don't see a reason to defend, even the pro xt side should be looking down on this kinda thing, if the battles won with plays like this.......every side loses.
think about it
Topic: Now that we know many XT nodes are fake, what are the implications? - page 2. (Read 2662 times)
August 18, 2015, 06:01:06 PM
August 18, 2015, 05:53:23 PM
...
i think he is right - on both points...
Quote
Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.
i think he is right - on both points...
while you're at it you might just get one more xmr..
August 18, 2015, 05:26:09 PM
The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
deceitful individuals playing this little dirty tricks campaign
further their agenda
they're welcome to continue throwing what little integrity they have left under the bus.
XT is being led into NotXT's deadly trap, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
Try not to be such a poor sport about it, old chap. The already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.
August 18, 2015, 05:18:36 PM
You don't have evidence the majority are real. As OP noted, "the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software."
btw here is another cite from your own signature (i just read your link):
Quote
Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.
i think he is right - on both points...
August 18, 2015, 05:17:31 PM
My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
One consequence additional risk for anyone "brave" enough to be the first to defect from Bitcoin's economic consensus.
If you stick your neck out for XT, you might get your head chopped off by NotXT.
August 18, 2015, 05:12:01 PM
I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1155836
If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.
If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.
You're the one that used the word "most". We asked for evidence that the majority are fake. You don't seem to have that.
Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake. Far cry from most.
You don't have evidence the majority are real. As OP noted, "the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software."
August 18, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
all xt nodes seems to run on AWS ip for a start..
Not so. August 18, 2015, 03:38:19 PM
Title says it.
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?
You're making a huge and likely inaccurate assumption. What fact do you have that "most XT nodes are fake"? I don't think you have any facts...you have rhetoric that one person put out a way to generate a fake node and you're assuming that loads of people are doing it.
Assumptions are dangerous.
Get some facts and then come back to us!
August 18, 2015, 03:33:07 PM
The implications that I can think of are the consequences of a premature fork. If a large portion of the economic majority use BitcoinXT, while another portion uses NotBitcoinXT, it could make it seem like there is consensus for the fork, when there actually isn't. Then it would cause the fork to occur, split Bitcoin into two chains and now we have a big problem on our hands. As has been long established, hard forks without consensus is a terrible idea.
Another things is that people who aren't using XT see that it looks like XT is gaining support and nearing the fork point (due to NotBitcoinXT) then they might jump to using XT because it seems like XT will cause a fork. This could unintentionally gain support for XT.
Lastly, it could also completely prevent the fork outright if Gavin and Hearn realize that NotBitcoinXT could cause forking issues because of forking without consensus. Then they might cancel or postpone the fork in order to actually prevent Bitcoin from dying because of a fork.
Another things is that people who aren't using XT see that it looks like XT is gaining support and nearing the fork point (due to NotBitcoinXT) then they might jump to using XT because it seems like XT will cause a fork. This could unintentionally gain support for XT.
Lastly, it could also completely prevent the fork outright if Gavin and Hearn realize that NotBitcoinXT could cause forking issues because of forking without consensus. Then they might cancel or postpone the fork in order to actually prevent Bitcoin from dying because of a fork.
August 18, 2015, 02:55:48 PM
all xt nodes seems to run on AWS ip for a start..
+ about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...
ps: i sense despair. good.
+ about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...
ps: i sense despair. good.
AWS is awesome for this sort of thing. I had to max out a 100mb link once to test a service my company developed. I made and image which would start, run load, collect results, send them to a collector, then automatically shut down. One simple script and a few dollars later and I had results which a more formal load generation service would have charged me many thousands for. And it took all of a Saturday morning to do the whole system. I was with a start-up and we needed to have the tests done by Monday when we had already sold the service. IIRC I only got the circuit in the datacenter commissioned and the load balancer configured by close-of-business Friday.
August 18, 2015, 02:55:22 PM
Title says it.
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?
What are the consequences? Will they still cling to their plans for the Gavincoin-attack even after it is public knowledge that their data is extremely messy and unreliable? If yes, what are the consequences of that?
Underpin your statement!Evidence!If you can't this is pure childish behaviour and not worth to follow any more.
August 18, 2015, 02:46:29 PM
Who cares?
August 18, 2015, 02:43:16 PM
all xt nodes seems to run on AWS ip for a start..
+ about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...
ps: i sense despair. good.
+ about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...
ps: i sense despair. good.
August 18, 2015, 02:27:16 PM
Transplanted from the now heavily censored 'gold collapsing' thread:
---
To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk. It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.
The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain. That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not. And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.
It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary. Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much. Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.
---
To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk. It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.
The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain. That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not. And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.
It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary. Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much. Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.
August 18, 2015, 02:23:35 PM
It means this is a blindfolded flight now. Could become messy as the opponents start pretend-updated mining soon. No way to determine when a switchover is safe. Immediately after fork nodecount and hashrate of Gavincoin could and likely will collapse. I just hope all this doesn't hurt the value of core too much. Volatility is certainly to be expected. People transacting Gavincoin after the fork (if it happens) stand to loose it all.
August 18, 2015, 02:21:59 PM
My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
none, because the only relevant number is how much of the hashing power supports XT.
edit: yay, it seems the first XT-block has just been minted
Unless of course that mining pool was running notXT.
August 18, 2015, 02:19:34 PM
The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
The primary consequence is we learn exactly how far the deceitful individuals playing this little dirty tricks campaign are prepared to go to further their agenda and how little we should trust their motives. If anyone willingly and fraudulently manipulates the results just to score some cheap shots at the opposition, it means they've lost the debate and can't argue on merit. I say they're welcome to continue throwing what little integrity they have left under the bus. It's not doing their cause any favours.
August 18, 2015, 02:12:22 PM
My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
none, because the only relevant number is how much of the hashing power supports XT.
edit: yay, it seems the first XT-block has just been minted
August 18, 2015, 02:11:21 PM
Just some more nonsense fud
August 18, 2015, 02:09:23 PM
I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1155836
If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.
If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course.
You're the one that used the word "most". We asked for evidence that the majority are fake. You don't seem to have that.
Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake. Far cry from most.
Can you provide evidence supporting your point that most are not fake?
Probably not ...
I never said that most aren't. I said that your evidence was spurious. You said most are. I asked you to back that statement with better evidence. You don't appear to have any.
My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
Jump to: