Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Could this be a "sucking down the blockchain from various nodes" attack, I wonder?

Trying to bust peoples' bandwidth limits?

Thats what I was thinking. Though to do that don't they have to actually pull the data from somewhere (unlike the amplification attack where they can parallelise and distribute the flood) which would make it possibly unsustainable? They'd have to have compromised machines in a botnet that are sucking the data down the hosts pipe(s). Not unfeasible but certainly more difficult if its a 1:1 ratio needed.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
how about those 500 AWS nodes upgrading to 0.12 yesterday having to update their blockchain?
 

jl777

Active Member
Feb 26, 2016
279
345
was the bandwidth spike across many nodes, or just a few?
[doublepost=1457634917][/doublepost]can someone give a short summary on segwit, its expected timeframe and is it really what it looks like? Having some blackbox of bits external to the blockchain to make updating the blockchain state more difficult for all the independent core devs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Norway

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
LOL, #bitcoin IRC moderators, which includes Luke-jr, phantomcircuit and gmaxwell too (I think) are calling bitcoin.com "SCAMMY" in the channel topic because it includes Bitcoin Classic among its many wallets.

I think all pretenses are dropped now really. These guys have fully hijacked bitcoin and are on a political smearing campaign to centralise power and shun out everyone else and they not even hiding it anymore.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49uzft/blockstream_employees_call_bitcoincom_scammy/

Voice seems to be getting weaker and weaker in my view. Exit is quickly becoming the only option.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Lots of despondency here.
If people want to sell, then do it, but keep watching, keep an open mind and some ready fiat to re-buy later. This is definitely not the time to throw in the towel and walk away.
 

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
was the bandwidth spike across many nodes, or just a few?
[doublepost=1457634917][/doublepost]can someone give a short summary on segwit, its expected timeframe and is it really what it looks like? Having some blackbox of bits external to the blockchain to make updating the blockchain state more difficult for all the independent core devs?
I have 3 nodes. It only happened on one. Ramped to a 12 hour sustained ~130Mbs then dropped to normal again.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Nicholas Plassaras's scenario beginning to play out at level of CB's as opposed to the IMF. that's OK, I'll take it:

In general, portfolios denominated in Pounds, Canadian Dollars and Euros all pretty much follow a similar pattern. This result is not surprising given that most major currencies revert to the purchasing power parity equilibrium against the US dollar. The first scenario, where it is assumed that 0.01 percent of reserves were invested in bitcoin or any other of the other major currencies held by the Central Bank of Barbados from November 2010 to April 2015, suggest that the volatility of reserves would have been quite similar over the period. However, the bitcoin reserves at the end of April 2015 would have been $291,926 – more than 20 percent greater than had these same funds been held in balances of any other major currency.

https://blog.bitt.com/bitcoin-central-bank-reserves/

[doublepost=1457640953][/doublepost]
Lots of despondency here.
If people want to sell, then do it, but keep watching, keep an open mind and some ready fiat to re-buy later. This is definitely not the time to throw in the towel and walk away.
Expected. The bull bucks hardest for the bulls.
[doublepost=1457640995][/doublepost]
Did people miss the fact that there are solutions to scale bitcoin onchain?
No, just the Blockstream folk.
 

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Theres this idea that the classic node count is a cannibalisation of XT and not really indicative of people converting core nodes. This has been bugging me for a while. Tonight I though I'm just going to do a quick check on the figures.

This idea has been based on the node counts. I thought what would happen if you looked at the relative distribution?

It just so happens that 21.co already put things in percentages and strip out the trash!

What you are looking at here *is* cannibalisation of core.

Jan 28th: 64% Core / 36% other
Today: 54% Core / 25% Classic / 21% Other


"The wind of change blows straight into the face of time"
 

jl777

Active Member
Feb 26, 2016
279
345
I have 3 nodes. It only happened on one. Ramped to a 12 hour sustained ~130Mbs then dropped to normal again.
ok, it wasnt iguana then. I was inadvertently testing with just 2 peers for a while and it was only doing 30MB/sec.

hmmm. when you say 130Mbs is that megabytes or megabits?

the iguana was doing ~240megabits to two nodes, so that would be close to 130megabits/sec. actually adding in the parity bit, it is very close to 130mbps

but it wasnt continuous, more sporadic sync 100K blocks, crash, debug, sync 200K blocks, etc

usually I run with ~100 peers so the 50MB/sec is spread across many nodes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Mb(its)ps (based on an estimated 130GB per hour)
[doublepost=1457643100,1457642355][/doublepost]Granularity only goes down to 5mins on cloudwatch, but even then you can see it was sharp on/off between the times:

From: 8th March 2.36 PM UTC
To: 9th March 2.51 AM UTC

During that period it was pretty sustained (just eyeballing) at about 125Mbps, with a minimum 96Mbps and a peak 150Mbps.

