Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19343. (Read 26630383 times)

One must first understand the techniques:

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

The ways to combat it mainly are trying to be as open and transparent as possible to prevent rumors and conspiracy theories. Try and be as clear and objective as possible to try and avoid the spread of misinformation. Try and avoid assuming bad faith among peers to avoid excessive paranoia from creating fear and distrust with a group(this can be difficult to do as there are individuals one may need to ignore and one needs to reasonably review the evidence), ignoring very unproductive and wasteful individuals who constantly troll or try and turn the conversation off-topic, and try and discuss the facts as much as possible without getting bogged down in spiteful attacks or personal attacks.

I was going to leave these be... but as you'll probably complain...

This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?

Fixed - thanks.

Coin



Explanation

So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it?

SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network?

Sounds like some serious security concerns here...

Got any others?

.@Cconvert2G36: That's it, you're done, teh full node mythos. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
It's the one tenet of Bitcoin dogma that must be defended and maintained -- bullshit like "economic majority has a voice" rests on it.

Quoted to lock in the fact that you are unaware of the importance of non-mining-nodes with security and the role they play. Please research this topic before spreading more misinformation. You are ignoring the fact that new nodes have to bootstrap from existing nodes and also ignoring the fact that SPV nodes that are dependent upon full nodes, also ignoring the fact that Juking the numbers gives us a false representation of how decentralized are the nodes we have, plus the fact that not having an economic agent on the other side of each of those nodes doesn't give developers crucial feedback to any potential bugs that are experienced to be reported... ect...

Not plagiarism?  Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal? --BrainyQuote.com
(Who, consequently, was never called an asshole.
Not like you) --Brainyqote.com

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare

Now here's an opportunity for some non-contentious consensus.

No. I pretty much ignore anything you have to say.

It's unfortunate. I'm sure sometimes you say something worth reading, but I've done the calculations; the massive amount of meaningless text that you spew is simply not worth the time to read.

It's a good thing NMN (non-mining-nodes) have nothing to do with network security, talk about a wide open vulnerability...

Consequently, it's nice that the network's security isn't dependent on you "discouraging" people from running more than 1 node.  

I'd be interested to hear more about this when you have some time.

Was referring to this, my angry Friend

How does one tell if the nodes are real or a sybil attack?

He (Shmadz) was quoting the let's talk bitcoin show, dumb shit!

There is a sybil attack occuring as we speak , and the sad thing is that many Classic supporters that are participating in the sybil attack have good intentions and not aware that they are weakening the security of our network. This isn't a Core vs Classic disagreement , because Core devs criticised when an exchange spun up 100 Core nodes... and rightfully so.

The intentions of the person spinning up nodes is only is half the problem. If one person or company spins up many nodes that is indeed a sybil attack and weakens the security of our network regardless of their intentions. It centralizes nodes, gives a false signal to the network that its healthier and more decentralized than it actually is, an can be used as an attack vector if that individual is compromised(even if their intentions are well founded) . This has nothing to do with the implementation debate and everything to do with understanding the potential security implications of an individual spinning up more than one node. This should always be discouraged regardless of it being a core node, XT, node, Classic node, ect... 1 node per economic agent- whether it be a company, SPV wallet, individual, miner, ect.... 1 node each. There is no way of stopping someone creating more but this practice should be discouraged as it weakens bitcoin and is indeed a type of Sybil attack.


Those aren't mutually exclusive... in fact , transparency is one thing I'm advocating to deflect these types of attacks.

Overall, I agree with you; however, as I stated you seem to reading too much into one answer or one set of answers.

Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?

Surely, I agree that Gavin is really acting shady in a variety of ways, but still, I find it better to attempt to keep claims a bit more solid because you just give ammunition to the other side when you either exaggerate or you read too much into the wrong context, then even though ultimately you are correct, you are appearing to be a bit crazy because your example is not solid enough to prove the case and you are reading too much into one example.

Probably, I agree with you too, that he probably should not have played around with the joke, and just had given a straight answer for the record.... just to make an unambiguous denial (that is if he is really not compromised), but anyhow people make those kinds of slip-ups all of the time, and we gotta look at their conduct more broadly, rather than one or two instances.

Some Bitcoiners actually prefer radical transparency to paranoid defensiveness. Think about it.

@shmadz: YOU were the one who asked "When were you co-opted and why are you trying to destroy bitcoin?" Do you ask similar questions IRL, or just on the interwebs?