclusions man we dont actually know the exact truth Peter todd posted in his twitter account that he did not do it.
Well, if it was bitcoin core dev or some hacker sooner or later the Bug will be discovered and exploited.
I do hope that no more major flaw will be found in BU's code or if there is better fixed it already before some attacker tries to bring down the network again.
prevention is always better than cure.

Vaskiy

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 1106

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

BU doesn't have good blockchain developers team to fix it. A bug has been used to collapse the entire network. When it took around 40% support in a 24 hours time. Soon after the bug it dropped to 32% and continues. Several statements were made funny in the social Media regarding the collapse of BU.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 15, 2017, 08:36:34 PM

I was wrong that the BU devs found the vulnerability. It was an independent security researcher who found it and disclosed it to them privately. This is what the researcher who found the vulnerability had to say:

Quote

The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,” she said.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/security-researcher-found-bug-knocked-out-bitcoin-unlimited/?utm_content=buffer6e884&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This is actually quite a good article.

But as BU is gaining traction, the BU code will come under closer and closer scrutiny, and these issues will be resolved. Those who prefer the BU future vision to the core future vision are more likely to get involved. Perhaps the article doesn't explore this possibility.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

i never blamed Peter Todd.

Abdussamad

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 1584

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 15, 2017, 07:14:47 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 15, 2017, 07:04:24 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 11:48:21 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 14, 2017, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM

2 - The allegation is the blockstream core devs were behind the malicious attacks against the BU nodes this afternoon. There is also no question that Peter Todd (a blockstream core dev) did not responsibly disclose the bug that he was made aware of in the BU code.

This is not true. The bug was discovered and patched by BU devs first. Todd simply tweeted about it.

It still violates responsible disclosure principals and was very unethical.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

if it was public info, it wasn't fixed because...?

They posted a fix on their git repo and that's how Todd got wind of it. So it was fixed but people hadn't downloaded the fix yet. You can't really blame Todd for this. Once a vulnerability is made public people have to scramble to get it fixed. People looking to exploit will also scramble to exploit it. It is the nature of the beast.

In other opensource projects the fix is pushed out first and later the vulnerability is spelled out to the public. In this case the vulnerability was so obvious that they couldn't hide it.

I was wrong that the BU devs found the vulnerability. It was an independent security researcher who found it and disclosed it to them privately. This is what the researcher who found the vulnerability had to say:

Quote

The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,” she said.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/security-researcher-found-bug-knocked-out-bitcoin-unlimited/?utm_content=buffer6e884&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 15, 2017, 07:04:24 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 11:48:21 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 14, 2017, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM

2 - The allegation is the blockstream core devs were behind the malicious attacks against the BU nodes this afternoon. There is also no question that Peter Todd (a blockstream core dev) did not responsibly disclose the bug that he was made aware of in the BU code.

This is not true. The bug was discovered and patched by BU devs first. Todd simply tweeted about it.

It still violates responsible disclosure principals and was very unethical.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

A bug/exploit by definition is public information. The fix was not yet implemented and therefore pointing to the exploit very publicly and drawing attention to the exploit was unethical.

If Peter Todd worked for any half reputable company, he would have been fired for doing this.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 15, 2017, 07:04:24 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 11:48:21 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 14, 2017, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM

2 - The allegation is the blockstream core devs were behind the malicious attacks against the BU nodes this afternoon. There is also no question that Peter Todd (a blockstream core dev) did not responsibly disclose the bug that he was made aware of in the BU code.

This is not true. The bug was discovered and patched by BU devs first. Todd simply tweeted about it.

It still violates responsible disclosure principals and was very unethical.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

if it was public info, it wasn't fixed because...?

Abdussamad

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 1584

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 11:48:21 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 14, 2017, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM

2 - The allegation is the blockstream core devs were behind the malicious attacks against the BU nodes this afternoon. There is also no question that Peter Todd (a blockstream core dev) did not responsibly disclose the bug that he was made aware of in the BU code.

This is not true. The bug was discovered and patched by BU devs first. Todd simply tweeted about it.

It still violates responsible disclosure principals and was very unethical.

No it doesn't because nothing was disclosed that wasn't already public. The BU devs committed a fix for that bug an hour before Todd decided to tweet about it. It was public info!

AT-N-T101

member

Activity: 96

Merit: 10

Quote from: Bitcoin_Mafia_Me on March 15, 2017, 12:27:41 PM

Wow...what a horrible piece of yellow journalism. Even if it is an op-ed piece, any reporter worth his / her salt
would gather facts to support his / her position. This is fearmongering, plain and simple. So some guy named
cipher said he was going to exploit bugs. So what. There is no proof that he is or was ever tied to the Bitcoin
core group. In fact, CCN noted that in a correction to the article.

Do I believe that certain persons in the Bitcoin core could stoop to this level to try to knock BU off its pedestal?

Sure. Do I have proof? No, i do not.

Bet the article got a lot of eyes on it, though, and at the end of the day that seems to be the only goal for some
folks.

This is apparently an exercise in journalism, or it is someone who needs an order of the article, so that the information of such a composition would come out to the masses.

