A new attack, obviously. Unlimited is derived from Core v12 code versions, so an attacker familiar with the fixes done in the Core code in recent versions just have to use those vulnerabilities, one at a time, until the Unlimited developers keep in track with Core v14 fixes and their game will be over: no attacker will attack Unlimited without damaging Core too.
Who attacks Unlimited? Someone interested on the success of a different implementation. Who is interested in that success of Core v14/Segwit? Blockstream and those shills with an economic stake on Lightning implementation. It is so obvious who is doing this, and yet some people think they'll convince the rest it is because of Unlimited developers...
Some people (Blockstream among others) would burn to ashes the Bitcoin network if they'll could just be the kings of those ashes For that reason, Unlimited supporters are not going to change our minds and we will keep running our nodes. Just disabling XThin as developers are recommending, until they release a patch. In two weeks we will have another attack and we will repeat the protocol. Not a big deal :-)
Do you really want to make us believe that a synchronized leak of memory in the majority of the nodes is bug and not an intended attack? Oh, come on -ck, you are a reputable developer...
Who attacks Unlimited? Someone interested on the success of a different implementation. Who is interested in that success of Core v14/Segwit? Blockstream and those shills with an economic stake on Lightning implementation. It is so obvious who is doing this, and yet some people think they'll convince the rest it is because of Unlimited developers...
Some people (Blockstream among others) would burn to ashes the Bitcoin network if they'll could just be the kings of those ashes For that reason, Unlimited supporters are not going to change our minds and we will keep running our nodes. Just disabling XThin as developers are recommending, until they release a patch. In two weeks we will have another attack and we will repeat the protocol. Not a big deal :-)
It looks like r/btc is using the term "being attacked again" as their explanation although it's just another out of memory bug to do with their x-thin implementation 
Do you really want to make us believe that a synchronized leak of memory in the majority of the nodes is bug and not an intended attack? Oh, come on -ck, you are a reputable developer...