Pages:
Author

Topic: RoninDojo bans connections to Knots nodes (Read 326 times)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
December 20, 2023, 02:50:45 PM
#28
Automatically yes but never hard-code such a rule to ban a certain implementation because of its "changeable preference".
It's not hard coded:

Quote
For users with bitcoind installed by Dojo (via docker), bitcoind will now periodically scan connected peers and ban those that are detected as Knots. This feature can be turned off by setting BITCOIND_CRON_JOBS=off in docker-bitcoind.conf.

If Knot users stop censoring Whirlpool transactions by changing their OP_RETURN limit, then Dojo users can very easily choose to connect to Knots nodes again by changing this setting.
legendary
Activity: 3444
Merit: 10537
December 20, 2023, 01:31:21 AM
#27
The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense.
If one of your peers was rejecting all Segwit transactions, would you not drop them for a peer which was not placing arbitrary limits on completely standard transactions?
Automatically yes but never hard-code such a rule to ban a certain implementation because of its "changeable preference".

As a full node or a light client, we connect to full nodes for many different reasons not just to push transactions. Which means having the most options to connect to is better.

We also have little ways of knowing why a node rejected a transaction we just sent it. It may be a bad signature, it may be an overloaded mempool that has dynamically increased the fee rate or it could be a standard rule aka preference that the user changed. For example a bitcoin core node can reject a transaction containing an OP_RETURN output that is 10 bytes while a bitcoin Knots node can accept an OP_RETURN output that is 500 bytes just because the user can easily change those limits. They are not hard-coded.

It's up to the developer of your client to have already handled all these cases automatically and in a general way not a hard-coded case-by-case way through their user-agent just because they had a fight with that other developer on Twitter  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
December 19, 2023, 10:15:29 AM
#26
To be honest, my main problem at the moment is that Bitcoin becomes unusable due to high fees. So, in this regard, I don't see Knots as the enemy here. Their decision not to relay Whirlpool transactions is not a direct hit against Whirlpool, but rather an effort to stop ordinals. The problem is, they will indirectly harm various tools that protect our privacy...

Hence the adage:  "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

It's simply not a viable approach.  Think of it like war.  The more you escalate, the more collateral damage you potentially cause, the larger the number of people who get caught in the crossfire.  In the end, it's mostly innocent people who suffer. 

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
December 19, 2023, 09:28:23 AM
#25
Game-theory and the 'alignment of incentives' still appears to be steering the network correctly at the moment.  Economic pressure is now acting against those running the Knots client.  Action and reaction.  It's a self-governing network and this is what self-governance looks like.  You're absolutely free to disagree, however, there's a catch.  Deviate from what's in the best interests of the network, expect consequences.  People will find a way to freely transact, even if it requires removing obstacles from their path.  Ergo, avoid being an obstacle to freedom and the network won't act against you.

I'd rather not test the theory that this holds up to larger scale disputes, but it seems to have effectively quelled this one.

To be honest, my main problem at the moment is that Bitcoin becomes unusable due to high fees. So, in this regard, I don't see Knots as the enemy here. Their decision not to relay Whirlpool transactions is not a direct hit against Whirlpool, but rather an effort to stop ordinals. The problem is, they will indirectly harm various tools that protect our privacy...
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
December 19, 2023, 09:17:50 AM
#24
Exactly. If they are free to censor transactions from their nodes, then I am free to refuse to connect to their nodes.

As I mentioned, this is largely irrelevant at the moment since Knots are such a tiny fraction of all nodes, but it sets a terrible precedence. What you if end up with the majority of your peers censoring your transactions or refusing to relay all transactions? You compromise your own security, privacy, and ability to use bitcoin for no reason? Better to fight back against this kind of nonsense right now before it becomes more widespread.

It is not irrelevant. One of the most important things in Bitcoin is that you can disobey to other nodes' rules if you disagree. The fact that it doesn't make a difference now shouldn't make us feel safer. What if JD and LD manage to convince a lot of people to use their node implementation? We implement our rules... We try to convince people that our rules are better. Otherwise we will end up in a centralised system, not very different than the one we currently live in.

