Topic: Bitcoin Network is under sybil attack - page 3. (Read 4353 times)

because with one good vps server you can accept more connections than a home server.

Yes, with Core nodes switching off at the same time! Just seems like one VSP got offline and virtual servers seems to be good choice for part of Classic and Core nodes. So no sybil attack at all.

Unfortunatelly Classic nodes have to be at cloud services because of ongoing DDoS attacks, but why so many Core nodes are at cloud services when no registered DDoS attacks against Core nodes

 Choopa, LLC disappear from node count almost completely and from 1000+ nodes today has only (48)!

first time i read about this scenario. Are you sure about this? Can you prove it?

it happens before in tor network where a successfully sybil attack from Fbi, NSA? was id the users of the network. I am very sure the same can happen and to bitcoin network and recover transactions id especially from thin wallet that has the flaw to connect to only to few nodes

I think Chinese were under this sybil attack. Because of their greediness attitude it is possible that Chinese people that are mining bitcoin were responsible for doing this.

1. POOLS handle the tx validations and propagation, not the individual miners(asics).. in china. there are warehouses of miners(asics) but the pool handling the proper data are in iceland switzerland, america etc.
miners are just handed a piece of data AFTER the pool has combined and validated a few thousand txs, the asics job is then to hash out a piece of data that is not the whole block.. they contain no hard drives, the asics do not check balances or signatures. they just hash a small piece of data over and over. again it is the pools central server that does all of that and the pools central server is not hindered by the chinese fire wall because they dont have the pool server in china.

the ASIC miners are in china because they want the factory very close to the manufacturer to save hours/days on delivery of new units.

EG
i can join eligius pool which is not hosted in china, using an asic miner held in china. and the china firewall will not restrict my miner in any way because the data my miner handles is not the same data the pool handles.

anyone else debating the bloat argument should really compare 2mb old style txs to a blockstream roadmapped segwit+confidential payment codes and see that its blockstream that are more bloated and offering less transactions per megabyte

This Sybil attack should open some people's eyes to another vulnerability in the consensus model, if these spoof nodes are deemed to be valid nodes. If anyone else with enough money can do this

attack successfully, we need to consider another approach to this problem. The people with economic interest in Bitcoin failing, could fund a sustained attack for months and the only counter for that

will be to fund a opposing implementation with more spoofed nodes.   

my bad english cant help to answer to you but you are very wrong with what you say. Big block create many problems especially to miners and especially to relay problems. They all know this in mining system and they find it with through the recent spam attack.
Is not only a deal with blockstream or evil core team.  Is a deal because they have a very serious tech reason behind it./

^

1MB is not "blockstream roadmap" you idiot.

you can bitch about it all you want, they are powerless, and just as core devs are.

its all about the consensus.

Here is my mindset.

have both 2mb AND segwit to protect yourself and to be a true full node capable of validating anything that comes in the future. to avoid contention and control.

but personally make standard old fashioned transactions. .. and here is why


as you can see. if we stay at 1mb and blindly follow blockstreams roadmap. then the real full archival node POTENTIAL bloat of segwit is 1.9mb for 3800 transactions.
compared to 2mb block of old fashioned transactions being 4000tx for 2mb. (yes you may think its a small difference, but read on)

and if you then add on blockstreams other roadmap feature Confidential Payment Codes(CPC) which adds another 250bytes to each tx. then those 3800 transactions per 1mb block balloon upto 2.85mb

so if everyone done a SW+CPC transaction instead of a standard transaction. then they are filling up hard drives by nearly 3mb for just 3800 transactions.
yet if everyone done standard old fashioned transactions in a 2mb block. the blocks would only be 2mb each (at most) for4000 tx.. (instead of 2.85mb on the roadmap)

so i did laugh when blockstream shills doomsdayed the 2mb block being too much bloat. yet saying that the blockstream roadmap was not bloat.(hello wake up!! 1mb blockstream roadmap features =2.85mb potential bloat!, 2mb standard tx=2mb potential bloat.)

so with 2mb+SW+CPC code in EVERY node.. it can allow UPTO 5.7mb of bloat per block. BUT. as long as people only do and prefer to do standard transaction we can have 4000 tx for 2mb
if things bottleneck people can go to SW transaction types for 7600..(as a last resort/backup plan)
but i really hope blockstream doesnt force CPC as a standard feature. because not only would that over bloat the transactions. but no longer make the bitcoin transparant ledger as transparant. and people will no longer be able to fully validate the blockchain because the numbers dont add up. causing risks to bugs and hacks of creating newcoin.

blockstream are delaying 2mb for one reason. they want CPC invente first and to use the 2mb not as real capacity growth. but to cover the bloat caused by CPC.

dont blindly follow the roadmap. get the 2mb buffer in sooner and cover yourself for all future developments because a corporation forces you down a single lane of one way traffic heading towards a traffic jam.

Only their wallet (unless they mix them) and the wallet addresses but I'm under the assumption that controlling the nodes would allow access to the transaction origin's IP address? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not too advanced in this subject.

thank you for this explanation, I think I understand more about nodes.  In regards to the last sentence - Aren't transactions traceable to someones identity anyway?

Yes, tell us something about your salary you get from BlockstR3am/PWC/AXA/TPTB.

Do they at least pay you well? If so, what are the other benefits?

EDIT: being a corporate shill must be really terrible, sitting in the cubicle, I guess they have quota of how many posts you need to make.

tell us more I'm really curious

BTW, The debunking of the SegWit Fraud of the charlatans@blockstream-core and its cheerleaders is progressing with exponentially increasing speed, the nearer the arrival of that monster comes and threatens the community.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4amfpi/iguana_bitcoin_full_node_developer_jl777_argues/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/segwit-details-n-2numtxids-numvins-n-segwit-uses-more-space-than-2mb-hf-1398994

i too am not happy about the sybil attack and i hope that the core fanboys abusing amazons free trial fail for their propoganda mission to fake classic nodes to spread doomsday scenarios about why people should join the blockstream cult and be controlled by blockstream.

i know the blockstream shills are grabbing funds under the pretense of pretending to be classic supporters, to then abuse the amazon trial and keep the funds to themselves.

i really wish people would see through all that drama of core vs classic and just think about code and community. having the buffer AND segwit prepares everyone for any eventuality without contention. yet it seems blockstream love contention as it strokes their ego.

so folks stop stroking anyones ego and just protect yourself by having the code for all features available. then there is no contention or debate or corporate control.

I heard some classic nodes located on Amazon server and some people said they abuse it's free trial.
If it's true, it means Amazon already found and ban those nodes.

Anyway, i hope they run out of money before their plan succeed

ok... whatever you say 

Forking and Revolution is a process, not an event.