|
elggawf
|
 |
April 21, 2011, 02:43:55 AM |
|
What are the disadvantages (security, etc) of having UPnP turned on?
In the client? Nothing. Some routers are terrible in their support of uPNP (eg, some firmware versions of D-link I believe it was would allow any uPNP client on the LAN to set the default gateway for other hosts, etc), but if you have one of those then it makes no difference if the Bitcoin client has it on or not. If it's enabled on your router and it's insecure, it's a security liability no matter what. Some folks disable it on their router automatically as a matter of habit, simply because historically router companies are idiots in the way they implement it. So as far as just enabling/disabling it in the client, simply put if you are fine with manually forwarding ports where they need to go, or if they're already forwarded properly, don't bother enabling it. Now for my questions, first: Does the Bitcoin client exchange peer information with other clients, such that it'll maintain a decent connection to the swarm if it's not able to go on IRC? (I'm assuming the answer to this question is affirmative, but I want to make sure because it's an assumption for the second question). Second: Does the Bitcoin client do any type of validation on the IRC server it connects to to seed the p2p mechanism? I don't really want to be on some strange IRC network all day every day with several clients, so I was thinking about setting up an IRC server on my router and transparently forwarding my bitcoin clients there. Assuming at least one of my clients maintains at least one active peer outside my LAN, all clients should stay in the swarm with no issues right? |
^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The block chain is the main innovation of Bitcoin. It is the
first distributed timestamping system.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
mewantsbitcoins
|
|
April 21, 2011, 03:26:07 AM |
|
Actually, i see both same & i don't understand anything.
Can anyone explain why i got same thing both time or what is wrong in mine? There's nothing wrong with yours - it's working flawlessly. Read a little about how networks work and what port forwarding does - you'll understand  |
|
|
|
|
|
khal
|
|
April 21, 2011, 05:38:54 AM
Last edit: April 21, 2011, 05:52:24 AM by khal |
|
To bitcoin, this type of transaction appears to be a low priority, spam transaction. Sending tiny amounts of bitcoins to yourself is a waste of network resources -- remember, you are asking every bitcoin node, all over the world, to validate and store your transaction.
There's no fee penality to send to self. But there is for small amounts & recent transactions. No, its not error or bug. Gavin mentioned it in first post itself. You can send coins less than 0.01, but you have to pay 0.01 as fees It's not less than 0.01. Coin selection choose 3 input transactions of the same amout (3 x 0.01234567) to pay 0.01234567. So, i guess the transaction is above 1k (or priority implies a fee). Not a bug so, just need to optimize coin selection maybe. |
|
|
|
|
|
alkor
|
|
April 21, 2011, 05:43:13 AM |
|
What about the Apple binaries? Is Mac OS no longer supported? |
|
|
|
|
|
gigabytecoin
|
|
April 21, 2011, 06:24:45 AM |
|
Linux and Windows binary releases are at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/Changes and new features include: - Support for Universal Plug and Play to open a port for incoming connections (off by default, turn it on using the -upnp=1 command-line switch or the checkbox on the Options dialog box).
- Sending and displaying arbitrary precision amounts of bitcoins (you can send exactly 1.0001 bitcoins if you like). Sending less than 0.01 bitcoins requires a 0.01 bitcoin fee, however.
- New rpc command "sendmany" to send bitcoins to more than one person in a single transaction (already being used by some of the mining pools for payouts).
- Several bug fixes, including a serious intermittent bug that would sometimes cause bitcoind to stop accepting rpc requests.
If you find bugs, report them at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issuesWhy have you enforced a fee of 0.01 btc for small transactions? What sense does it make to send a transaction with a fee that costs more than the actual transaction itself? |
|
|
|
|
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 1203
I support freedom of choice
|
|
April 21, 2011, 06:50:43 AM |
|
yes, it's bad.
Because the exchange value of Bitcoin ( from USD ) can go very high.
So even 0.01 bitcoin can be a valuable amount of cash.
How can I add the updated translation to the next client release?
|
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
April 21, 2011, 06:53:39 AM |
|
Why have you enforced a fee of 0.01 btc for small transactions? What sense does it make to send a transaction with a fee that costs more than the actual transaction itself?
It's to stop denial of service on the network, by someone geting 1 BTC and then sending the tiniest fractions of it all over the place to fill up the block chain for no good purpose. I would imagine that the minimum fee would be lowered at some point if the currency deflates that far - I think you want it to discourage frivilous transactions, but not be prohibitive to legitimate microtransactions. At this point though there is a ~1c USD charge to send anything that is vastly below ~1cUSD... which makes sense when you think about it. |
^_^
|
|
|
|
gigabytecoin
|
|
April 21, 2011, 07:06:45 AM |
|
Why have you enforced a fee of 0.01 btc for small transactions? What sense does it make to send a transaction with a fee that costs more than the actual transaction itself?
It's to stop denial of service on the network, by someone geting 1 BTC and then sending the tiniest fractions of it all over the place to fill up the block chain for no good purpose. I would imagine that the minimum fee would be lowered at some point if the currency deflates that far - I think you want it to discourage frivilous transactions, but not be prohibitive to legitimate microtransactions. At this point though there is a ~1c USD charge to send anything that is vastly below ~1cUSD... which makes sense when you think about it. Couldn't somebody interested in a DOS attack on bitcoin in this manner simply re-build their own customized client of bitcoin? I am sure whoever wanted to accomplish a DOS attack could do that. So, why inhibit regular users because of a possible attacker really is the question? Captchas for example... some websites choose not to use them period, because they are such an inconvenience to the average user. No matter how many spam registrations they receive. |
|
|
|
|
|
toffoo
|
|
April 21, 2011, 08:01:22 AM |
|
What about the Apple binaries? Is Mac OS no longer supported? Well, I saw Gavin's photo in Forbes today, sitting in front of his iMac ... which made me wonder why it seems like Apple-users are second-class Bitcoin citizens. If the lead developer is coding on a Mac, can't he build us a binary? I don't think OSX even got an official build of 0.3.20.2 ! |
|
|
|
dishwara
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1855
Merit: 1016
|
|
April 21, 2011, 08:39:51 AM |
|
What about the Apple binaries? Is Mac OS no longer supported? Well, I saw Gavin's photo in Forbes today, sitting in front of his iMac ... which made me wonder why it seems like Apple-users are second-class Bitcoin citizens. If the lead developer is coding on a Mac, can't he build us a binary? I don't think OSX even got an official build of 0.3.20.2 ! Don't get wrong. Linux is primary here for one thing open source, so do bitcoin - open source. Due to huge number of users & request windows client made. Soon their will be for mac. The problem is Gavin is the only one so far working on whole official client. Now some programmers joined with him. If you know about Mac programming you can help. |
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
April 21, 2011, 09:24:25 AM |
|
After this I installed the new client on the other machine. When I turned "Map port using UPnP" the first machine's port forwarding was dropped by the router. How would I go about setting up multiple machines running bitcoin client behind 1 router?
You can't, simple as that. You can only ever forward one port to one client thus port forwarding will only work on one (as you can't change the Bitcoin port). Which one gets the port forward with specific who has UPnP on, etc settings depends on your router. |
|
|
|
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 5166
Merit: 12864
|
|
April 21, 2011, 12:24:17 PM |
|
Couldn't somebody interested in a DOS attack on bitcoin in this manner simply re-build their own customized client of bitcoin?
They won't be processed by the network (most of it, anyway), even if you modify your client to send them. They'll just sit at "0/unconfirmed" forever. |
1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
|
|
|
|
dbitcoin
|
|
April 22, 2011, 06:47:59 PM |
|
bitcoind nogui not builds without miniupnpc (default settings). Looks like at least unix makefile and related header files do not proper handle this. And when I completely exclude miniupnpc from build by hand: ++ -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DFOURWAYSSE2 -DUSE_SSL -o bitcoind obj/nogui/util.o obj/nogui/script.o obj/nogui/db.o obj/nogui/net.o obj/nogui/irc.o obj/nogui/main.o obj/nogui/rpc.o obj/nogui/init.o cryptopp/obj/sha.o cryptopp/obj/cpu.o obj/sha256.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -Wl,-Bdynamic -l gthread-2.0 -l z -l dl
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `CWalletDB::LoadWallet()':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/db.cpp:811: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `Unserialize<CDataStream>':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/serialize.h:136: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
April 22, 2011, 07:13:03 PM |
|
bitcoind nogui not builds without miniupnpc (default settings). Looks like at least unix makefile and related header files do not proper handle this. And when I completely exclude miniupnpc from build by hand: ++ -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DFOURWAYSSE2 -DUSE_SSL -o bitcoind obj/nogui/util.o obj/nogui/script.o obj/nogui/db.o obj/nogui/net.o obj/nogui/irc.o obj/nogui/main.o obj/nogui/rpc.o obj/nogui/init.o cryptopp/obj/sha.o cryptopp/obj/cpu.o obj/sha256.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -Wl,-Bdynamic -l gthread-2.0 -l z -l dl
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `CWalletDB::LoadWallet()':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/db.cpp:811: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `Unserialize<CDataStream>':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/serialize.h:136: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Have you tried building with USE_UPNP= |
|
|
|
|
dbitcoin
|
|
April 22, 2011, 07:45:11 PM |
|
Have you tried building with USE_UPNP=
Yep. I found where is problem. Current makefiles want installed libminiupnpc. But this is wrong. If I not need upnp support at all, why I need install it? |
|
|
|
|
dust
|
|
April 22, 2011, 07:53:38 PM |
|
Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
April 22, 2011, 08:35:09 PM |
|
Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.
If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default. |
|
|
|
|
dbitcoin
|
|
April 22, 2011, 08:44:58 PM |
|
Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.
If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default. Yep, with commenting all builds ok. |
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
April 22, 2011, 08:46:56 PM |
|
Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.
If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default. Yep, with commenting all builds ok. You shouldn't comment out that line. There is no point changing the source when all you have to do is undefine USE_UPNP by specifying USE_UPNP= when you build. |
|
|
|
|
dbitcoin
|
|
April 22, 2011, 08:50:04 PM |
|
You shouldn't comment out that line. There is no point changing the source when all you have to do is undefine USE_UPNP by specifying USE_UPNP= when you build.
For custom build this is doesn't matter. I anyway apply several patches for pool. |
|
|
|
|