Game-theory and the 'alignment of incentives' still appears to be steering the network correctly at the moment.  Economic pressure is now acting against those running the Knots client.  Action and reaction.  It's a self-governing network and this is what self-governance looks like.  You're absolutely free to disagree, however, there's a catch.  Deviate from what's in the best interests of the network, expect consequences.  People will find a way to freely transact, even if it requires removing obstacles from their path.  Ergo, avoid being an obstacle to freedom and the network won't act against you.

I'd rather not test the theory that this holds up to larger scale disputes, but it seems to have effectively quelled this one.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
December 19, 2023, 05:32:26 AM
#23
Exactly. If they are free to censor transactions from their nodes, then I am free to refuse to connect to their nodes.

As I mentioned, this is largely irrelevant at the moment since Knots are such a tiny fraction of all nodes, but it sets a terrible precedence. What you if end up with the majority of your peers censoring your transactions or refusing to relay all transactions? You compromise your own security, privacy, and ability to use bitcoin for no reason? Better to fight back against this kind of nonsense right now before it becomes more widespread.

It is not irrelevant. One of the most important things in Bitcoin is that you can disobey to other nodes' rules if you disagree. The fact that it doesn't make a difference now shouldn't make us feel safer. What if JD and LD manage to convince a lot of people to use their node implementation? We implement our rules... We try to convince people that our rules are better. Otherwise we will end up in a centralised system, not very different than the one we currently live in.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
December 19, 2023, 05:22:18 AM
#22
The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense.
If one of your peers was rejecting all Segwit transactions, would you not drop them for a peer which was not placing arbitrary limits on completely standard transactions?

Their nodes their rules.
Exactly. If they are free to censor transactions from their nodes, then I am free to refuse to connect to their nodes.

As I mentioned, this is largely irrelevant at the moment since Knots are such a tiny fraction of all nodes, but it sets a terrible precedence. What you if end up with the majority of your peers censoring your transactions or refusing to relay all transactions? You compromise your own security, privacy, and ability to use bitcoin for no reason? Better to fight back against this kind of nonsense right now before it becomes more widespread.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
December 19, 2023, 03:22:44 AM
#21
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/11/29/jack-dorsey-aims-to-create-anti-censorship-bitcoin-mining-pool-with-new-startup/

and

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/12/01/jack-dorsey-backs-ocean-in-shifting-toward-decentralized-bitcoin-mining/?sh=5e213817346c

So yes he (or he with others) is throwing a lot of $ at the pool.

Considering how block / square want to know everything you do within the BTC ecosystem and everything else they control it's not a surprise they also want to control what TXs are mined.

-Dave

This is a quote from one of the articles you mention:

I'm all for adding more flexibility to the settings users can change but this sounds like a malicious centralized move. Not to mention that you don't need to ban other implementations such as Knots if you run a full node like bitcoin core. The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense. For example your node may decide not to relay txs with fee rate lower than 10 sat/vb but that doesn't mean your node should be banned!

According to o_e_l_e_o's original post, Knots is run only by 0.4% of the current nodes.

If you ask me, as I mentionned above, I agree that banning wasn't something I had in mind until now. I am ok with identifying if some of my peers constantly reject my transactions and manually banning them, but I don't really want to make a ban using a "wildcard" or something like that.

But Bitcoin is fantastic because anyone is allowed to do whatever they want with their nodes. Their nodes their rules.

legendary
Activity: 3444
Merit: 10537
December 19, 2023, 12:45:33 AM
#20
That move is more like the continuation of their fight on Twitter otherwise there was no need for such a change and it is not going to affect anything. Afterall Samourai has been working fine so far and Knots had that limit all this time Smiley

Core should add a banlist where you can define User Agent string bans.

eg: banuseragent *Knots*
I'm all for adding more flexibility to the settings users can change but this sounds like a malicious centralized move. Not to mention that you don't need to ban other implementations such as Knots if you run a full node like bitcoin core. The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense. For example your node may decide not to relay txs with fee rate lower than 10 sat/vb but that doesn't mean your node should be banned!

