Replies (79)
why ban aws?
because I would rather connect to plebs than chainanalysis companies
What are you insinuating? All these nodes are fake?
Why donβt you ban all cloud nodes then?
yes it appears so. not all, but it seems more like 2-3% of nodes instead of 20%.
I would ban more cloud nodes i just haven't got around to it.
Where did u see 33k nodes?
Maybe a lot of people spun up cloud nodes because of convenience. Unless you can prove Luke spun up 1,000s of nodes, this proves nothing.
Exactly... Also there isn't 33 thousand nodes.
How dare you expose the scam ππ
ya'll should read what asmap is for and how bitcoin uses it.
"While Coreβs netgroup bucketing prevents too many peers from connecting from a single netgroup, a single AS entity can control many IP address ranges"
if a single entity controls lots of knots nodes then your node will potentially connect to those ips without knowing. This is the eclipse attack.
asmap just adds more information so that core can try to avoid connecting to ips controlled by the same ASN (like a bunch of cloud nodes).
If before I was connecting to mostly knots nodes and then I turn asmap on and they disappear, this implies people are running a knots sybil attack. it's not technically a proof but it is anecdotal evidence.
some people running larger node statistics are seeing a drastic drop in connected knots node counts with asmap on. I am seeing the same.
Ok.. So instead of counting the nodes.. You just block them.. I got it now.. Thanks
block the ones controlled by a single entity yes, so its a more accurate sample of real node runners. it appears to be much less (2-3%) instead of 20%. so some scammer is inflating the numbers to convince people that users are running knots.
honestly could be a state level actor at this point, who knows.
makes sense π€
good luck chainanalysis lol
#coinjoin #liberty
God bless the decentralized coordinators
Sooo all the nodes on aws are controlled by the same scammer? Even the bitcoin core nodes? I'm sure core nodes are also hosted there too.
I thought the node pick randomly from the AS list you put in. If your list is not complete that might explain the drop. π€·π»ββοΈ
all I'm saying is that banning aws nodes and turning on asmap, you get a more accurate sample of non-corporate entities running nodes. like people running nodes in their own house, etc.
your peers are just a statistic sample. if you are getting eclipse attacked your view of the network and the nodes that are running will be less accurate.
I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.. A quarter of the current reachable bitcoin nodes are on aws.
right, so when I collect data from peers on my node, aws nodes wouldn't be included in the stats. the point is to get a better sample of real people running nodes.
It doesn't matter if I'm a robot running a node... A node is a node.
simply not true. a government could spawn 100,000 nodes, does that change what bitcoin is? of course not.
What is your response to the CSAM mempool relay concern @jb55
They could.. But then.. They would be supporting the network. Which I would love to see the day
adding 100,000 does not support the network. it is an eclipse attack.
Yes, also look what happened to bsv... A great if not perfect example of why not to run core 30
Could be the individual I overheard scheming to inflate the node count numbers not too long ago right before the knots count started to spike. π€
Node count is a largely irrelevant vanity metric. Best to ignore.
You are too patient
Hmmmm... Why doesn't Russia and China do this attack if its easy.
what is your response to the CSAM issue
is there a list of their subnets?
I like the idea of firewalling them from nodes I can for the principle of privacy
They are way more anti-crypto than usa
my response is everything sipa said
π
"Speaking for myself, I hope you believe me when I say that is not the motivation at all. I think these use cases are temporary hype cycles, and not rational use of blockchain space, but the market can stay irrational for a long time. However, I believe that attempts to discourage these use cases through node relay policy, in the presence of widespread evidence that miners accept these transactions anyway, are ineffective, akin to making nodes bury their heads in the sand, and ultimately harmful to the decentralization of the system at large."
How is it harmful to decentralization if we set our own mempool relay policy?
How does changing the default settings to relay bigger op_returns NOT increase the potential for images to be relayed?
Don't see anything new in this answer.
Same as Mathew Kratter
Are you a state actor?
HOW DARE YOU, WE'RE SAVING BITCOIN
This was a great read, thanks for sharing
This is a good link, thanks for sharing.
