Topic: /r/btc loons already twisting Antbleed facts to meet their agenda - page 2. (Read 2308 times)

You've cried racism and brought Fox News into it. LOL what a rabid snowflake. Just for entertain,net give us a reliable "news" source. Try getting some pussy and leave the basement. It will help your insanity.

not in this topic, but you seem to be over the last few months in the same band camp of kill off or destroy anything thats not supporting segwit

its because gmax found a flaw in going soft last month. so now wants to double down on blaming pools for why segwit didnt activate at christmas.
and his army of followers went out looking for all excuses possible to make pools seem bad. a way to sway users into thinking that UASF should be activated to kill off pools.

but your right. if it wasn't for the desperation to get segwit activated.. people would not have cared or looked or tried to dramatise these things

What im trying to understand is, how did it take so long for somebody to find out about this? I mean I understand most devs have better things to do, but we are talking about the biggest miner provider, so if I was a bitcoin developer I would be taking great attention to every single pull request on the bitmain github because these guys are always going to try to be a step ahead and try to have a hidden ace of spades that could checkmate the entire network. If this wasn't found in time, they could have made a lot of damage.

If Jihan felt cornered and about to be defeated, im sure he would go down while trying to kill the entire thing, and this was a way to do it. Remember to always think the worst.

The software is public code, hosted on GitHub, as far as I know. From my short incursions to the Mining subsection, I remember seeing modified versions of the software for some devices. The code can, and is probably audited frequently. According to antbleed.com Why was this only discovered now on the height of the scaling debate?

Having a backdoor is a serious issue and "forgetting" to delete code an even more serious one. If they couldn't develop the feature further, they could have just deleted it entirely. But making this a smear campaign against Bitcoin Unlimited and saying that SegWit supporters were "cooking" this for a while is just outrageous.

With this attitude we're not going anywhere. This has to do with mining, not with scaling. Note that people from both sides are confusing things up to get their propaganda going. Some posts on reddit (both /r/bitcoin and /r/btc) are made with the goal of over-complicating things. This forum is way better but still a bit "twitchy"... Are we going to take advantage of this to make a bigger smear campaign?

It could have - not important. If they did used it for nefarious purposes, i'm sure the victims can sue him.

Are you having some kind of meltdown dude, I can't understand what your trying to say?

I didn't say anything about PoW or UASF or mining bad asic good wtf?

funny part is now your dfending keeping PoW running because killing off 'if 40%' to If 70% would be bad...
hmmmmm
so i should quote you above everytime you mention UASF good or time to change PoW
i do find it funny that one minute mining is bad then asic mining is good

when overall its just social drama to distract the real debate of the code of the bitcoin network that wants to change the network to a cesspit of  a tier network

It wouldn't matter if bitmain only produced 40% of the miners for Bitcoin, that's still a lot of miners being produced by 1 company and if said company is shady that's a problem.

If bitmain is blocking changes to Bitcoin to protect some secret advantage, that's a problem for ALL of us.

If bitmain has the ability to remotely kill their miners and their miners make up a significant amount of total miners in use, that's a problem for ALL of us.

It is undisputed that they have a lot of influence in the Bitcoin world.

Does it matter if bitmain is shady? The answer should be yes. It should matter a lot, at least to those who wish to see bitcoin prosper.

BTW, bitmain doesn't dispute the 70% producer of miners, why are you trying to?

He never used it, no. Same goes for most nukes. It could have been used, for example, to attack the smaller chain after a BU/Segwit split, by shutting down miners that mine for the wrong chain 

im not just defending BU or bitmain. i defend anything thats not blockstream(core)
things that gets attacked or used as a distraction (point the finger at) to avoid people seeing or questioning blockstream
because although theres all this temporary drama of point the finger how A, B, C maybe, if, could, might do something that lasts 2 minutes. its just distractions from what bitcoin really is.. the code


if you think it would be year ROI .. thats for end users based on RETAIL prices.
6 months based on wholesale price (bestbuy starting a mining farm themselves with their bought cost stock)
3 months based on production price(ATI starting a mining farm themselves with their manufactured cost stock)

now imagine for every gpu ATI wholesale they can make 2 gpu's meaning pass one to retailer, keep one at zero cost
meaning ATI could start getting returns instantly because the 2nd gpu which they keep is literally zero cost because the retailer covered the cost with the first gpu via the wholesale price

now imagine for every gpu bestbuy retail they can buy 2 gpu's meaning pass one to retailer customer, keep one at zero cost
meaning bestbuy could start getting returns instantly because the 2nd gpu which they keep is literally zero cost because the customer covered the cost with the first gpu via the retail price

this is where ASIC manufacturers are profiting. it does not cost $2k to make a ASIC.

yp and when a dev team bypasses node consensus, and only has 33% of pools vote.. then its also devs that should figur out the truth.. that maybe they need to go back to the drawing board and do things that would unite the community.. not point fingers at blaming everyone but themselves

there is another asic manufacturing company, infact more then one more company.
but all this drama is prtending bitmain have 70% control. which is the illogical part of all this distraction techniques

Pardon me? They reacted? They got caught. I am sure this statement would not have been issued if Antlbleed had not been discovered. Yes the explanation is good but that does not mean they are honest. In fact if they had been sincere, this patch would have been issued long ago...

Imagine a CAR MANUFACTURER would do that: car can be remotely disabled. Top secret. When it hits the news, car company claims...this was only to your benefit to prevent theft....and...sure enough...the super altruistic beneficial feature, is removed with a patch the same day it was on the news.

How legit is this?  

Is there any evidence JW used it?

Pay attention to the word "used." Not exist/claim/fact.

In another word JW has never used it. Yes or no?

Well I don't have access to reddit(blocked in my area)not that I have no way to access it no I don't even like it much. I barely follow whatever happens here.
I need to know why are you defending bitmain and BU? I can clearly see that you have some understandings of things and are concern about bitcoin but you are always in the other side but I just say what ever I believe is fact or it's just my opinion.

Can we use ASIC machines for other purposes such as gaming or other computational processes other than hashing sha256?
With GPU you could use them for other things and they existed before bitcoin so unlike ASICs they weren't specifically manufactured just for mining.
Bitmain was established only to build machines focused on one thing and I call that control unless they were in computer hardware before and or now are making other hardware than miners?
ATI wont even bother to build their own GPU farms because they manufacture computer hardware and sell to the market while mining requires at least a year to ROI and that is not a guaranteed fact.

We're here to convince the undecided miners to chose the best option to proceed but we have forgotten the very obvious fact that only those with enough knowledge and understanding of cryptography and code are the ones currently mining and they will manage to figure out the truth for themselves and we're just wasting our times keeping a clean image of crypto.

All we need we already have, bitfury and bitmain 2 big manufacturers and they both will keep each other in line though I wouldn't mind to have a third big company/pool to balance the power, we just need a functioning and stable network the rest are just back ground noise.

here is the laugh.

bitmain wont self destruct their own rigs
bitmain cant self destruct other manufactures rigs

if bitmain did, it would only affect their own hashrates
if bitmain did, it would just cause 2 minutes downtime but end up costing them $2k per unit because everyone would ask for refund/comspnsation
if bitmain agenda was to... they would have already

so its just temporary drama of shooting themselves in the foot if they did fire a gun.. logically less important then things like creating a tier network that ruins the diverse decentralised peer network ethos.

you want to scream blue murder about "if's" and maybe of hardware that can cause only a couple minutes drama.. but avoid talking about the bearded elephant in the room that actually has got deadlines but cant meet promises.. that will affect the network if allowed to continue..

you can try distracting the debate away from what core should do as a plan B by trying to make people look in the direction of mining.. but ultimately devs need a plan B

So your argument is it don’t matter if bitmain is shady because they don’t produce 70% of miners? What if it was 60% or 50% or 40%, what amount would worry you? Even bitmain don’t dispute the 70% figure so why do you?

You fucking shills crack me up 

Evidence that it exists? It's in the source code in GitHub.

I asked (?) for evidence - one generally ask for evidence in order to establish a "picture" of the whole fiasco (whatever).

can you prove bitmain control the mining industry. or are you reading the reddit speculation

1. then its just a ATI vs Geforce.. and everyone starts pointing fingers that ATI has a backdoor efficiency gain called openCL
2. if you think hobbyists can mine in their basements. forget it. farms will buy up THOUSANDS of top end ATI's


thirdly. there would then be arguments once ATI gpu stocks dry up of "what if ATI are holding onto stock and starting their own farms to control bitcoin"

Who manufactured the first ASIC and mined with it? maybe we really need to change the POW to make it anti-ASIC and make it GPU compatible? that way no one could control the mining industry and influence it as much as bitmain is doing right now.
If everyone could mine with GPU then we know who is manufacturing them and there are only 5 big companies making GPU and they have the best technology and their marketcap is much higher than crypto combined so they couldn't be bothered to get personal with the network such as bitcoin and other crypto currencies.
But question remains, who will compensate millions of dollars to those already mining with ASICs?