how was Mike or Gavin trying to "sneak" code into XT when it is
OPEN SOURCED ?
OPEN SOURCED ?
yea right cuz they dumb enough to think it wont be noticed.
Topic: Mike Hearn and XT are dead to me (Read 1827 times)
yea right cuz they dumb enough to think it wont be noticed.
LiteCoinGuy is cancer
In my Opionion he's dead too,
such a Wanker.
I will always support bigger blocks too, just like you guys
Never stop learning, I'm just startin in this topic, so i can't give a more valuable opinion.
such a Wanker.
I will always support bigger blocks too, just like you guys
Never stop learning, I'm just startin in this topic, so i can't give a more valuable opinion.
not surprising to see hearn's name associated with shadiness is it ?
and to think, some people call amir taaki dodgy...
and with the talk of XT node numbers being, err, 'enhanced', by whoever... best to go conservative and stick with core - maybe a different approach by someone else would make me switch, but this guy ?
no thanks, mike.
in the end it's a question of principles...
also, i wonder what his mate gavin is going to say to distance himself from the fallout ?
and to think, some people call amir taaki dodgy...
and with the talk of XT node numbers being, err, 'enhanced', by whoever... best to go conservative and stick with core - maybe a different approach by someone else would make me switch, but this guy ?
no thanks, mike.
in the end it's a question of principles...
also, i wonder what his mate gavin is going to say to distance himself from the fallout ?
Like many others, I'd love to see the block size go to 8MB soon. But Mike Hearn is trying to sneak his very much hated blacklist code in there at the same time. If XT were about blocksize only, I'd jump on it. However, now that it has been shown to carry a sweet little hidden blacklist module - I will never trust anything from Mike Hearn ever again. That is shocking BS and serious dirty business. Hearn, Gavin and anyone who touches that strategy is fundamentally corrupt.
XT is dead. Hearn is dead. That game is OVER.
XT is dead. Hearn is dead. That game is OVER.
Noone sneaked shit... But nice try to repeat the FUD
Lol do they pay you to shill XT? Yes they did sneak shit:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010386.html
Also look at the links above, it's obvious what's going on now. I can't personally never and I say never accept that on the Bitcoin code.
So you're saying I wrote tens of thousands of lines of code to make this up?
It's still in the github for BitcoinXT, read it and weep https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23
It's still in the github for BitcoinXT, read it and weep https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23
you dont like choices do you
?people are free to use XT or Core. i only see you here spreading FUD about XT all day. why?
until now we have 13% of all nodes XT within 4 days. that is a vote. please email the core devs and ask for change.
I will NEVER support any sort of Bitcoin blacklist, that is removing the freedom of choice for all Bitcoin users.
You sir are the one who doesn't like choice, if you support this code. If XT was honest they would have openly informed everyone about this, they didn't.
"virtual servers from amazon"
Proof
?"I will NEVER support any sort of Bitcoin blacklist"
Me too! iam glad XT isnt doing this
i support bigger blocks.
So you're saying I wrote tens of thousands of lines of code to make this up?
It's still in the github for BitcoinXT, read it and weep https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23
It's still in the github for BitcoinXT, read it and weep https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23
you dont like choices do you
?people are free to use XT or Core. i only see you here spreading FUD about XT all day. why?
until now we have 13% of all nodes XT within 4 days. that is a vote. please email the core devs and ask for change.
how was Mike or Gavin trying to "sneak" code into XT when it is
OPEN SOURCED ?
Well the only reason it was discovered is because it's open source. Clearly this is a much bigger change than blocksize limit, so they were definitely sneaking it in by not openly informing people about this. OPEN SOURCED ?
This is the code pulled directly from the current BitcoinXT release. Anyone who cares about Bitcoin will be shocked at this. Tens of thousands of lines of code which have the ability to completely centralize Bitcoin https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA
Stop your FUD already. Only retards would believe you at this point
Some people here are clearly against freedom of choice. It only expose their true nature.
how was Mike or Gavin trying to "sneak" code into XT when it is
OPEN SOURCED ?
OPEN SOURCED ?
they are master-coders
of course that is only FUD.
how was Mike or Gavin trying to "sneak" code into XT when it is
OPEN SOURCED ?
OPEN SOURCED ?
Part of the blame for the FUD is due to the banning bitcoinXT discussion by Thermos.
So many is cluless when the bitcoinXT announced. They just rely on hear say and the whole blocksize drama
how was Mike or Gavin trying to "sneak" code into XT when it is
OPEN SOURCED ?
OPEN SOURCED ?
What is that of blacklisting?
I don't understand it really well
I don't understand it really well
It's basically DDOS protection.
Yes, except who has the power to alter who is classified as an "attacker"? Once you can blacklist an IP can't someone decide to apply to it anyone?
Mike is the first to admit the code isn't good, if you have a better proposal please submit it, I'm pretty sure Mike will approve it.
Someone already proposed a better target blocking.
This is very easy to change
Mike is the first to admit the code isn't good, if you have a better proposal please submit it, I'm pretty sure Mike will approve it.
No, the entire premise is garbage, and completely against the founding principles of bitcoin. Who has the right to say who can and can not own bitcoin? What law book are we following on this one?
No, bitcoin should always remain neutral, regardless of circumstances. Don't let politics get involved, because you'll ruin the entire premise of bitcoin in and of itself.
What is that of blacklisting?
I don't understand it really well
I don't understand it really well
It's basically DDOS protection.
Yes, except who has the power to alter who is classified as an "attacker"? Once you can blacklist an IP can't someone decide to apply to it anyone?
Mike is the first to admit the code isn't good, if you have a better proposal please submit it, I'm pretty sure Mike will approve it.
What is that of blacklisting?
I don't understand it really well
I don't understand it really well
It's basically DDOS protection.
Yes, except who has the power to alter who is classified as an "attacker"? Once you can blacklist an IP can't someone decide to apply to it anyone?
Its a rule not a protocol. Anyone run wallet client can use any rules they want regarding relay txs.
Frankly the code in bitcoinXT clearly shows how it determines attackers.
That does not mean someone cant change the code for their own clients to fit their definition of attackers.
Are you aware that this has been with bitcoin core wallet client as well? Many users actually add their rules to block dice websites.
Now dont fall for FUD like this next time. Take step to validate what you're told
Mike Hearn can sit on this and spin:
What balls to try a hostile takeover of something like bitcoin. Thankfully it backfired on him and Gavin, so maybe we can get back to actual issues instead of playing child games with this stuff.
What balls to try a hostile takeover of something like bitcoin. Thankfully it backfired on him and Gavin, so maybe we can get back to actual issues instead of playing child games with this stuff.
Like many others, I'd love to see the block size go to 8MB soon. But Mike Hearn is trying to sneak his very much hated blacklist code in there at the same time. If XT were about blocksize only, I'd jump on it. However, now that it has been shown to carry a sweet little hidden blacklist module - I will never trust anything from Mike Hearn ever again. That is shocking BS and serious dirty business. Hearn, Gavin and anyone who touches that strategy is fundamentally corrupt.
i think that is false but take a look:
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hk4ce/bitcoindev_bitcoin_xts_tor_ip_blacklist/
What is that of blacklisting?
I don't understand it really well
I don't understand it really well
It's basically DDOS protection.
Yes, except who has the power to alter who is classified as an "attacker"? Once you can blacklist an IP can't someone decide to apply to it anyone?
It seems this is also relevant in here, Mike Hearn's words:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768
Quote
You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.
This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.
Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.
This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.
Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768
Jump to: