Bringing supporters like AntPool down either physically by sabotage, or software exploits/CyberAttacks.
Why not? Seems the time to reason is over and the time of power play has arrived.
BU supporters were not open to reason, they maliciously attack Bitcoin in an attempt to centralize power, hell yeah they should be attacked.
Rico
Topic: Bitcoin core developers attack BU? - page 3. (Read 3158 times)
It looks like Peter Todd maliciously published information about a bug/exploit that had just been fixed in BU.
It is not fair to assign intent without evidence.
It also appears that the attacks on the BU nodes started before his tweeting, which would indicate those attacking the nodes found out about the exploit the same way Peter Todd did - by looking at the git commit that fixed the issue.
Peter Todd can be very arrogant and his tweet seemed to carry an air of arrogance, but I do not think it is fair to assign malicious intent to his action.
Looking at order of events:
BU fix is committed into repository.
Details of exploit is posted on reddit.
Most BU nodes fallover.
This bug has existed for quite sometime so no one attacked it before it was pointed out.
It is possible that the mining nodes where made aware of this first and patched it.
The bug fix has to go in github before precompiled binaries can be released to the wider public.
Saying core developers attacked it is quite an accusation. They don't need to. There are plenty of others willing to do it.
Since BU is becoming more popular, it will be under increased scrutiny to ensure bugs are minimised before wider adoption (if that happens). This is a good thing.
There are plenty of assertions in core code. They are there to prevent unanticipated execution. If you can find a situation which cause a core node to fail to evaluate an assertion all core nodes would fallover, and probably all those nodes forked from core code. I would not recommend anyone do this.
BU fix is committed into repository.
Details of exploit is posted on reddit.
Most BU nodes fallover.
This bug has existed for quite sometime so no one attacked it before it was pointed out.
It is possible that the mining nodes where made aware of this first and patched it.
The bug fix has to go in github before precompiled binaries can be released to the wider public.
Saying core developers attacked it is quite an accusation. They don't need to. There are plenty of others willing to do it.
Since BU is becoming more popular, it will be under increased scrutiny to ensure bugs are minimised before wider adoption (if that happens). This is a good thing.
There are plenty of assertions in core code. They are there to prevent unanticipated execution. If you can find a situation which cause a core node to fail to evaluate an assertion all core nodes would fallover, and probably all those nodes forked from core code. I would not recommend anyone do this.
Franky1, you do understand that BU themselves were the first to publicly release this info, right?
What are you talking about? this isn't a geek little community of coding nerds any more, moral has no place here this is serious human lives at stake here, $20B potential hard cash at least a million lives depending on the day by day functional and operational network. you want us to rely on a version that could go under this easy? we shouldn't put our faith and money in something this much vulnerable, in case if you missed it bitcoin network is constantly under attack from every angle yet the dominant version(Core) stands firmly.
People want strong steel system not a 2 man team wishing to take the wheels and steer.
My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.
People want strong steel system not a 2 man team wishing to take the wheels and steer.
My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.
in short.
if YOU found a core bug..
exploit it and public release info for everyone to exploit it?
or
inform them quietly to fix first
My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.
in charge?
there should be no one in charge. the devs should be independent and helping each other..
but if bitcoin can only function without diversity and with only one codebase running. then bitcoin becomes no better than a bank with 6000 local town bank branches with 1 head office.
think about it
BU crashes.
bitcoin network still runs because it has alternatives such as classic, xt, core still communicating to import keys into and continue..
but (under your utopia of only core running the show) where core had a bug.. all nodes go down
diversity is GOOD not bad
Code:
void SendXThinBlock(CBlock &block, CNode* pfrom, const CInv &inv)
{
if (inv.type == MSG_XTHINBLOCK)
{
...
}
else if (inv.type == MSG_THINBLOCK)
{
...
}
else
{
assert(0); // inv type is not correct
}
...
}
I shouldn't even be surprised by BU's incompetence any more.
ok guys
if there was a bug on core (imagining shoe on other foot)
those blockstream lovers would hope that core got informed first. to fix the bug and release an update, once X% of nodes were running the fix to negate any exploiters, then publicly releasing the exploit
EG
2013 levelDB bug.
not explain what went wrong until days after the fix was released and everyone updated.
..
but when the shoe is on the other foot.. core/blockstream do not believe in diversity of nodes and decentralisation to protect the network by offering the same moral stance of offer fix first, then release exploit publicly.
it proves core devs are NOT "independent"
seems to me that its obvious that "attack and rekt anything not blockstream, protect anything that is blockstream" (centralist mindset) is the game here
What are you talking about? this isn't a geek little community of coding nerds any more, moral has no place here this is serious human lives at stake here, $20B potential hard cash at least a million lives depending on the day by day functional and operational network. you want us to rely on a version that could go under this easy? we shouldn't put our faith and money in something this much vulnerable, in case if you missed it bitcoin network is constantly under attack from every angle yet the dominant version(Core) stands firmly.if there was a bug on core (imagining shoe on other foot)
those blockstream lovers would hope that core got informed first. to fix the bug and release an update, once X% of nodes were running the fix to negate any exploiters, then publicly releasing the exploit
EG
2013 levelDB bug.
not explain what went wrong until days after the fix was released and everyone updated.
..
but when the shoe is on the other foot.. core/blockstream do not believe in diversity of nodes and decentralisation to protect the network by offering the same moral stance of offer fix first, then release exploit publicly.
it proves core devs are NOT "independent"
seems to me that its obvious that "attack and rekt anything not blockstream, protect anything that is blockstream" (centralist mindset) is the game here
People want strong steel system not a 2 man team wishing to take the wheels and steer.
BU is like a 6 years old kid trying to ride 1000cc motorcycle, I once tried to ride a 250cc Suzuki when I was 8 and I pulled the front brake on sandy ground caused me to slip and crashed to the ground burning my stuck leg with hot cylinder.
My point being every serious business needs experienced minds and skilled people in charge , experts knowing what is what.
The amount of spin in this thread is astonishing. I don't know if some of you are actually that dishonest or simply ignorant. I hope it's the latter, but I have a feeling it isn't.
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.
ok guys
if there was a bug on core (imagining shoe on other foot)
those blockstream lovers would hope that core got informed first. to fix the bug and release an update, once X% of nodes were running the fix to negate any exploiters, then publicly releasing the exploit
EG
2013 levelDB bug.
not explain what went wrong until days after the fix was released and everyone updated.
..
but when the shoe is on the other foot.. core/blockstream do not believe in diversity of nodes and decentralisation to protect the network by offering the same moral stance of offer fix first, then release exploit publicly.
it proves core devs are NOT "independent"
seems to me that its obvious that "attack and rekt anything not blockstream, protect anything that is blockstream" (centralist mindset) is the game here
if there was a bug on core (imagining shoe on other foot)
those blockstream lovers would hope that core got informed first. to fix the bug and release an update, once X% of nodes were running the fix to negate any exploiters, then publicly releasing the exploit
EG
2013 levelDB bug.
not explain what went wrong until days after the fix was released and everyone updated.
..
but when the shoe is on the other foot.. core/blockstream do not believe in diversity of nodes and decentralisation to protect the network by offering the same moral stance of offer fix first, then release exploit publicly.
it proves core devs are NOT "independent"
seems to me that its obvious that "attack and rekt anything not blockstream, protect anything that is blockstream" (centralist mindset) is the game here
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.
Ok but who cares, why say malicious, bitcoin is free to be attacked at any time, it's not like anyone owns BTC, thats the whole point
the word malicious is here I posit misused. They simply have a different vision and saw a way to make their point, and in doing so exposed a bug more widely to the market.
That's all legit.
In fact everything when is legit.
I don't understand how people can say they get bitcoin then try to cry fowl.
the word malicious is here I posit misused. They simply have a different vision and saw a way to make their point, and in doing so exposed a bug more widely to the market.
That's all legit.
In fact everything when is legit.
I don't understand how people can say they get bitcoin then try to cry fowl.
It looks like Peter Todd maliciously published information about a bug/exploit that had just been fixed in BU.
Very possible.
Now that BU is gaining serious momentum, Core is pulling out all the stops and resorting to dirty tricks. They are terrified of losing control.
You sound like a real ass***, dont you get it; all youre coins went to $0 due of unskilled noob BU dev...This bug wasnt noticed for a whole year
This article has been written by a BU supporter, dont blame Core go ask questions at BU dev
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?
But his statements couldn't be more clear.
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.
How am i 'going off the deep end'?
Lol that was some ultra-FUD I just read right there. I can't take them seriously at all. This is really ... childish almost.
Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?
But his statements couldn't be more clear.
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.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
this article seems to imply so
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/
FUD. If that article was implying they did so then that is very irresponsible and biased journalism. They do not have proof of who really did it and second, why would the Core developers expose themselves in these sensitive times?
But I know one candidate who is capable of doing something like this. I am scared to mention his name but I will give you a hint. He could be also the same guy who hacked the DAO.
Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?
But his statements couldn't be more clear.
this article seems to imply so
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developers-attack-bitcoin-unlimited/
FUD. If that article was implying they did so then that is very irresponsible and biased journalism. They do not have proof of who really did it and second, why would the Core developers expose themselves in these sensitive times?
But I know one candidate who is capable of doing something like this. I am scared to mention his name but I will give you a hint. He could be also the same guy who hacked the DAO.
Well it looks like to me that Core dev was spot on to identify a flaw in the code and makes it apparent for everyone to see and be aware of, if you see someone doing something wrong and stay silent you are a bad individual in general, if they couldn't find the exploit then they wouldn't have deserved to be trusted with the coding of the Core software.
It shows there is a dedicated and concise team behind bitcoin to navigate the engine in the road.
It shows there is a dedicated and concise team behind bitcoin to navigate the engine in the road.
It looks like Peter Todd maliciously published information about a bug/exploit that had just been fixed in BU.
Very possible.
Now that BU is gaining serious momentum, Core is pulling out all the stops and resorting to dirty tricks. They are terrified of losing control.
With all due respect my dear your opinion on this sounds insane.
Another fatal bug is being discovered in a fatally flawed codebase and it is somehow the fault of the Bitcoin developers?
Seriously now? Who is "terrified" here now!?
Not "their fault" as BU developers are ultimately responsible for their code. However, if you read the article it says that Ciphera (presumed to be Eric Lombrozo) has made clear their intentions to attack BU nodes.
Hello jonald_fyookball
BTU is trash and apparently Blockstream/Core Devs can't be trusted, time to toss them all aside and push for another solution.
Jump to: