134
135

Explosive Logs Reveal Miners Are Being Threatened By Blockstream Employees (pastebin.com)

aquentin が 投稿

全 108 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]realistbtc 58ポイント59ポイント  (21子コメント)

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 21:56:59:They are going to lose a lawsuit for theft and owe millions...

1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 22:11:20:eh, gross negligence at worst I'd think

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 22:12:41:There's a really strong case for theft, though you could definitely win gross negligence. Many people have told all the classic people that they're being negligent

i think they have reached a new level of stupidity and bad faith .

we must steer clear from this kind of actors and make them irrelevant !

[–]thezerg1Andrew Stone - Bitcoin Unlimited Lead Dev 23ポイント24ポイント  (13子コメント)

how are the classic people being negligent?

[–]Annapurna317 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's impossible to be negligent in an open-source protocol. This guy is a psycho.

[–]TedTheFicus 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly, he's literally just making things up at this point.

[–]justusranvier 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Arguably by treating the satoshi codebase as salvageable, but I doubt that's what they had in mind.

[–]sqrt7744 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually l read it as Luke shooting down Matt here, as in "theft? Wtf you saying bro, maybe negligence at best." I disagree with Luke on virtually all things Bitcoin related, but he's not the bad guy here.

[–]satoshis_sockpuppet 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cypherpunks!

[–]SundoshiNakatoto 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

unbelievable... 1st world crypto anarchist at its finest

[–]cryptonaut420 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Programmer, economist, and now lawyer. These guys got it all figured out don't they?

I feel like bringing block size hard fork debate to a court would just end up in a very confused judge and lawyers.

[–]cypherdoc2 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

right. they would lose millions in frivolous suits.

[–]silver_sean 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why won't the miners see this and make their own damn decisions?

[–]moleccc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those people crawl around in deep dark holes, hacking at rock. What do you expect?

[–]acoindr 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are going to lose a lawsuit for theft and owe millions...

WTH? What is he thinking? What's with all the legal threats I've seen crop up? That's really dumb. Bitcoin the state free currency now needs people running to the state. Obviously a body can be sued for anything. To insinuate that as part of a debate point is beyond disappointing.

[–]Btcmeltdown 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

This Matt Corallo must be mentally retarded. Outstanding job to show the world that

[–]FormerlyEarlyAdopter 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

All normal people run away from that group of idiots calling themselves "Core". Only insane freaks left there.

[–]buddhamangler 30ポイント31ポイント  (12子コメント)

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-29 01:38:24:@David chan no, actually we've seen two new issues crop up in the past two weeks...one which is not /really/ exploitable, and one which is really, really, really close to being able to print new bitcoin out of thin air if you were to increase the block size

WHAT? I would love to see some back up for this. Otherwise its scare tactics.

[–]todu 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

It doesn't matter if it's "really close" or "far away". What matters is if it's possible or not possible. So in this case it's an issue that would not have the consequence of making it possible to print new bitcoin out of thin air.

Can you describe this "really, really, really close" kind of issue you mentioned, in more detail Matt Corallo (/u/TheBlueMatt)? It's either an issue or it is not an issue. There is no such thing as a "really close to being an issue". That's just "not an issue".

[–]justusranvier 14ポイント15ポイント  (10子コメント)

WHAT? I would love to see some back up for this.

It's probably true. Lots of time bombs hidden in the satoshi codebase, like variables that are intended to hold only positive values being signed instead of unsigned.

When you combine that with consensus constants that are calculated from other constants it's not always obvious when a change exposes an integer overflow.

In a more sensible world, we'd have gracefully retired the satoshi codecase years ago as a prototype which had served its purpose and switched to cleaner implementations.

[–]LovelyDay 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hopefully once Bitcoin's derailed development trajectory is stabilized, some sanity can return and the following two things happen:

  1. proper specification of the protocol

  2. clean implementations

[–]sqrt7744 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

There are plenty of clean implementations.

[–]LovelyDay 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Good time to share some shining examples!

I'm genuinely interested, since I haven't looked at much else except the current derivatives from Satoshi code.

I would love to see a clean implementation in a language with a decent type system, for example.

And just today I looked at a slide showing Bitcoin wire formats which indicated that not all network protocol fields were the same endianness. If that's actually true (not claiming it is - I haven't verified), the cruft may extend beyond the actual implementation...

EDIT: thanks to all you responders!

[–]sqrt7744 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Link to code or it didn't happen.

[–]Adrian-X 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

what's to say

print new bitcoin out of thin air if you were to increase the block size

this is only relevant if the block size is increased before their SegWit code is deployed.

[–]kraml 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Overflow bugs are just as easy to produce with unsigned integers. There are more pitfalls when it comes to unsigned integers than unsigned ones.

[–]Gobitcoin 23ポイント24ポイント  (18子コメント)

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 21:49:58:Wait, 1 month? Holy shit... That is gonna get people sued.

1|Matt Corallo:2016-01-19 21:56:59:They are going to lose a lawsuit for theft and owe millions...

blockstream threatening with litigation yet again. they should be ashamed of themselves.

[–]kanaarrt 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is so dumb! The MIT software license (which Bitcoin is licensed under) reads:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

tl;dr You can't sue for damages or any other horseshit, there's no fucking warranty. Go cry to mommy.

[–]paulh691 29ポイント30ポイント  (4子コメント)

"Core is Blockstream's private property now"

[–]Annapurna317 26ポイント27ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is completely true. They are owned by their employer and it's why Blockstream's CEO Adam Back went to China to represent core developers.

They've basically stolen an open-source protocol by buying off some of its main developers. It's total garbage.

[–]livinincalifornia 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't forget, Adam attempted to sign the agreement as an "individual" and not "president of Blockstream" and then flip flopped in order to distance Blockstream-Core from his actions as much as possible, even though he clearly is representing them.

[–]MeTheImaginaryWizard 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe Adam Back's main inspiration is Sasha Baron Cohen movies.

[–]cypherdoc2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

preposterous.

[–]kcbitcoin 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am guessing that the guy named "小寒" might be Jihan Wu, the Antpool Operator.

Since 吴忌"寒" is his full name in Chinese, 小 is just a pre-fix indicating this is a nickname.

Well, this is just my logical guess. =)

Edit: Reading 小寒's words sets my mind at ease, after weeks of Chinese/English debates. I really hope he is the Antpool operator.

[–]Egon_1 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like Jihan Wu is grilling Block$tream.

[–]Annapurna317 18ポイント19ポイント  (12子コメント)

If you look there:

1|Luke Dashjr:2016-01-19 02:21:07:there is GPU at least

Luke.Jr is threatening to change Bitcoin's Proof of Work. This is a HUGE change and threat to the protocol. It would take the MILLIONS of dollars miners have invested into ASICs that secure the network and throw them off the bus.

Also, GPU mining is not safe from a 51% attack because it allows someone with a Botnet to easily take over millions of computers and attack the network. It's completely unsafe, and a horrible idea.

Honestly, this guy should have no-say in anything related to any project that anyone depends on. He's dangerous, malicious and spreading fears and lies over at /r/bitcoin.

[–]InfPermutations 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

I replied to another comment, but I guess I'll ask again here... what is this proposed changed, does anyone have any more information?

Surely if the PoW algorithm is changed, eventually an ASIC could be developed which would solve the same problem as the new algorithm. Sure it would cost some people a lot of money in terms of the money they have invested in current ASIC's, but we'd end up back where we are now within a few years.

[–]mothershipstarboard 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

How can you guys take this seriously? If the POW in the Core implementation was changed everyone would switch to classic overnight. In the process solving everything that got us into this mess in the first place, with Blockstream basically ejecting themselves from power. It is an empty threat meant to control miners (their position of "authority" being the only power they have) and makes little sense from any angle.

[–]InfPermutations 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I was simply trying to understand what was being proposed. I agree, implementing a new PoW would be very contentious, more so than raising the block size to 2MB.

[–]r1q2 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's why Luke's proposal to put it in Classic is pure trolling. Or even something much worse.

[–]BrainSlurper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not even contentious because 0% of miners would agree to that so there wouldn't be any contention

[–]MeTheImaginaryWizard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Raising the blocksize limit is contentious only in the minds of Blockstream employees.

[–]paulh691 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

the original idea was using CPUs that were on anyway, so no energy cost - PoW could be changed at regular intervals to make ASIC/GPU development impractical

[–]tl121 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I doubt that was the original idea. If it was, it was wrong. Anyone with a computer and a kill-o-watt can see what happens to power consumption when an idle processor begins to do continuous computation. If one doesn't have a meter, one can just hold his hand close to the exhaust vent for cooling air.

[–]BrainSlurper 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That was definitely the original idea, and I'm pretty sure satoshi understood how electricity works. That was how bitcoin operated for years. It would be preferable for it to work that way because everyone would end up on the same widely available hardware.

[–]tl121 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Back when Satoshi was playing with his Bitcoin nodes many of us had multiple computers lying about of varying degrees of performance and power consumption. It was never a question of 1 CPU one vote. For a while, I did a little CPU mining. My fastest machine had more than 20 times the hash power of my slowest machine.

[–]BrainSlurper 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not about everyone having equal hardware, it's about everyone having access to the same hardware. Lower barrier of entry=less centralization.

[–]MeTheImaginaryWizard -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Meanwhile the Cult of Core likes him a lot.

[–]rezzme 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jeff Garzik, ever the wisest man in the room.

[–]SpiderImAlright 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

The bar isn't set super high in this instance.

[–]Mark0Sky 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

These talks about litigations and lawsuits really leave a bad taste. :facepalm:

[–]deadalnix 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Segwit is a softfork, it does not need consensus.

Awesome...

[–]paulh691 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Blockstream is paying all the core devs which are opposed to a block size increase. Does blockstream have an economic benefit from not having a block size increase?

[–]cryptonaut420 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Literally almost every single well known developer against the block size is either a co-founder, an employee, or has admitted that Blockstream has tried to hire them, but they decided to contract out instead for "independence".

[–]Savage_X 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They stand to benefit from monetizing sidechains. Sidechains are much more appealing if the primary block chain is "full" and basically leaves people with no choice but to move some transactions off chain because they become too expensive otherwise.

[–]Chris_Pacia 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like this gem:

SegWit is a softfork, it does not need consensus.

[–]FEMALE-BACON 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

just had a look at luke-jr's profile and that dude is a off his fucking rocker.

[–]AwfulCrawler 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So these guys are hostile to other devs, hostile to regular users and hostile to miners.

Why does anyone take them seriously?

[–]todu 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

1|གཉིསལྔ་གཉིསགསུམ།:2016-01-20 05:18:40:Not sarcasm, if core devs do not respect miners, miners could do something that prevent segwit from being activated.

Good. Bitcoin Core wants Segwit and the miners want BIP109. If Bitcoin Core vetoes BIP109, then the miners can veto Segwit by voting no in the mined blocks for Segwit activation. Then they can trade and we'll get code that activates both Segwit and BIP109 simultaneously, because Blockstream requires Segwit for their future off-chain products to even function at all.

[–]Feri22 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

since when is Luke Dashjr Blockstream employee? Couldn't find him here: https://www.blockstream.com/team/

[–]solex1[🍰] 14ポイント15ポイント  (8子コメント)

He sub-contracts to them, and they pay him to go on FUD-bombing missions like the recent trip to China to bamboozle the miners into waiting for > a year for a block limit change.

[–]tl121 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

Waiting for > a year after they've already waited for a year.

[–]Feri22 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

source / link to verify this?

[–]MentalRental 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

He chose to be an "independent contractor" for Blockstream although he is one of the founders of the company.

[–]cypherdoc2 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

although he is one of the founders of the company.

proof?

[–]spkrdt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then go fork blockstream off, problem solved ... just sayin ....

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Feri22 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

7-10 people from bitcoin core contributors are working for Blockstream...there are 94 contributors to the Bitcoin Core depository

you can check here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.12.0.md#credits

and here:

https://www.blockstream.com/team/

[–]tuxayo -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Actually changing the PoW to redecentralize mining would be the only long term solution to avoid future situation like this one.

But I don't understand why LukeJr proposed it, it's centralized mining that allows Bitcoin to be stay locked with Core so him proposing this doesn't make sense.

Did I misunderstood something?

[–]cryptonaut420 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think it would really decentralize shit, just cause a massive reduction in security while the mining industry rebuilds (or alternatively, causes bitcoin to completely fizzle out). If BTC becomes mineable by CPU again, then you have the re-emergence of botnet miners which would dominate the hash rate. Even with GPU, too many people would join in meaning the average small miner still makes hardly anything unless they join up together in pools, which ends up at the same problem (small handful of pools controlling majority hashrate). If there is money to be made, ASICs will be developed no matter what. IMHO changing PoW is utterly pointless. Best case scenario bitcoin gets set back a few years and then we end up in same situation but maybe different faces. Worst case, no more bitcoin and some alt takes the #1 spot.

[–]ThePenultimateOne 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If there is money to be made, ASICs will be developed no matter what

The one exception might be if it requires more memory as the difficulty goes up. I'm not aware of an algorithm that works this way, though.

[–]InfPermutations 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm interested in what this proposed change actually is. Is there any more information about it anywhere? First I've really heard about it.

[–]r1q2 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Luke submitted a patch to Classic the second day github was up. Said something like 'you're doing a HF, while at it, put this into, this will teach the miners a lesson'. https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6

[–]InfPermutations 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for this, much appreciated. You can read more about it here https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42k5on/keccak_as_proof_of_work_for_bitcoin_will_the_big/ (might be useful for others)

Also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3 (SHA-3 is a subset of the Keccak algorithm for the proposed PoW)