Re: Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting
Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node. Slush must be a gambler! 
So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.
Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.
Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).
So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.
Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.
Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).
By fake, I mean advertising accepting BIP101 blocks but in fact rejecting them, which Slush it not doing. Anyone that runs NotXT might as well be running NotBIP101 on core since it's the exact same deceitful practice. It doesn't help demonstrate support for alternative BIPs; it might help fracture the network in January. I know you're not dumb enough to have ignored the game theory - anyone that runs NotXT is gambling with everyone's money without any upside.
Slush isn't running XT or NotXT. Slush's present nodes will in fact reject >1MB blocks. Slush is spoofing, as has already been explained here:
Quote
How am I ignoring the game theory? I already explained why/how NotXT exacerbates the risk for defections to XT, by minimizing its chances of success. And OrganOfCorti mathed the hell out of that, leaving no doubt those brave enough to accept XTcoins are going to have a bad time.
What is it that you don't get? Slush is indicating support for >1MB blocks via XT/BIP101. Since no version of XT or only-bigblocks or Core will accept >1MB blocks prior to January 2016 then it doesn't matter that he hasn't updated to XT or BIP 101 mining prior to then. Is your point that the NotXTers will move to BIP101 or XT in January 2016? That seems to not quite be in the spirit of NotXT.
I read the OrganOfCorti comments - he used numbers ranging between 0.16 and 0.21 of fake voters. That's fine - if it's a small number of fakers then it doesn't matter. The more the fake votes increase, the better the chance for 'premature activation'. Go ahead...run NotXT - gamble away, but you sure can't take the moral high ground.