Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2018, 08:21:45 AM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do client users not allow incoming connections?  (Read 941 times)
grahammm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 08:04:15 PM
 #1

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.
1537604505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537604505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537604505
Reply with quote  #2

1537604505
Report to moderator
1537604505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537604505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537604505
Reply with quote  #2

1537604505
Report to moderator
1537604505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537604505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537604505
Reply with quote  #2

1537604505
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
flug
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 08:16:51 PM
 #2

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 10:42:15 PM
 #3

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 593
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 11:04:13 PM
 #4

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

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
ghxost
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 11:23:54 PM
 #5

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 593
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 02:47:17 AM
 #6

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 02:57:55 AM
 #7

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.

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!