Running on a port other than 8333

[wumpus]

My concerns are more along the lines of potential for DDoSing the network if you have infinite nodes (well 65000 per IP) and sybil attacks.  But those are mostly because I haven't read enough of the networking code to realize all the possibilities (nor do I think anyone really has).  If you spend enough time reading up on net.cpp and can convince people that those aren't a problem, then I'm sure it would get merged.

OK. That sounds pretty serious. These issues will have to be addressed for IPv6 as well, then.

[1715171186]

1715171186

[Matt Corallo]

OK. That sounds pretty serious. These issues will have to be addressed for IPv6 as well, then.

Yea, pretty much, though for IPv6 if you just take a /64 as a single address and ignore anything else from that /64 as a duplicate it might be ok.  Then again, so many of use have /48's from HE so...yea it needs to be thought out.

[wumpus]

Yea, pretty much, though for IPv6 if you just take a /64 as a single address and ignore anything else from that /64 as a duplicate it might be ok.  Then again, so many of use have /48's from HE so...yea it needs to be thought out.

Well even now with IPv4 there are people with a shitload of IPs (for example botnet owners or ISPs), and that will only get worse. If bitcoin somehow relies on IPs being scarce, this is a pretty big (potential) hole in security.

[Matt Corallo]

Well even now with IPv4 there are people with a shitload of IPs (for example botnet owners or ISPs), and that will only get worse. If bitcoin somehow relies on IPs being scarce, this is a pretty big (potential) hole in security.

Yea, the networking code is one of those things that no one has really touched since satoshi...though I don't think either port nor IPs can exploit bitcoin for sybil but I just don't know what kind of numbers would actually be required to pull it off (though it does get much, much easier with IPv6).

[wumpus]

I just read in the IRC channel that there is up to one outgoing connection per /16.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Cancer_nodes

If that is true, supporting alternate ports won't open Bitcoin up for any more sybil attacks than we have now. You can have 65535 bitcoin instances running on your system, but it will ignore all of them but one.

[payb.tc]

I've been working on adding -port= / -rpcport=  command line / config file options to bitcoin.

Usage looks like this:

Code:

$ ./bitcoind getbalance  # The TEST network Faucet bitcoind
40616.66159265000
$ ./bitcoind -datadir=/home/bitcoin/.bitcoinTEST2 getbalance
1000.000000000000
$ cat /home/bitcoin/.bitcoinTEST2/bitcoin.conf
rpcpassword=.....
port=18666
rpcport=18665

Patches are at http://pastebin.com/2e4hfXSS; I've only tested on Linux so far, anybody willing to try this on Windows?

a) is this information still current, or is there some more up-to-date thread i should be reading instead? (i notice there is an rpcport option in the example bitcoin.conf going around, but no 'port' option).

b) has this functionality made it into the default client, or i still need to find a patched version?

thank you.

[Matt Corallo]

a) is this information still current

Yes

b) has this functionality made it into the default client, or i still need to find a patched version?

Mainline.

[payb.tc]

thanks matt, i have more questions now hopefully someone can help

c) do i physically need 2 copies of the bitcoind bin? i'm not much of a linux guy but i tried to nohup the 2nd instance of bitcoind from the same physical program file and it doesn't appear to have launched the 2nd process.

d) i was going to ask how to just stop one instance and not both, but if you need 2 physical copies of bitcoind then a simple stop command would make sense.

[Matt Corallo]

Why are you trying to run 2 bitcoinds?  There is no reason to run 2 bitcoinds on the public network.

[payb.tc]

Why are you trying to run 2 bitcoinds?

Isn't the answer to that question in the OP?

(to run two separate websites/businesses/wallets on one server at the same time)

[payb.tc]

maybe i'm just misunderstanding how this is supposed to work...

but can anyone tell me what mainline version number this was first added to? it's not working with 0.3.20 but i guess i should maybe be upgrading anyway.

[Matt Corallo]

0.3.20

DONT EVER RUN A CLIENT OLDER THAN 0.3.24, EVER, EVER.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21767.msg373830#msg373830

[payb.tc]

0.3.20

DONT EVER RUN A CLIENT OLDER THAN 0.3.24, EVER, EVER.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21767.msg373830#msg373830

honestly i'd like to upgrade but i still haven't found a solution to the missing glibcxx_3.4.11 yet.

/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.11' not found
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found

[payb.tc]

so i was able to get this working, one instance running on 8333/8332 and another working on 7333/7332.

But when I tried to stop the 2nd instance, it stopped the first one instead!

/web/sites/.bitcoin1/bitcoind <- this runs on the default ports

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- this runs on 7333

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop <- this command stops the bitcoin1 instance!

[wumpus]

so i was able to get this working, one instance running on 8333/8332 and another working on 7333/7332.

But when I tried to stop the 2nd instance, it stopped the first one instead!

/web/sites/.bitcoin1/bitcoind <- this runs on the default ports

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- this runs on 7333

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop <- this command stops the bitcoin1 instance!

Use

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ stop

[payb.tc]

so i was able to get this working, one instance running on 8333/8332 and another working on 7333/7332.

But when I tried to stop the 2nd instance, it stopped the first one instead!

/web/sites/.bitcoin1/bitcoind <- this runs on the default ports

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- this runs on 7333

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop <- this command stops the bitcoin1 instance!

Use

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ stop

Thanks, will try that...

Funny I tried that switch before, but I put it after the 'stop':

/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- doesn't work

didn't even think to put it first.

[Matt Corallo]

You need to specify the -rpcport of the instance you want to stop (probably 7332).

[payb.tc]

You need to specify the -rpcport of the instance you want to stop (probably 7332).

yep, hence using the -datadir switch to point to the secondary bitcoin.conf file... thank you.

[mybtclove]

You need to specify the -rpcport of the instance you want to stop (probably 7332).

yep, hence using the -datadir switch to point to the secondary bitcoin.conf file... thank you.

Hi guys, I know this thread is very old but it is something I am experiencing right now.

The example conf here is for old versions and I was wondering if you can post one that is suitable for 0.9 +

[piotr_n]

It doesn't matter which post you select, because at some point in time (around adding the addr messages ad removing IRC) the algo in the bitcoin core for selecting peers to connect to has been fucked up. And ever since then the bitcoin core node intentionally discards peers that are listening at non-default port.

I raised this issue once, but the answer was that it wasn't a bug, but a security feature.
Great feature, BTW - it makes me feel so much more secured!

Anyway, if you setup you node to use a different port, you only get incoming connections from non bitcoin core nodes.
Because the bitcoin code node is fucked up and nobody gives a shit about it.