Topic: Bitcoin core developers attack BU? - page 2. (Read 3158 times)

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

This is another sad story in bitcoin history. We all keep saying that bitcoin is decentralized yet there are groups who are forming as one and trying to make bitcoin a centralized currency. This attack by the core developers is just one of the evidence that groups wanted that the miners will use their system to mine bitcoins. This is just a display how bad they wanted to have control over bitcoin production and get profit.

 

Looks like you BUcoiners are on some severe denial.

Facts:

1) This was released by BU developers, once it's in the wild it's BU developers problem if something goes south
2) Peter tweeted about this 1+ hour after release, so this is not a 0day
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/

BU is dead, and it's all due BU's dev incompetence.

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

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?

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... how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?

Bitcoin cannot die that way.

xt, classic, btcd, btcc, statoshi, core, knots, BU

the ones not crossed out want consensus and happily not put in deadlines. and nodes have not decided to split off in the 2+ years of their implementations being running on mainnet.

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

so im guessing your 'if some* players' has the * referring to core and knots.

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.

non core implementations want to use bitcoins consensus to keep to a single network.
its only core that is shouting opposite to point the blame in the other direction when they themselves pull the ban hammer trigger


so logically
blockstream proposals:
removing PoW
removing changing native keys to segwit keys
removing changing peer-to-peer to peer-to-LN
removing node consensus for pool only consensus
bypassing pool only consensus by having upstream filter FIBRE activated UASF

can you not see the big picture?

all thats then left is for them to stroke their sheep into agreeing to a nice licence..
(sarcasm) Hmmm.. i wonder have they hinted they are going to swap to a new licence(we know they have)
oh look so they have
Defensive Patent License

That has nothing to do with Blockstream. If the miners coerce to attack the network for whatever reason, they deserve to get fired. Simple as that.

---

Here's some comedy found on reddit:

What a wonderful consensus change. Along with Shaolin Fry's UASF and forced activation proposals, the 2 tier spoon fed network and the ability to whitelist/blacklist nodes, it looks like one side is fully prepared for a bilateral split to protect blockstreams investment.

so this is all fud again right? if they were aware of the bug exploit, why the article say that the team from core is reproaching it? i thinkt he core team is afraid that antpool can start a crusade that can raise the attention form other pool and want to kill BU now that has still a low percentage of consensus

You may say that I'm biased, but I am more inclined to say that there is much more bullshit coming from r/btc than the other side. Note: I have never, and will never participate in either one of those places.

Who is playing the Utopian dream scenario now? You can't really have that if some* players attempt to diverge from the protocol without attaining prior consensus from the whole network.

Two words: PoW change.

So True and this is what i felt

Careful what you wish for, unless you have a warehouse full of asics at the ready.

Yeah!

The banksters paid Roger Ver and the antpul hard fork for bitcoin network. They also pay network trolls....

This is a battle without rules! We must show that Bitcoin Core also have strength!

i was actually putting a critical/unbiased hat on and playing with the blockstreamers mindset that:
"BU couldnt fix their own problems and found out after things went public."
(their rhetoric)

and putting shoe on the other foot and switching it, to ask
if those events were involving blockstream(core) code where the community exploited first. rather than secretly inform first(peer review) what would they do

point being.
if core are "independent" then they should help each other out. not kiss ass of one team and only one team. as thats just centralist mindset
EG if core prefer to dominate and stick to a higher TIER, then they have no PEER.

bitcoin should be about PEER review not TIER review

xt, classic, btcd, btcc, statoshi, core, knots, BU etc should all be on the same level playing field in regards to a open community of PEER REVIEW
and not the cat and mouse game of
'im not gonna peer review their code'
then same person
'its not peer reviewed so cant be good'
meaning if your not going to review it. then dont complain about it not being reviewed

EG like a book critic not reading a book. then crying it must be bad because its not been critiqued

There is a log of bullshit propaganda going on in both sides. It certainly seems that different bitcoin news websites have their own agenda, just like the newspapers and TV broadcasters. That's why I obtain my news from various sources just to keep my objective sanity.

AFAIK, and judging from the comments on r/btc, the attack began before Peter Todd posted on twitter about it. Stop with this bullshit propaganda.

Who paid for this article?

---

To make matters worse, the fake incident report that "allegedly affected Core": https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/buir-2017-2-23-statement-regarding-network-wide-bitcoin-client-failure-28a59ffffeaa#.7rqgmlmb4
https://archive.fo/Sx31y

Amazing how view of community on Core developers changes over years. From the bastion of decentralization they become censors and attackers.
But as far I am concerned there is no hard evidence that info about this exploit leaked by Core devs caused this situation to escalate.
All in all Bitcoin Unlimited is faulty piece of code, fix it first, we have new bug every month so far.