Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 11. (Read 21905 times)

If any brave soul was previously considering being the first to defect from Bitcoin's economic majority to begin the process of forming an alternative XT economic majority, they now have to account for the even greater risks due to the uncertainty introduced by spoofed version stamps and NotXT sybil nodes.

No business could possibly justify such a risky move, for no potential gain other than the good feeling of winning an obscure internet nerd fight.

Now its up to some very courageous individuals to jump-start XT's economy, by doing such things as selling me their bullion and coins in exchange for XTcoins.

I was sure smoothie would be XT's one crazy dancer guy who starts a party but he chickened out.  Apparently his support, being limited to running an XT node as a 'fuck you' to Team Core, is a mile wide and an inch deep.   

I don't care about the outcome of BitcoinXT BUT

Those who fear BitcoinXT and try to stop organic consensus does not understand decentralization nor consensus based on economic incentive so one could argue they don't understand bitcoin at all.

Period.

If chaos is the point, then another thing to consider when using this.

If one believes in XT, he should switch to XT, if one believes in Core he should stay with core.

Sort of. If all miners switch to XT, but all users stay with Core, then there are no Core miners to process transactions, and no XT transactions for miners to process. Sure they can carry on mining for the block reward, but something tells me the price will tank.

So, the miners determine the triggering of the fork, but they're relying on some critical number of users to follow them, otherwise any further mining is unprofitable to them.

You are right. I misunderstood the 75% vote.
From BitcoinXT
So only the miners and their hash power will decide and NOT the mass bitcoin users that support the ecosystem.

I think that's the point though. Why risk switching to XT and the potential chaos, even if you support it or it's features?

This is kind of a crucial point that's not been made enough: if Mike and Gavin tried to start a real alt coin, not one that relies on Bitcoin's infrastructure, they would fall flat on their faces (and they've not done much better than that otherwise). There is little to no demand for alts, people want bitcoin.

This kind of spoofing will just drive away further Bitcoiners. If a fork is prematurely deployed, it will be even bigger chaos than it already is. More harm done with these fake nodes.

Core and XT exist. Why run something else anyways? More code to audit unnecessarily. Time wasted.

The 75% vote does not depend on the number of full nodes with the right version but on the number of new blocks with the right version.
Running more Bitcoin Core "/Satoshi:0.11.0/ (70002)" is not relevant.
Hashing on this nodes is important!

Well, people adopt this way quicker than they do xt... 

I think the best way to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize is to run more Bitcoin Core "/Satoshi:0.11.0/ (70002)" Full Nodes. So if you can afford the cost install and run Bitcoin Core 0.11.0. ASAP.

I think it's a great thing to have this BUT now you caused a spike in xt nodes that some might misinterpret. Probably xt is about to die off because nobody wants it but now you start hosting nodes for it and probably already own 50% or more of all xt nodes.

Now keep in mind there is the risk here to fork the network. I would prefer letting xt die off instead of forcing the fork with fake nodes. I think this program went public a little bit too soon.

Well, one thing's certain: after anti-xt people now own probably north of 50% of all xt nodes that Gavincoin-junk lies dead in the water.

Well done guys. Just don't fork her up now!

This is gentlemen:



 

FYI:

PseudoNode is already a type of p2p proxy.  You can download it from here and spoof an XT node directly from a console:


or for Windows users:


from a CMD console.

Next go to getaddr.bitnodes.io and if everything is working your IP will show up an an XT node and be counted towards the total  (if not, then probably port 8333 is blocked).  Alternatively, you can pretend to be Bitcoin-core (Satoshi:0.11.0):


For those wondering: a PseudoNode is a type of cryptocurrency network node that uses network heuristics (rather than the normal validation method) to validate data.  To the network, a pseudo node appears to be the same as a normal full node, (a pseudonode will relay blocks and transactions just like a regular full node).  However, unlike a normal node, a pseudo node is very fast, and will "sync" with the network within seconds (no lengthy blockchain download is required).  For more information about what PseudoNode is, see here and here.  For those wondering: the network heuristics used by PseudoNode are quite strong in practice -- it is non-trivial to "trick" PseudoNode into relaying invalid data -- although it is theoretically possible.

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

That all said, for obvious reasons it is better to run proper validating nodes (e.g. even Not Bitcoin XT) rather than pseudo nodes.  My post is provided for information reasons only...

Can I use PseudoNode as a proxy for my Not Bitcoin XT nodes, to multiply their effect?

PseudoNode can now pretend to be Bitcoin XT.

Taint and sell one of them in order to purchase more of the other with the proceeds.

I'll stand on record as saying that I am currently running either an actual XT node, or a non-XT node that is self-reporting as XT.

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves which of the two they believe I am actually running.

So what happens when a premature fork happens? What happens when some exchanges are using XT, some aren't. Some people are using XT and others aren't. Now you have exactly the situation which having the threshold in XT prevents, two separate blockchains operating with (possibly) equal power. Now there are two Bitcoins. What do we do then? This is what could happen if people start using this node fake XT node. Again, as I have said before, such a fork is a terrible idea, and this modified XT node will only make the likelihood of such a fork worse.

avoid from using the XT, unless you are sure that the XT would not break the bitcoin protocol.
XT would ever encourage the centralisation, they knew that they could attempt 51% attacks as we could not afford for the storage anymore,
XT node (BIP101 wallet) are not suitable to the newbies at all.

This is such a wonderful idea.  It protects Bitcoin, at the necessary expense of XT viability.

"Why would you want to spoof Bitcoin XT?"  To cultivate a falsely exaggerated sense of security and encourage premature aggression.  It's a trap!


There's no way for anyone to know.  That's the point!

I just looked at the code and it looks like the only things changed are two lines which change the date from 1452470400 (11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 UTC) to UINT_MAX which IIRC is 4294967295 (02/07/2106 @ 6:28am (UTC)). So he didn't actually stop the hard fork in those clients, but rather postponed it for another 91 years. OP, you should fix that.

Exactly. It has the same features (double spend relaying, etc.) and it uses the same block versions. The only difference is that it will not accept the forked block as valid for another 91 years.