Why do client users not allow incoming connections?

[grahammm]

It has frequently been stated that most client users do not allow incoming connections. As bitcoin is a distributed system which relies on the mesh of nodes exchanging block data. it seems very selfish to set up a node and not allow others to connect to it. So why do so many people do it? Even being on DSL with a dynamic IP address is no excuse unless there is more than one node on the LAN, as even the cheapest DSL modems can be configured to forward incoming connections on a port to a system on the local LAN.

[1715208679]

1715208679

[1715208679]

1715208679

[1715208679]

1715208679

[1715208679]

1715208679

[flug]

I wasn't especially aware of the reasons to open it up when I first installed the client. Even now that I know about it (mainly through this forum), I'm still wary of opening up my modem to any port (perhaps port scanning might reveal that I'm running Bitcoin? I don't know). I'm not sure that most people even know what this question means.

[mjmvisser]

It has frequently been stated that most client users do not allow incoming connections. As bitcoin is a distributed system which relies on the mesh of nodes exchanging block data. it seems very selfish to set up a node and not allow others to connect to it. So why do so many people do it? Even being on DSL with a dynamic IP address is no excuse unless there is more than one node on the LAN, as even the cheapest DSL modems can be configured to forward incoming connections on a port to a system on the local LAN.

For a long time, uPNP was off by default. I think it's on, now. Either way, there will be a patch release soon that fixes a bunch of problems due to the size of the block chain that makes downloading new blocks slow.

[compro01]

in today's episode of why-NAT-is-stupid-and-evil-and-needs-to-die...

[ghxost]

in today's episode of why-NAT-is-stupid-and-evil-and-needs-to-die...

And if ISPs would include a block of 5 addys for everyone it would. But until then...

My port has been forwarded since I got started. No reason not to that I know of.

[compro01]

in today's episode of why-NAT-is-stupid-and-evil-and-needs-to-die...

And if ISPs would include a block of 5 addys for everyone it would. But until then...

My port has been forwarded since I got started. No reason not to that I know of.

which is why ISPs need to get their asses moving on implementing IPv6 so things will work properly (full end-to-end connectivity without ugly hacks like NAT traversal or UPNP) again.

a /64 (2^64 addresses) for everyone.

[phillipsjk]

It you read the Terms Of Service for your Internet connection, you will probably find you are not allowed to accept incoming connections (the no servers clause).

Of course, If you are not allowed to host a server, you really only have half an Internet connection. The Internet Protocol is inherently peer to peer. Though, I agree it should be replaced by IPv6.

If transaction volume keeps going up exponentially, bandwidth caps are going to be an issue as well.