Standard debug.log for bitcoin not really giving anything away afaict some peer connections from "Why? Because FU thats why" but not massive amounts

 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Theres this idea that the classic node count is a cannibalisation of XT and not really indicative of people converting core nodes. This has been bugging me for a while. Tonight I though I'm just going to do a quick check on the figures.

This idea has been based on the node counts. I thought what would happen if you looked at the relative distribution?

It just so happens that 21.co already put things in percentages and strip out the trash!

What you are looking at here *is* cannibalisation of core.

Jan 28th: 64% Core / 36% other
Today: 54% Core / 25% Classic / 21% Other


"The wind of change blows straight into the face of time"
Just eyeballing the percentage change it looks like Core 0.11.2 and 0.12.0 on Jan 28th have lost just 0.6% of market share between then and March 9th.

It a slight breeze blowing in a new direction and I wouldn't call it cannibalization just yet, but the trend of change is very positive.

it's a signal that Core's new developments are not winning network percentage (or hearts and minds) with the new direction they are taking the code-base. .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Just thinking about it, the trend in total nodes has been sedately decreasing. in contrast from the time around December 21 to today we've seen a ~24% increase in total nodes.

looking at that graph, it seems like from December 14 all 0.11.2 nodes could have upgraded to 0.12, representing 0% network growth and then from about December 21 to today 24% growth in nodes have either been added from the Core side or the Big Block side.

That trend reversal starts with the release of Unlimited, I can only speak for myself but I fall into the group that have just switched out Core and replaces it with Classic and Unlimited, not artificially growing the network in that time frame.

is that 24% growth funded by Blockstream's $75M, or enthusiasts choosing to run a node?

That data either looks very bad or just bad for Blockstream Core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Sure if we say the combined count of core 0.11.2 and 0.12.0 hasn't changed then that means all the 0.11.1 and 0.11.0 have gone to Classic!

Wonder why they didn't go to core 0.12.0! ;)
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
"But Greg, what about that money? Hill and PWC will want a return. We have to do something. We have to keep going. Let's burn all the monies! At least we can say we tried."
You know what would be a good business plan?

I'll tell you: 1.) create some panic (using core dev powers, for example) in the markets 2.) buy BTC from panic sellers 3.) craft big news: remove blocksize limit in core 0.13 with a 88% / 11 days activation hardfork. 4.) watch media/market hysteria with cigar in hand 5.) sell into strength of media hype, lighting cigar

good plan? I think so. Too bad I quit smoking.

Also: that plan makes you money, gains you no power or control, though.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
now that's just plain devious.

nice.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
Theres this idea that the classic node count is a cannibalisation of XT and not really indicative of people converting core nodes. This has been bugging me for a while. Tonight I though I'm just going to do a quick check on the figures.
Bitnodes keeps 90 days worth of data, including IPs. I ran an analysis a while back to see what was going on with conversions. I'll pull some fresh data and run it again.
[doublepost=1457648967][/doublepost]
Standard debug.log for bitcoin not really giving anything away afaict some peer connections from "Why? Because FU thats why" but not massive amounts
Surely a script which follows the log and does some iptables magic would be the thing to do?
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
@molecular

That's a way to convert influence into money (influence is lost or at least risked). Blockstream is another way that loses less influence for a while. Looks like the most cunning plan is to do BS first then your plan. That way you fleece both VCs and weaker holders.

This is actually close to what Goldman Sachs probably does. The standard problem-reaction-solution strategy to expand government, while getting both bailouts and mega-profits on insider knowledge of future market moves through Fed/Treasury revolving door. Doing just one of those two leaves a lot of money on the table.

With governments exit is hard since you have to move, so they can continue abusing people for quite a long time, but with Bitcoin it is very easy to exit Core. You don't even need to get out of your chair.
 
Last edited:

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
Bitnodes keeps 90 days worth of data, including IPs. I ran an analysis a while back to see what was going on with conversions. I'll pull some fresh data and run it again.
[doublepost=1457648967][/doublepost]

Surely a script which follows the log and does some iptables magic would be the thing to do?
I take the same view I do with cold callers. If I can keep them tied up wasting their time, it stops them moving on to the next target and hurts their "bottom line"

Why? Because fuck them ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX