AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden fire

[Snorek]

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


~BCX~

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.

[poeEDgar]

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


~BCX~

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? ^_^

[frontdenplastic]

Change your ISP.
Problem solved

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.

[turvarya]

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.

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

Um, no issue with either? Are you sober?

: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

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

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

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.

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

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.

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

[Carlton Banks]

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.

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?

[turvarya]

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.

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.

[Carlton Banks]

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.

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.

[turvarya]

It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.

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

Are you sober?

is ad hominem?

[Carlton Banks]

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?

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.

[turvarya]

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?

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

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

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?

[Carlton Banks]

Stop talking then

[turvarya]

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?

[ArticMine]

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/ 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.

[turvarya]

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?

[MCHouston]

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.

[unamis76]

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?

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.

[luisan00]

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>

[smoothie]

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


~BCX~

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

[iGotSpots]

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

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


~BCX~

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

[TeamButtcoin]

Change your ISP.
Problem solved

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.

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