On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.ht... https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f...
you're mischaracterizing it Please specify how that is "misleading" or "downplaying."
No, go read and ask the former link's author from where it was directly quoted to specify.
say so
Ok, it's bullshit. Not least of which because Tor's measly 1000 exits are nothing in comparison to genuine "dDoS" by significant actors against Bitcoin, let alone the load from a million normal lusers and their lesser infected PC's, and everyone's tools they're using to interface with BTC. Nor will Tor amount to anything when banks and nation states start to get scared and attack digital currencies. Where's the blocking code for that and their IP ranges? You'll be lucky if users amount to anything there either. And the internet has already characterized Mike's seemingly apparent anti-privacy and corporate modes, but I'll let the net continue to sort that out. Happy now? ;) Tor users are humans too and as such hold the same rights as everyone else. Anyone who thinks otherwise can fuck off.
The feature is very clearly described on the BitcoinXT web site, and you're mischaracterizing it by saying BitcoinXT downloads the list "for blacklisting." It is a DoS protection feature that ONLY comes into play under overload. And yes, BitcoinXT considers Tor connections "less important" than non-anonymous connections during attacks. You may not agree that that's a good heuristic, but if that's your problem with it, say so. From https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html: ... Please specify how that is "misleading" or "downplaying."