Bitcoin Forum

https://imgur.com/trAwqOw

https://i.imgur.com/trAwqOw.png

Wow, that's insane and ridiculous. Don't those new FCC rulings say they can't do stuff like this?

The FCC don't seem to be making too many waves in Illinois (who recently introduced a per MB Download Tax). Then again, I understand living in Illinois is kind of like living in a mash-up of New York, Michigan and Mexico these days.

I wonder if the author tried to route his cable modem in front of, or at least in parallel to, the DVR box? I do not use AT&T, but my main cable line feeds a splitter, with one leg going to my cable modem and the other leg continuing on to all the other TV related devices. It could be a simple case of something needing to be blocked specifically for the DVR and not a big conspiracy as it is being made out to be.

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy. A company like AT&T would be unlikely to put themselves in that position.

It doesn't always have to be criminal to be labeled a conspiracy:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

In any event, the point still stands that it could be something unrelated to AT&T specifically trying to prevent users from running a Bitcoin node.

But then why would a DVR need port 8333 blocked if there is nothing using that port? Port 8333 was specifically chosen because it was high enough that almost no other software used it.

Also, link to the actual email and thread: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010798.html

So you completely misused the word according to what you've discovered on Wikipedia. You used it in the "things that paranoid people believe" sense, and that's not morally responsible at all.

Call Saul and sue them,

I'm almost sure this is an illegal practice pretty much anywhere in the free world.

Or just change ISP,if their finance bleed they will reconsider it

Just a case of a clueless user...your internet is not routed through your Cable/DVR box on AT&T (or any other ISP that also provides video service).  They're hooked to your service, but they're not in front of your computers.  They probably have the DSL Modem+Router and then a second router behind it that they plug their computers into, and have only opened ports on the internal router, not the DSL Modem+Router combo box.

If blocking  any port shuts down your node, then you are too noob to be running one in the first place.


~BCX~

How many times did I have to fuckin tell you guys!  Port blocking is nothing compared to what is technically possible and I'll bet is already in place.  The 'internet kill switch' is not what most people imagine at first blush.


What are you going to do when only back-door'd crypto is authorized big fella?  This isn't the kind and gentle 90's any more...now the mean and scary ISIS is threatening all us freedom-loving people you know.

U-verse's authentication protocol only works with equipment provided by AT&T. Their ADSL service worked with third party modems, but their ADSL2 and VDSL don't. You can use a different router and put it into the U-verse router's DMZ though.

AT&T provides a service to their customers... If they blocked the port, it must be questioned. What does the customer support say about the matter?

In my country internet service providers are everywhere.. and competition is tough. They will not dare to block ports without a valid reason or explaining it to the customers, because they will lose customers to

other service providers. Get the reason for this, and if you not happy... leave to the competition. 

So, you don't like Wikipedia, what about Merriam Webster?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

So, who is misusing words? Who is doing morally irresponsible things?

Change your ISP.
Problem solved ;)

Um, no issue with either? Are you sober?


Still you? You're citing definitions that defend my position, i.e:

conspiracy != "something you imagined because you're crazy"

That was what was intended, and what I objected to. Get a grip.

Well I can say that this is both horrible and expected at the same time. Some ISP(s) are definitely going to try and block Bitcoin in any possible way. The real question is, who ordered this?

Exactly. Check whether you can sue them. If you can then go for it, if you can't switch your ISP and tell everyone else your story. AT&T deserves humiliation for doing this.

Good thin that the ISPs in my country didn't think of blocking some ports or creating firewalls to limit their customers' activities (the government don't even bother on checking out bitcoin lol). The only problem with the ISPs here in the Philippines is bandwidth capping and slow up/down speeds. I don't know if you can sue AT&T for doing such actions, maybe read the tos in getting their contract?


A simple solution, but a wise one. ;)

Yepp same in my country. If any provider would try to do that he could say goodbye to his customers and the whole thing would end in a ugly image damage.

It is not about finding the workaround for this problem, because you will probably find it and be good with your node.
It is problematic because initiatives to block bitcoin are taking place, do you think it will be one and only case of blocking bitcoin nodes?
I don't think so, there will be many more in the future, and why they are blocking nodes in the first place - this is real problem here.

What did you expect? ^_^

Or get business class AT&T if you like them so much. They don't block any ports on business class. For residential service they've already been blocking port 25 for a long time. It is not surprising that they are blocking 8333 as well, probably even mistaking it for a botnet command and control channel.

Look, I break it down for you, since you are always just dodging the issue, with ad hominem.
You wrote:

Which is wrong by the definition of Wikipedia and Merriam Webster.
Can you admit that?

I can, and it's not what was concerning me.

My point was something altogether different, why are do you keep trying to subvert it?

Have you even read your own posts?
That was your whole point and then you went on insulting people, like you do a lot in the last few days/weeks.

Dissembling arguments is not insulting if the ego of the argument's origin can take it. Yours clearly can't.

I suppose making these plain observations is ad hominem also, right? For people like this, everyone arguing against their position is ad homming, until they agree with them and everythings all sunshine and rainbows again  ::)

If you or anyone else feels insulted, then I am not in control of that: they/you are.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

I didn't even make any argument other than, that your definition of conspiracy is wrong. Which you admitted. So, please tell, which of my arguments did you dissemble?

and don't you agree, that
is ad hominem?

Not interested in that, told you already. My point was something else, I admitted that other people define it differently and am happy to do so.

You're trying to argue about something incredibly petty, and I don't care about the outcome. Here's what I do care about, for the third time:


"conspiracy" is NOT defined as "paranoid ramblings of lunatics wearing tinfoil hats"

That definition is pernicious to the dialogue that should really be happening about these issues. The issues are serious, and hence that representation is morally irresponsible.


Argue that point, because that literally is "what the fuck" I am talking about, as you so eloquently put it.

and here, you don't even see that

is also just ad hominem. You want to have a dialog about that? Seriously?

You call me petty, but all you have brought into this discussion is a wrong definition(which is not the same, as "people define it differently". Dictionaries are there for a reason) and insults. Just look at your own posts, there is nothing else there. So, how could anybody have a serious discussion with you, about the actual topic?

Stop talking then

Why?
So, you can play again high and mighty by talking down on other people, without even bringing anything into a discussion?

You would love that, wouldn't you?

Censoring Bitcoin by blocking port 8333 could put AT&T in violation of the new Net Neutrality rules in the United States since it amounts to filtering traffic. We must keep in mind that Bitcoin is a peer to peer network. Those affected could file complaints to the FCC https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/ (https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/) It would likely fall under the Open Internet category.

Edit: If enough Bitcoin users in the United States file complaints their firewall will become expensive.

Will it?
I don't know, how USA law works out most of the time. But will they really pay a penalty or will they just have to remove the firewall, when the damage is already done?

What AT&T product are you using and how is it configured?

I have AT&T Uverse and have no problems with my node.  I can turn off the firewall on the modem itself.

Only catch may be I do have static IPs.

Pretty weird of them that they're doing this. Do they have any incentive to block communications on this port? Or am I just being too paranoid? :D

Anyways, send them threats like "open the port, or else...". I doubt it would work on America, unfortunately, but it works in Europe. Then either change ISP or port.

If only the problem is the 8333 port, you can run bitcoind or QT version with the option -port=<different_port_than_8333>

if you prefer , put a new line in bitcoin.conf with the option : port=<PORT>

How does your statement above fit into satoshi's original plan of decentralization that involves the average joe being able to run a bitcoin node on his computer?

Your statement only shows that being a noob makes someone unable or unqualified to use Bitcoin essentially. Which is the wrong attitude.

 >:(

What ever happen to your monero killing attack that is now almost a year late? Lol

If that is the actual reason for blocking it, that's quite shitty. However..


That pretty much sums it up. It literally takes 6 seconds to use a different port

As for nooks being noobs, I get that, but there's PLENTY of docs out there now

http://bfy.tw/1brr

Not just port 25, but telnet/RDP ports, things like netbios, basically any port that can be or is being heavily abused


only on bitcointalk could this action be seen as a conspiracy

If you talk about what Satoshi said, than please get it right:

I don't think they have much choice in America.

I don't.  If my ISP gives me the boot (or endless problems and the opportunity to have an Indian tell me to re-boot my modem and router again and again for hours at a time) I have one other option which is just as bad.  Then it's back to POTS modem-land and my land-line is so poor that v.34 is all I can achieve...on a good day.  No line-of-sight to anywhere interesting so I could not even do my own radio link.

As for getting government backing to force an ISP to let me run Bitcoin, I'm not holding my breath.  In short, my ISP has me by the balls and I'm not going to sacrifice my ability to connect to the internet at all over Bitcoin (which, even at the current blocksize, is already a significant burden in bulk data terms.)  If I had a million dollar mining operation and the corporate infrastructure providers I rely on tells me to jump, I'm going to ask 'how high.'  I'll have to assume that most others with a million dollars worth of gear on the line would do the same.

This Achilles' heal of Bitcoin is a big factor dictating how much value I feel comfortable placing on it relative to alternatives such as gold.  The more the block size grows and the more the solution relies for strength simply on the headcount of users and good graces of the authorities to allow it to operate, the less I can trust it as a robust financial alternative.  But that's just me.

Exactly what part of satoshi's plan was to oust "noobs" because they shouldn't run a node?



Let's talk about everything I posted in its complete context and not just selectively.

ATT's hidden firewall is all about conserving IPv4 addresses since there are no more available for assignment in North America.  Without a static IP address it makes no sense to have an open port, whether it is a bitcoin node, a web site, or a mail server.  I believe ATT will rent you a static IP for a monthly fee from their existing inventory.

It may be possible to bypass these problems by configuring your router to run IPv6, either directly through ATT or via Hurricane Electric's Tunnel Broker.  Once you have IPv6 service running you can then run an Ipv6 bitcoin node.   But be warned, Ipv6 is hardly noob friendly.

https://www.tunnelbroker.net/ (https://www.tunnelbroker.net/)