running https://asmap.org
> ASMap Health Check: 33814 clearnet peers are mapped to 3308 ASNs with 5 peers being unmapped
The number of knots nodes i'm connected to has dropped off a cliff. fascinating.
I also ban all aws nodes from my node. surely a coincidence.
What are you insinuating? All these nodes are fake?
Why donโt 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.
ya'll should read what asmap is for and how bitcoin uses it.
"While Coreโs 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.
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.
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.
What is your response to the CSAM mempool relay concern @jb55
why do people keep linking me this scammer, go read stuff by people who actually understand how bitcoin works, like this very informative answer by sipa
"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.
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 โ 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.
....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.
****
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 โ that's the real attack vector worth everyone's attention.
thanks to mara slipstream- created by anti-knots activist PortlandHodl. Any other examples?
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.
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?
This was a great read, thanks for sharing
This is a good link, thanks for sharing.
A very sober take from the responder โ my respect.
Yes, also look what happened to bsv... A great if not perfect example of why not to run core 30
regardless of whether they're core nodes or knots cores, connecting to AWS nodes only disadvantages you
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.
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.
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. ๐ค
Node count is a largely irrelevant vanity metric. Best to ignore.
Are you a state actor?
Like switching to knots were really that difficult for umbrel/start9 users ๐
FWIW itโs not quite so simple. Itโs really gonna bias towards small ISPs. Comcast may have 300 nodes but youโre gonna bias towards the nodes on random networks across the world or small hosting providers with one node. I do agree that itโs a better sample (mostly cause itโll also bias away from OVH/GCloud/Hetzner), but Iโm not sure itโs 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 wouldnโt help you here.
I thought the node pick randomly from the AS list you put in. If your list is not complete that might explain the drop. ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ
How dare you expose the scam ๐๐
Good luck with that lie ๐, can you make up a bigger one? Come on, you can do it.
Sure, and blowup a filter to open the door for regulation is still a fantastic idea.
The project that can save us all in the hand of a bunch of incel retarded. God help us.
Clearnet only? No Tor routed nodes?
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
Welcome to the coping mechanism of denial.
Looking at it from just a behaviour perspective, core seems to be panicking big time here.
They went from โif you donโt like what we are doing just switched to another implementationโ. 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 โpeople are wrong on the internetโ and i feel compelled to defend sipa et al from lies and defamation. Calling it โpanickingโ 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
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 donโt 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 donโt 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 doesnโt care about your feelings, it cares about technically correct decision making so the systemโs decentralization doesnโt 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
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.
aws = bezos central chamber
so ur policy is good n great for real decentralization
knots vs core war monitor stats #bitcoin fight live nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvhpsfmr23gwhv795lgjc8uw0v44z3pe4sg2vlh08k0an3wx3cj9qqs0w8chcd4t4u535yn39jp95jl2yhlyjtzx4vjh34uuqt8vgp6tlrgyddg5k
