Also, "Live demonstration of what would happen if only corporations could run fullnodes" happens when block size increased a lot to the point where only rich people can run full nodes
Topic: Live demonstration of what would happen if only corporations could run fullnodes (Read 445 times)
August 01, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
I think your statement is wrong, it's supposed to be "Live demonstration of manipulation total bitcoin nodes by corporation". Anyway, this is proof that sudden total nodes increasing doesn't mean bitcoin community actually want to support bitcoin network or support certain certain scaling solution.
Also, "Live demonstration of what would happen if only corporations could run fullnodes" happens when block size increased a lot to the point where only rich people can run full nodes
Also, "Live demonstration of what would happen if only corporations could run fullnodes" happens when block size increased a lot to the point where only rich people can run full nodes
August 01, 2017, 11:24:25 AM
on another note i am staring to think the number of Bitcoin ABC (bitcoin cash) nodes is far less than the number node counters show!
take a look at this for example:
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=34.211.55.185
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=54.85.136.79 (http://archive.fo/s8hFh)
these are all /Bitcoin ABC:0.14.6(EB8.0)/ (70015) as their user agent. all coming from Amazon servers but 1 IP shows nearly 30 nodes. LOL
take a look at this for example:
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=34.211.55.185
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=54.85.136.79 (http://archive.fo/s8hFh)
these are all /Bitcoin ABC:0.14.6(EB8.0)/ (70015) as their user agent. all coming from Amazon servers but 1 IP shows nearly 30 nodes. LOL
August 01, 2017, 11:18:49 AM
And on /r/btc the conspiracy theories have already begun, they are blaming it all on Core and Blockstream, they are too stupid to realize the fact that there are way bitcoin richer people that everyone in Core and Blockstream connived, that will not allow any hardfork, and this includes an agreement between corporations (segwit2x). This is just a preview of what it's coming if they are stupid enough to attempt another hardfork in november.
August 01, 2017, 11:15:48 AM
I won't lie I"m going to enjoy watching this coin die.
August 01, 2017, 11:13:28 AM
This is just the first of many attacks on bitcoin cash!
they have opened up the way for it too. and then asked for it themselves by going against everyone else who has ever used bitcoin!
i am waiting (with popcorn) to mostly see 2 attacks:
1. the 51% attack as soon as they reduced the difficulty and the hashrate was low enough.
2. the spam attack to fill the blocks to 8 MB and then fill the mempool and cripple the nodes
they have opened up the way for it too. and then asked for it themselves by going against everyone else who has ever used bitcoin!
i am waiting (with popcorn) to mostly see 2 attacks:
1. the 51% attack as soon as they reduced the difficulty and the hashrate was low enough.
2. the spam attack to fill the blocks to 8 MB and then fill the mempool and cripple the nodes
August 01, 2017, 11:09:27 AM
I have thought about this problem too and I have an idea how we could solve it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rewards-for-nodes-2038252
Reward nodes with small amounts to compensate for the hardware equipment (like the guy who runs the node only has to pay 20% of the hradware + electricity cost). The fee should be like there would be no profit!! (so no company want´s to run nodes) but many small private contributors. If you compensate nodes you could increase the blocksize slightly with no harm to decentralisation.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rewards-for-nodes-2038252
Reward nodes with small amounts to compensate for the hardware equipment (like the guy who runs the node only has to pay 20% of the hradware + electricity cost). The fee should be like there would be no profit!! (so no company want´s to run nodes) but many small private contributors. If you compensate nodes you could increase the blocksize slightly with no harm to decentralisation.
August 01, 2017, 11:08:33 AM
Yeah a real cluster fuck if Bitmain really wanted to support this altcoin they would redirect more hashing power to this chain even if its just temporary.
August 01, 2017, 10:47:27 AM
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
So some fucker has decided to get tons of Bitcoin ABC nodes to attack Bitcoin Cash. The sybil attack is successful, nodes are crashing, getting banned, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_launched_over_500_bucash_nodes_on_aws/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=btc
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qw73e/my_abc_full_node_client_just_crashed/
It's pretty hilarious that no one sees the fact that once the nodes are at 8MB (in the hypothetical case that Bitcoin Cash got used) then few decentralized actors be running nodes. And as exponential adoption happens, only corporations could run the nodes.
These corporations could agree on doing something bad easily, and you are fucked because your dumb ass gave full control to them.
On the other hand with the original bitcoin, thanks to a conservative blocksize, you could be safe because you could fall back to the people's network running their nodes in a sovereign independent way and not 1 actor controlling 3000 nodes as we are seeing.
It does not take rocket science to see the game theory involved in the massive big blocks model that Craig Wright and co want Bitcoin to end up looking like.
So some fucker has decided to get tons of Bitcoin ABC nodes to attack Bitcoin Cash. The sybil attack is successful, nodes are crashing, getting banned, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_launched_over_500_bucash_nodes_on_aws/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=btc
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qw73e/my_abc_full_node_client_just_crashed/
It's pretty hilarious that no one sees the fact that once the nodes are at 8MB (in the hypothetical case that Bitcoin Cash got used) then few decentralized actors be running nodes. And as exponential adoption happens, only corporations could run the nodes.
These corporations could agree on doing something bad easily, and you are fucked because your dumb ass gave full control to them.
On the other hand with the original bitcoin, thanks to a conservative blocksize, you could be safe because you could fall back to the people's network running their nodes in a sovereign independent way and not 1 actor controlling 3000 nodes as we are seeing.
It does not take rocket science to see the game theory involved in the massive big blocks model that Craig Wright and co want Bitcoin to end up looking like.
Jump to: