Topic: bitcoin "unlimited" seeks review (Read 16119 times)

Frap.doc, by far the most prolific poster there, rage-quit BU's rump forum months ago and will never return.


LMAO

At this point, Bitcoin_Unlimited has more lapsed than active members.

* Le One Year Later *

Despite all the huffing and puffing, no block >1MB has been mined by Bitcoin_Unlimited.

And having been rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater exactly as predicted, Cconvert2G36 no longer posts here.

Poor thing.  I did warn him Maester Satoshi's wildfire burns something fierce.  But he was too fucking arrogant to listen to his superiors.

Bitcoin's longest chain rule is still Sybil-proof unconditionally and by fairly simple reasoning, regardless of the wider context of Core's approach to development. BU's is not.

That doesn't mean that Bitcoin is the best approach. It also doesn't mean that BU is unsound. It just means you can't correctly claim that BU obviously has the same longest chain proof-of-work security properties as Bitcoin. Because it does not.

You have to reason about its properties independently, and justify their soundness. And mostly not to me but to the rest of the world. I think you will fail, but my opinion means little.

I agree insofar that the original model attempts to
fix security and consensus issues entirely on code level.

But things have changed, and "one cpu, one vote" does
not apply anymore. Neither the Core approach or BU approach
to dealing with the blocksize issue can be said to exist
inherently as a property of Bitcoin. Although I personally
feel that the latter approach is more in line with the
"philosophy" or "vision".

But I'm all for bridging the gap between the technology
and socio-economics with programmatic solutions that
can assist users in deciding the block size settings and
distinguish between honest players and sybil attackers.
For instance, statistical analysis of advertised block settings
on the network, and an option of registering settings on the blockchain.

That's exactly my point. You can't rely on the non-Sybil properties of a proof-of-work longest chain. You have to make other complex arguments about socio-econmical activity and once you do that it is easy for Sybil attacks and various other forms of social engineering attacks to sneak back in.

BU may be a perfectly good approach for cryptocurrency, taken broadly, but it doesn't work the same way as Bitcoin and can't legitimately claim to, nor rely on Bitcoin's established security model or properties.

This would be problematic if a merchant kept her excessive block size limit
constantly below the actual block size that is being accepted by the majority on
the network.

However in real life we can expect the consensual block size limit to update
itself infrequently, thus allowing ample time for the users to adjust.

I think many (well-intentioned) BU critics have hard time of letting go
from concentrating exclusively on how a particular implementation
works, to include the social-economical activity of the players involved:
users, merchants, full node operators, miners, devs.

FTFY 

Thanks Joffrey, but you may find that it's not only Stannis that challenges your rule.

Last year, the XTurds said that was going to happen sometime this month (Jan 2016).

That didn't happen.  LOL.   

Come at us bro.  But don't complain when you get rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater.

When the time comes that a block >1MB is mined, and built upon... it's a safe bet that you've had plenty of warning.

Yes, that's a good point

There are situations where you should wait longer with bu to be sure a tx is really confirmed. But this only happens when the First block your tx is in raises the size.

If You receive tx you should set your limit very conservativ to ne sure you are not on The wrong chain.

Every miner doing this risks to loose his block, so the theory is that this kind of active consens seeking will rarely emerge.

Sorry, typos, Smartphone ...

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

Says the Gavinista who just wrote an entire post insulting the mods (IE our gracious, tolerant, and generous hosts) and "small block militia."

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

Who are you?

Now, that peter was banned from reddit, you feel strong enough to offend him?

And who are you, to speak for the crowd?

Like Peter or like him not, but listen to him, when he's right: As a result of unsuccesfull discussions, unlucky decision-finding and bad behavior we face a future, where hardforks without consensus become more likely to emerge. Like it or not. You can blame, whoever you need to blame, but it's better to be prepared.

Like Peter said: Bitcoin Unlimited could help you to manage forks.

If you had read anything in this thread, you should know.

Ah, btw


There is no sense in debatting, when you don't read. Scroll back to  page 2 to see that this kind of attack we are talking about has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with Proof of Work.


Small-Block stalward brg444 helped. Even he knows that this simple sybill doesn't work.


The attack is that a majority of MINERS that controll a mass of nodes pushes the network step by step into centralization by pruning the weaker parts of the network out. Several people did answer this attack in this discussion. Also it was answered in another forum, where you have been linked to. None of it was answered by you. Instead you are still insisting on the sybill-attack that was denies even by your own teammate.

You don't need to have to be willing to learn. But please, stop disrupting people, who want to learn and discuss, with your insults.

Here's an interesting thought experiment to drive your point home, VeritasSapere:

How could we ever know for sure if the economic majority had upgraded to a client that would support larger blocks?

The answer is we can't.  Instead, we could talk to people, read comments on forums like this, attend conferences, listen to statements from influential people, and check sites like xtnodes.com to see how many nodes have upgraded.  

These could all be "spoofed": people could lie, forum comments could be from sock puppets, conferences could be frauds, influential people might be confused, and xtnodes might be Sybil attacked.  

In other words, there is no way to be 100% sure--instead we must make our best judgements.  Fortunately, this is fairly easy because most people don't lie, sock puppets are outnumbered, conferences are usually legitimate, influential people have accurate information, and Sybil attacks are often obvious.  

Exactly my point proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, and under Bitcoin Unlimited the blocksize limit is determined by the economic majority through proof of work. Not the nodes like you claim, therefore BU is not vulnerable to such an attack vector. Of course node count can be manipulated through Sybil type attacks. This is why it is not a reliable measure of consensus unlike proof of work. Bitcoin Unlimited does not change this, it is no different to how the network operates today.

I do not need to explain how to prevent such an attack since nobody has successfully explained how such an attack would even occur, once you have done that I can counter your critique, though I would presently consider this attack vector completely ineffectual under BU. Therefore the burden of proof is on your end. Since previous posts on this subject have already been discussed, to me it seems clear that BU can not effectively be Sybil attacked, not anymore so then Core can, presently at least.

Thanks to The Mighty Banhammer, Reddit's signal-to-noise ratio just crept up ever so slightly.  

Ledger needs to follow suit.  Toxic assclowns like Peter R have no place in legitimate academic publications.

BRB, need to milk the lolcows over at /r/bitcoinXT, /r/btc, and bitco.in.   

_{note to self: get a bigger bucket}

I don't github.  I prefer to gif. 

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes! Please do yourself a favor and read up on all the posts in this thread, where multiple examples are given for a Sybil attack against BU, without anyone explaining how to prevent it. No matter how many fancy animations Peter R creates, it still does not solve the technical challenges.

Wow thank you for opening our eyes Peter R! This is amazing, how did we all miss this? The animated pressure valve you are showing us makes all the difference!

How about you write some code for core instead of fixating on one single issue day in and out. Its boring to listen to same broken record player, over and over and over again. Core has rejected your idea, its time to move on, and leave the issue mate.