The only reason why Samourai guys (ie. a light client) are doing this is because Knots had a very very old standard rule for OP_RETURN limit that never relayed their transactions but they only found out about it recently!
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6231
Crypto Swap Exchange
December 18, 2023, 07:12:25 PM
#19
It's pretty disingenuous in my opinion for the Ocean mining site to say "Blocks Found: 11,633", when in reality they've found 2.

Exactly! Has the hashpower been increased during these years?

That's a loss of 0.5 BTC per block. When you have not even mined a single block in 15+ days, that's a significant amount of fees to be throwing away through your censorship policies.

Incredible...

Unless something changes and / or JD throws a lot of money at the pool I see it slowly dying since miners as a rule follow the money and not mining certain transactions means less money.

Does JD have anything to win from Ocean mining? I thought Luke was the creator / maintainer of both Ocean mining & Knots.

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/11/29/jack-dorsey-aims-to-create-anti-censorship-bitcoin-mining-pool-with-new-startup/

and

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/12/01/jack-dorsey-backs-ocean-in-shifting-toward-decentralized-bitcoin-mining/?sh=5e213817346c

So yes he (or he with others) is throwing a lot of $ at the pool.

Considering how block / square want to know everything you do within the BTC ecosystem and everything else they control it's not a surprise they also want to control what TXs are mined.

-Dave
legendary
Activity: 2170
Merit: 6279
be constructive or S.T.F.U
December 18, 2023, 04:56:48 PM
#18
On another note, things not looking so great for Ocean: https://ocean.xyz/dashboard

With the hashrate they claim to have they should be finding around one block a week, but it's been 15 days since their last block. Seems like a number of their miners are giving up on them and their total hashrate is gradually falling.

Their average hashrate for the past few weeks or since they started is below 400PH since they had a while of below 300PH, but let's just assume it's 400PH since the 28th of last month since that's when they first got above their first peta, that would be 20 days in total, so up to this point their luck/pace sits at about 100% with nothing out of the ordinary.

Given that 1 in 7.4 blocks would have 200% difficulty, it's pretty normal for said pool to go on without having a block for another 10 days, in fact, if anything, it's astonishing how they managed to get those 500PH on board, comparing them to another pool like Kano that has been there for way too long and doesn't censor transactions but struggles to go above 50PH.

However, as I said when they first launched this pool, it would be only a matter of time before it collapses, as it stands right now, they sell it as the anti-censorship, decentralization savior mining pool which clearly isn't the case, not to mention how it's almost certain that all non-PPS pools will vanish in a few years from now.


That's a loss of 0.5 BTC per block. When you have not even mined a single block in 15+ days, that's a significant amount of fees to be throwing away through your censorship policies.

He was very kind to pick that blocktemplate, It would been even worse if he picked the blocktemplete they generated for block 821596.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
December 18, 2023, 04:32:03 PM
#17
It's pretty disingenuous in my opinion for the Ocean mining site to say "Blocks Found: 11,633", when in reality they've found 2.

Exactly! Has the hashpower been increased during these years?

That's a loss of 0.5 BTC per block. When you have not even mined a single block in 15+ days, that's a significant amount of fees to be throwing away through your censorship policies.

Incredible...

Unless something changes and / or JD throws a lot of money at the pool I see it slowly dying since miners as a rule follow the money and not mining certain transactions means less money.

Does JD have anything to win from Ocean mining? I thought Luke was the creator / maintainer of both Ocean mining & Knots.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
December 18, 2023, 04:08:06 PM
#16
I saw that ocean mining has found many blocks in the past, but only 2 in 2023. Have they been working in the past (before 2017)?
Luke's previous pool (Eligius) which has been obsolete for 6 years. It's pretty disingenuous in my opinion for the Ocean mining site to say "Blocks Found: 11,633", when in reality they've found 2.

Unless something changes and / or JD throws a lot of money at the pool I see it slowly dying since miners as a rule follow the money and not mining certain transactions means less money.
Turns out Ocean are losing a lot on fees as well: https://nitter.cz/OrangeSurfBTC/status/1736113144269869298#m

That's a loss of 0.5 BTC per block. When you have not even mined a single block in 15+ days, that's a significant amount of fees to be throwing away through your censorship policies.
legendary
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6231
Crypto Swap Exchange
December 18, 2023, 03:10:33 PM
#15
On another note, things not looking so great for Ocean: https://ocean.xyz/dashboard

With the hashrate they claim to have they should be finding around one block a week, but it's been 15 days since their last block. Seems like a number of their miners are giving up on them and their total hashrate is gradually falling.

It's all about profitability. If the miners stop earning sats for their work, they will eventually move to other pools.

I saw that ocean mining has found many blocks in the past, but only 2 in 2023. Have they been working in the past (before 2017)?


That was not ocean mining but rather Eligius which was a different older pool.

As for banning Knots, yes they can just rename the user agent something else but what's the point, they are such a small % of nodes out there that the odds of you connecting are 0.4% per connection. Not a number worth worrying about. Unless they want to spin up 100s of nodes it's never going to be more then an irritation to others.

Unless something changes and / or JD throws a lot of money at the pool I see it slowly dying since miners as a rule follow the money and not mining certain transactions means less money.

-Dave
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 896
December 18, 2023, 02:04:36 PM
#14
On another note, things not looking so great for Ocean: https://ocean.xyz/dashboard

With the hashrate they claim to have they should be finding around one block a week, but it's been 15 days since their last block. Seems like a number of their miners are giving up on them and their total hashrate is gradually falling.

It's all about profitability. If the miners stop earning sats for their work, they will eventually move to other pools.

I saw that ocean mining has found many blocks in the past, but only 2 in 2023. Have they been working in the past (before 2017)?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
December 18, 2023, 12:09:56 PM
#13
It's interesting idea, although persistent/malicious node can change their user agent easily.
Knots nodes don't even need to advertise that they are Knots nodes - this is easily hidden. Then you are back to what apogio outlined above of banning nodes which return an error message when you broadcast your transactions, although again, those nodes could stop doing that and could just silently drop your transactions.

That being said, I don't think anyone actually uses knots
Very few. As above, Knots only accounts for around 0.4% of all nodes.



On another note, things not looking so great for Ocean: https://ocean.xyz/dashboard

With the hashrate they claim to have they should be finding around one block a week, but it's been 15 days since their last block. Seems like a number of their miners are giving up on them and their total hashrate is gradually falling.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
December 18, 2023, 06:55:35 AM
#12
Needless unnecessary fallout created by Ocean Mining (ie. Knots nodes) having an artificially small OP_RETURN length limit.

That being said, I don't think anyone actually uses knots - one of the reasons you'd make a node fork is to make your own optimizations to the Bitcoin Core client for specific use cases.
legendary
Activity: 2856
Merit: 7410
Crypto Swap Exchange
December 18, 2023, 06:01:56 AM
#11
This is unlikely to make any meaningful difference to the wider network though, given that Dojo is about 3.1% of all nodes, and Knots is about 0.4% of all nodes.


It's surprising there are far more reachable nodes which use RoninDojo than Knots.

You can always do this manually using setban in Core, though.

Core should add a banlist where you can define User Agent string bans.

eg: banuseragent *Knots*

It's interesting idea, although persistent/malicious node can change their user agent easily.
legendary
Activity: 1819
Merit: 5547
Neighborhood Shenanigans Dispenser
December 18, 2023, 03:56:17 AM
#10
You can always do this manually using setban in Core, though.

Core should add a banlist where you can define User Agent string bans.

eg: banuseragent *Knots*
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18509
Pages:
Jump to: