Nostr Web Client

Is this consensus? Only two versions of Bitcoin? No, this is not consensus. Consensus was the eDonkey network.

Most of the time, the Bitcoin community is ridiculous. Some of us here lived through the birth of the internet, but now many don't even know what a 56K modem is.

Go suck Bitcoin Core's dick, they shit on you and tell you it's white chocolate.

eMule forks:

eMule Plus – direct fork of the original eMule; improved interface and other features, but did not implement Kad or obfuscation.

lMule – first port/fork for Linux (2003).

xMule – fork of lMule (2003), multiplatform; later discontinued.

aMule – fork of xMule (2003), maintained multiplatform development (Linux, macOS, *BSD, Windows).

JMule – Java client derived from the eMule/ed2k base.

easyMule / VeryCD Mod – variant developed by VeryCD (popular in China).

iMule – derived from aMule, oriented towards the I2P network (descendant in the eMule “tree”).

eMule mods: MorphXT, Xtreme, Sivka, ZZUL, ScarAngel, NeoMule, StulleMule, Mephisto.

Clients compatible with the eDonkey network:

eDonkey2000 (MetaMachine, the original).

eMule and its forks (and its family of mods).

MLDonkey (multi-network).

Shareaza (multi-network, with ED2K support).

Lphant (ED2K + BitTorrent).

Morpheus (Windows multi-network client with ED2K support).

Hydranode (modular multi-network).

Pruna (formerly MediaVAMP; based on eMule).

Jubster (multi-network).

eAnt (fork of Lphant).

qMule (based on libed2k + Qt).

iMule (eMule over I2P; note: geared towards I2P/anonymous Kad rather than classic ED2K servers).

NeoLoader (supports eDonkey/eMule and BitTorrent, with its “NeoKad”).

neoloader.com

VeryCD/easyMule and eMule VeryCD Mod (Chinese variants; easyMule v1 used ed2k, later versions limited searches to the VeryCD index).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Tauri 4mo ago

Didn’t realise eMule had so many forks 😳

Rico 4mo ago

All of the mule forks and all torrent clients have one thing in common, they all load the ipfilter.dat with which the user controls who gets a piece of the data and you bandwidth.

ynniv 4mo ago

Not going to argue this, other than to say that changing the version string isn't diversity. Extracting the consensus kernel out makes deeper independence less risky

☕ Shitlord 10000, with a HARD R 4mo ago

Bitcoin: turning regular people into money worshipping degenerates, since 2011

Yay

sati 4mo ago

Nobody cares about emule forks, your money is not depending on it.... Would you run a bitcoin version from some random dude on the internet?

trev 4mo ago

It's more like "why aren't other implementations of an open protocol being funded or developed?" besides the reference implementation.

This is sometimes met with the answer "oh, it's too complex" or "I wouldn't trust another version". Well that in itself is an issue, maybe not for now, but for the future. Maybe in 10 years [company] will employ all Core devs and then prioritize their own initiatives. Then what?

EspañolLuchador 4mo ago

I think that this is happening right now

trev 4mo ago

That does seem correct, with Knots and the libbitcoin news

FernandoTheKoala 4mo ago

Are you suggesting that knots is the implementation that is getting controlled by some big entity right now?

trev 4mo ago

Oh, no, I misunderstood because I originally wrote out that I think Core needs even more forks or full rewrites.

I believe the opposite, that Core is mostly funded by companies that have specific interests, similar to the large corps that fund and contribute to Linux.

I'm not an expert by an means, but based solely on SLOC, I think it's doable to have at least 2-3 node implementations. I have not looked into libbitcoin very deeply, but maybe since they claimed recently that they can meet full consensus that it could become a viable option as well. Kind of talking out my ass now, so I'll stop.

FernandoTheKoala 4mo ago

Ok now I get you, I misunderstood your last message.

Yes we all hope to get at least 3 btc implementations evenly distributed, as of now it is way too centralized and a huge weakness. I see a lot of movement also for decentralizing mining, let’s see how the future unfolds

And keep talking man, even if out of your ass, right now the world needs more communication!

sati 4mo ago

I believe you can still run bitcoin v0.1 or core 21.0 if you don't like what they doing, don't you?

trev 4mo ago

Probably can, but I don't see how that solves anything except keeping people on an outdated version that maybe contain inefficiencies and security issues.

sati 4mo ago

Well if you running v29 and dont like v30 don't update. Another version could have inefficiencies and security issues too, no?

I like ppl telling core to fuck off but more versions doesn't solve the problem imho

trev 4mo ago

Yeah, security issues could be introduced as well, but I think we're going further from the point that it's about incentive and development goals getting pushed onto a single codebase, i.e centralized codebase and no other options besides not upgrading

trev 4mo ago

Also, crazy that the eDonkey guy was involved with shitcoins and Mt Gox

Dun 4mo ago

i remember the good old sharereactor days.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 3mo ago

exactly, there should be dozens if not a hundred bitcoin nodes by now.

JackTheMimic 3mo ago

I want Libbitcoin to register on there but, I don't know if it will ever work.