Bitcoin_Mafia_Me

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

BitcoinerX.com - PM for Ad Info

Wow...what a horrible piece of yellow journalism. Even if it is an op-ed piece, any reporter worth his / her salt
would gather facts to support his / her position. This is fearmongering, plain and simple. So some guy named
cipher said he was going to exploit bugs. So what. There is no proof that he is or was ever tied to the Bitcoin
core group. In fact, CCN noted that in a correction to the article.

Do I believe that certain persons in the Bitcoin core could stoop to this level to try to knock BU off its pedestal?

Sure. Do I have proof? No, i do not.

Bet the article got a lot of eyes on it, though, and at the end of the day that seems to be the only goal for some
folks.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:27:35 AM

Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 15, 2017, 07:20:55 AM

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation) 0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

Good case. Try to SW-sent this (in case SW gets enough hashpower) . Does this get cheaper ?

nope.
because although lets say average fee today was 200sat/byte

with the grace period of activation. followed by the few weeks to wait for a SW wallet active release. and then people sync to it.
(atleast a month)
the fee might be 400sat/byte.

then spending all them outputs(native keys) cost 400sat/byte.. to put into a SW key.. to then and only then only cost 100sat/byte to respend that day...

whereby then your playing the fee war game again because not everyone is on SW keys(thus not getting a real 2mb block) and mempools are still bloated. and that 100sat/byte SWfee wars into 200 sat/byte SWfee and 800sat/byte nativefee

thus no end benefit, because the fee war will catch up with the possible discount.

forget ever going back to 1c/tx average. all your doing is TEMPORARILY back dating fee's by a couple months.

matt11235

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

Quote from: Quickseller on March 14, 2017, 07:16:50 PM

It looks like Peter Todd maliciously published information about a bug/exploit that had just been fixed in BU.

I don't think he really had any malicious intent. Sure, he doesn't approve of Unlimited but he seems like a good guy/not a terrorist.

vamosrafa

newbie

Activity: 32

Merit: 0

If you read the "authors" other "articles" you will understand he/she does not know the first thing about writing, journalism, or Bitcoin.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 14, 2017, 07:13:26 PM

this article seems to imply so

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 15, 2017, 07:20:55 AM

Indeed.

https://blockchain.info/address/14PUebVa1CpYuFVEvdyCB1vG37SpmBtWQL?offset=0&filter=6

751 inputs, balance 0.26644724 BTC

751 inputs at 148 bytes per input = 111148 bytes
111148 bytes at prompt 200sats/byte fee = 22229600 sats fee = 0.222296 BTC fee

Effective spendable balance (assuming a fairly prompt confirmation) 0.26644724 - 0.222296 = 0.04415124 BTC.

Do you see why some people want to solve this issue?

And you also see why some other people like to keep it that way...

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 15, 2017, 11:01:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on March 15, 2017, 10:30:15 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why. Roll Eyes

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

Quote from: -ck on March 15, 2017, 08:23:59 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 15, 2017, 07:49:24 AM

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like then, all that would vanish into thin air.

There are only 2 groups of people still defending BU:

-The ones that still think it is the best for bitcoin because they don't know any better
-The ones paid to keep promoting it in order to meet certain agendas

i'm in the former group. I would appreciate it if you can direct me to the place where I can get paid. thanks in advance.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: Lauda on March 15, 2017, 10:30:15 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why. Roll Eyes

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

Quote from: -ck on March 15, 2017, 08:23:59 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 15, 2017, 07:49:24 AM

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like then, all that would vanish into thin air.

There are only 2 groups of people still defending BU:

-The ones that still think it is the best for bitcoin because they don't know any better
-The ones paid to keep promoting it in order to meet certain agendas

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

however core 0.13.1+ and knots.. bypassed consensus by going soft
willing to split the minority off once reaching 95% (bip9 allows this)

Nope. Soft forks have always been used and you start complaining about them now. I wonder why. Roll Eyes

Quote from: franky1 on March 15, 2017, 06:20:00 AM

after all (which you know because i quoted it to you many times) gmaxwell actually invited the non core implementations to split off ages ago and they all laughed in his face.

Wrong. He was talking about consensus altering implementations.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

BU needs more attacks - go for.

BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger

There are apparently other exploits that have been properly disclosed, but the BU team failed to fix so far. This team's incompetence is on a prestiege level.

Quote from: hv_ on March 15, 2017, 07:08:07 AM

how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bullshit as always from BTU fanatics. Go find those bugs:
1) Testnet.
2) Live network on Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17607303
3) Live network 2 (soon) Viacoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.6080

Quote from: -ck on March 15, 2017, 08:23:59 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 15, 2017, 07:49:24 AM

3) BU devs are being childs about their own fuckup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zhmwn/andrew_stones_bu_dev_fake_screenshot_is_a_poor/

This is one of the most fucked up public stunt screw ups yet.

I don't understand how someone can continue to shill for these guys without being paid or something. If someone that I had a high vision of, or supported in a way did something like that, then all of that would vanish into thin air.

Topic: Bitcoin core developers attack BU? (Read 3158 times)