A very sober take from the responder β my respect.
regardless of whether they're core nodes or knots cores, connecting to AWS nodes only disadvantages you
Because the folks who want to issue junk on the chain opt to go to specific miners directly to include their junk. These specific miners then outperform smaller miners due to the fees they receive in this manner β rinse and repeat this be behavioural pattern and soon we have centralization of mining.
The reason why they go about this way is because if they just send their non-standard txs to the mempool of their nodes the propagation path for remain scarce because of the data carrier limit. This limitation feeds this behaviour.
Core will be banned from everywhere once v30 hits.
Good luck with that lie π, can you make up a bigger one? Come on, you can do it.
View quoted note βSure, and blowup a filter to open the door for regulation is still a fantastic idea.
....please continue your logic....
the current default setting- (filters)
feeds behavior- (special action/cost required to publish spam)
=
Solution: change the default setting so it is easier to publish spam.
****
The project that can save us all in the hand of a bunch of incel retarded. God help us.
It seems very odd you leaving a real risk here: miner centralization. Focus on what's important.
More spam doesn't help petahash miners to solo mine.
Filters provide greedy miners that put profits above Bitcoin's network health an edge β that's the real attack vector worth everyone's attention.
thanks to mara slipstream- created by anti-knots activist PortlandHodl. Any other examples?
Clearnet only? No Tor routed nodes?
That's a precedent that will only multiply if propagation path remains scarce; meanwhile, junk hype cannot sustain itself by constantly outbidding standard use case. I'm as anti-junk as you but I try to look at things objectively.
lol no it wonβt
BitcoinIsFuture
Its all about money. Corruption unleashes the worst from people. Bitcoin is ATTACKED!
Run your Bitcoin Knots and don't allow Bitcoin to be turned into a shitcoin like Ethereum
How to turn Bitcoin into a shitocin for $2.7M by Citrea (Lopp is investor), Ordinals, Delphi Ventures, Eric Wall, co-founder of the Taproot Wizards NFT project; and Anurag Arjun?
"Chainway Labs went public earlier this month with the news that it was building what it says will be the first zero-knowledge rollup for Bitcoin: Citrea. On Wednesday, the company disclosed to CoinDesk that it had raised $2.7 million in a seed fundraising round led by Galaxy Ventures.
The round saw participation from other investors including Delphi Ventures; Eric Wall, co-founder of the Taproot Wizards NFT project; and Anurag Arjun, co-founder of data availability blockchain Avail.
Historically, Bitcoin developers have focused on keeping the network simple, limiting core protocol upgrades to avoid over-complicating the chain and straying from its core use case of peer-to-peer transactions. That's changed over the past year with BitVM and Ordinals inscriptions, which are technologies that help layer 2 platforms use the Bitcoin blockchain to handle a wider array of use-cases, like NFTs and programmable smart contracts.
With Citrea, Chainway is working to help Bitcoin better accommodate decentralized finance (DeFi), NFTs and other use cases that were previously only possible on smart contract-based blockchains like Ethereum, but are now possible for Bitcoin to handle."
https://www.coinglass.com/news/91227
And the ordinals spam
If PortlandHodl didn't literally create slipstream, you wouldn't have this argument in favor of less restrictions on spam. Awfully convenient, or are you still intellectualizing?
Are you saying there is an implication that many of these knots nodes are being spun up in large numbers to create the illusion that there is a shift or pivot from core?
it appears so, but nothing definitive yet
Like switching to knots were really that difficult for umbrel/start9 users π
Welcome to the coping mechanism of denial.
data is coping now.
Hello, care to chat a little?
FWIW itβs not quite so simple. Itβs really gonna bias towards small ISPs. Comcast may have 300 nodes but youβre gonna bias towards the nodes on random networks across the world or small hosting providers with one node. I do agree that itβs a better sample (mostly cause itβll also bias away from OVH/GCloud/Hetzner), but Iβm not sure itβs great either.
yes this thought came to me. I was also thinking what would happen if you spun up 100,000 core nodes behind tor. asmap wouldnβt help you here.
Looking at it from just a behaviour perspective, core seems to be panicking big time here.
They went from βif you donβt like what we are doing just switched to another implementationβ. And after people switched to another implementation, core is sure spending a lot of time in trying to persuade back ppl with further technical arguments and to discredit the other party (and Loop going on multiple podcasts to do the same).
Just the fact that you core guys are spending a lot of time on this makes you appear like you lost control and are desperately trying to get it back
@
All i can speak is from me personally, but its more of a βpeople are wrong on the internetβ and i feel compelled to defend sipa et al from lies and defamation. Calling it βpanickingβ is just a label you are applying. And an inaccurate one. core devs can sleep at night knowing they are doing the right thing for bitcoin, even in the face of a sustained misinformation campaign against them.
sipas answer really should have ended this debate at this point
Bitcoin Stack Exchange
Implications of OP_RETURN changes in upcoming Bitcoin Core version 30.0
As you may know, there has been a debate around the upcoming release of Bitcoin Core. I hear the arguments against it and I agree that Bitcoin is m...
The fact that core devs seems incapable to even remotely consider the option that people have understood their technical arguments but disagree (because maybe ppl value other things more or donβt think the trade off is justified) speaks volumes.
These are not comments to ignite discord or making fun, it is an honest attempt to help core devs wake up and realize they need to reasses a few things. Instead of doing a self-analysis of what perhaps you might have done wrong, you guys are doubling down and closing in on yourself even more and lashing out. This behaviour has become obvious to everyone now
Have you been involved in any engineering project ever? When building a nuclear power plant you donβt add extra knobs because the lay person would (incorrectly) think its better. These are system that secure trillions of dollars, engineering and technical reasoning process is *critical*. if that gets corrupted we are fucked.
Bitcoin doesnβt care about your feelings, it cares about technically correct decision making so the systemβs decentralization doesnβt fail.
your reply is just further evidence of what I've been trying to say and the mistake that core devs keeps doing:
stop coming back with only technical-focused arguments, don't you see that this is not what is about anymore? You will not persuade ppl with technical arguments anymore because the crux of the matter are:
1) Perceived imposition on nodes (taking away configurability) and very much "central planning" vibes from core. You can be 100% right on the change and 100% wrong on the way you are trying to implement it
2) Dismissal of criticism from non-technical users (tecnocracy + refusal to incorporate other non-tech perspectives into the discussion)
3) Perceived "reactionary" behaviour from core devs to miners centralization and spammers issues. This op_return return is perceived as a reactionary "let's try to minimize damage now as best as we can", but users have not seen any real attempt to fix the issue (i.e. stratum v2) rather than just react and contain it
All these are non-tech related issue, ppl disagree on other fields, and keep insisting that btc is only about technical aspects (as if humans where not involved at all ) is the biggest mistake core is doing.
As long as core keeps staying in its "techno bubble" it will not be able to reinstate a productive dialogue with plebs
The hard part is ginning up the useful edyoots
aws = bezos central chamber
so ur policy is good n great for real decentralization
knots vs core war monitor stats #bitcoin fight live nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvhpsfmr23gwhv795lgjc8uw0v44z3pe4sg2vlh08k0an3wx3cj9qqs0w8chcd4t4u535yn39jp95jl2yhlyjtzx4vjh34uuqt8vgp6tlrgyddg5k
Your fallacy is that time spent is to convince you. There is no reason to believe ideologues (whose arguments about tech aren't technical) will change their minds. It is spent to fix what your claims have broken, and to remedy untruth and misunderstanding among non-ideologues who act in good faith, dont make it all about themselves and their emotions. Just because you have a nonreasoned reaction (or worse, can imagine someone else might be reacting) doesn't mean someone else should address it.
That ASMap FUD deescalated quickly.
nothing wrong with collecting data. I was at least able to confirm there is no *clearnet* sybil, but clearnet knots is much lower: only 8% of nodes. All mostly residential isps which makes sense.
