Topic: BitcoinXT : Η απόπειρα δημιουργίας fork στο Bitcoin ξεκίνησε - page 9. (Read 24415 times)

Τι ακριβος συνεπειες θα εχει ??

Μιλάμε ότι με την πράξη τους θα καταρρεύσει όλη η προσπάθεια για αποκεντρωμένα νομίσματα.

γιατί εδώ δεν έχουμε να κάνουμε με ένα απλό software αλλά με οικονομία και οι τύποι που κάνουν αυτό το fork και φυσικά όσοι το υποστηρίζουν είτε απλά αγνοούν τους βασικούς κανόνες οικονομίας η το κάνουν εσκεμμένα γιατί γνωρίζουν καλά τις συνέπειες που θα επιφέρουν οι πράξεις τους.

δηλαδη μπορουν να βαλουν στο κλασικο btc μια μικρη αυξηση 2mb ας πουμε οποτε τοτε θα το δεχτουν ολοι?
τοσο κακο ειναι αυτο? ή δυσκολο? δεν τους παρακολουθω, μονο απο τoυιτερ αν τυχει

@hal9k, εισαι ο γνωστος owner του ινσομνια?

Για το tor που λέγαμε. Ξυπνάτε!. Οι τύποι ειναι πουλημένα τομάρια που έχουν πάρει συγκεκριμένη εργολαβία και δεν ξέρω και εγώ πόσα λεφτά γιαυτό τον σκοπό!

Bitcoin XT contains an unmentioned addition which periodically downloads
lists of Tor IP addresses for blacklisting, this has considerable privacy
implications for hapless users which are being prompted to use the
software. The feature is not clearly described, is enabled by default,
and has a switch name which intentionally downplays what it is doing
(disableipprio). Furthermore these claimed anti-DoS measures are
trivially bypassed and so offer absolutely no protection whatsoever.

Connections are made over clearnet even when using a proxy or
onlynet=tor, which leaks connections on the P2P network with the real
location of the node. Knowledge of this traffic along with uptime metrics
from bitnodes.io can allow observers to easily correlate the location and
identity of persons running Bitcoin nodes. Denial of service can also be
used to crash and force a restart of an interesting node, which will
cause them to make a new request to the blacklist endpoint via the
clearnet on relaunch at the same time their P2P connections are made
through a proxy. Requests to the blacklisting URL also use a custom
Bitcoin XT user agent which makes users distinct from other internet
traffic if you have access to the endpoints logs.

αυτο δεν στεκι κατά κάποιον τρόπο γιατί μπορεί να έκανε commit με διαφορετικό προφίλ..
δεν ξέρω για τους δυνατότητες του peter todd αλλά πιστεύω ότι gavin γνωρίζει τον κώδικα όπως εμείς την άλφα βήτα και είναι πολύ καλώς προγραμματιστής εξάλου το έχει απόδειξη κιόλας...
παίρνει κάποιος από εσάς μέρος στην bitcoin dev mail list ??

Κάτι άλλο που είδα ότι το ανέφερε και ο Peter Todd στο tweeter είναι ότι αυτός ο Mike Hearn λέει ότι είναι developer του Bitcoin και δεν έχει κάνει ούτε ένα commit στον κώδικα του..
Πάντως εγώ αν είχα να επιλέξω ανάμεσα στον Gavin και στον Peter Todd θα επέλεγα τον δεύτερο που είναι και γνωστός για την δράση του για την ψηφιακή ελευθερία.

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Linux Foundation List