Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.

[hurricanewarn1@aol.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12397 bytes --]

First off I couldn't synch the wallet, it said no block source available and there was zero connections. Bitcoin was literally getting thottled every second. It would not even allow the connection to get block source. EVERY port was blocked, making exceptions in the router firewall did nothing. I was forced to use Blockchain.info which is a major security risk.

Secondly, I am developing a program using Bitcoin Python modules, so I login to my computer like it's a server and it was flat out rejecting the connection. I could not run any code until this got fixed, and of course needed the block source to even do anything. 

If Bitcoin Core worked but 8333 was blocked I would not be emailing the list. Bitcoin Core was crippled and unusable due to the AT&T settings, and they tried hard to get me to buy monthly subscriptions to get the answer. This makes it likely that Bitcoin Core is unusable for most AT&T customers and other ISPs, hence the massive node decline. I'm sure this disrupts alot of other people besides Bitcoiners too, hence the monthly subscriptions geared towards people who can't figure out their connection situation.

AT&T literally blocked access to static IP if you don't buy one, so it wasn't a normal network setup. Unfortunately the same security used to stop hackers and viruses stops Bitcoin too, so this is probably the settings for almost every router in the country. Nodes are in fact declining worldwide, down 15% in the past year alone. Community needs to speak up and also educate before this gets completely out of control. https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/?days=365 6,000 nodes is pathetic as it is and it's constantly declining.
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: hurricanewarn1 <hurricanewarn1@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 4:32 am
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.


Respectfully, what the heck are you talking about? Practically every home LAN
runs on a private subnet. My own desktop computer has the IP address
192.168.1.34, which is in a private subnet. This doesn't prevent my Bitcoin Core
node from making outbound connections to other nodes. Moreover, almost all home
Internet connections in the world run on dynamically assigned IP addresses.
Again, this does not cause any problems for connecting outbound to other Bitcoin
nodes. It's true that your node can't accept incoming connections unless you
forward port 8333 on your router to your computer, but you don't need to be able
to accept incoming connections to participate in the Bitcoin network.


On
Wednesday, 2 September 2015, at 3:20 am, Zach G via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 
>  I
was about to buy a VPS for Bitcoin, but I really do need Bitcoin Core for
business reasons so I didn't give up. I once again thoroughly went through my
computer and made sure there was nothing blocking 8333, a couple useful tools
are CurrPorts and TCPView. I went through the router to make sure there was no
block of port 8333. I researched everything thoroughly and was sure these were
the right settings, but Bitcoin was still getting throttled every second and
stuck in sys_sent, and python kept saying the target was rejecting the
connection.
> 
> I finally stumbled upon subnet settings, and saw that I had a
private subnet, one of the few IPs that are private on earth (
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/address_filters.html ). Uverse put all their
customers on a private subnet by default. This made my computer not only hidden
but unroutable for any computer on the Bitcoin network. That alone is enough to
totally stop Bitcoin connections on any port, but they made it even crazier by
generating a dynamic IP that changes all the time, so public IP was meaningless
for my computer. 
> 
> I switched over to a public subnet, and right there was
a checkbox to allow incoming connections. My static IP showed for a minute then
became dynamic/hidden again without me even touching anything. The final
roadblock was AT&T charges $15-30/month for a public static IP, which is
obviously insane and actually one could argue that violates their own terms of
service. So the router was still ignoring my public IP settings simply because I
wasn't paying for a public IP, and intentionally changing the settings back. I
asked for a free public IP and there was no response for awhile.
> 
> I found
this article on cryptocoinnews while working out:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/isps-intentionally-blocking-bitcoin/ It's based
on the first email I sent, and was displayed prominently on their front page. I
posted a tweet publicly about it which referenced AT&T (
https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/638930065980551168 ) and believe it
or not I had a static public IP and port 8333 was open about 1 minute later. I
don't know if it was a coincidence cause I already messaged them to please do
that an hour before, or if that article and tweet spurred them to action. The
timing was so ridiculous I think it's the latter. Without twitter I probably
wouldn't have succeeded, the technicians on twitter actually answered all my
questions 24/7 unlike phone technicians which were clueless and trying to sell
me a subscription for connection services help. And shout out to cryptocoinnews
for making this public. 
> 
> So to clarify, it appears AT&T has not blocked
port 8333 itself, but rather effectively blocked all ports via the private
subnet, which makes the computer hidden and unroutable for incoming peers.
Although this severely limits functionality and cripples the ability to run a
full node and many other programs it is understandable, since it just about 100%
prevents hackers from getting in, since they can't even see your computer. What
isn't understandable is that AT&T technicians did not inform me about this until
I changed the settings myself, despite the fact it is a very obvious cause of
ports being blocked. It's probably just ignorance since AT&T has so many complex
network settings it's hard to keep track of, although I have a suspicion that
someone in their command chain is withholding information in an attempt to make
them buy a $15/month connection service, and once they buy that another
$15-30/month is needed to get the static IP.
> 
> As far as I know there is no
easy to find info on the internet about private subnets crippling the ability to
use Bitcoin. I believe this needs to be explicitly said in instructions for
running a full node, maybe it wasn't a problem in 2009 but now it is a major
issue. On default settings Bitcoin is 100% blocked, and most people do not have
the time or motivation to fix this. I talked to at least 10 AT&T technicians and
worked on it 2-3 days straight, did not receive the right answer until I found
it myself, although they certainly gave me some useful clues about how the
network works.
> 
> I am very happy that AT&T fixed it, since other ISPs like
Comcast appeared even worse. I openly talked with them about Bitcoin and they
showed no prejudice, might've actually made them more willing to help me cause
otherwise they would think I'm a hacker.
> 
> tl;dr The good news is anyone
with AT&T can be a full node by getting a public static IP, the bad news is
almost no one will figure this out unless we as a community make it well known.
I guarantee node numbers will improve if this information is spread to everyone.
Database size and computing expenditures is simply not the reason people don't
run full nodes, it's because their ISP has made it just about impossible without
shelling out nearly 100% more money per month. If you don't pay the fee AT&T
would never tell you about the private subnet, at least based on my
experience.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: odinn
<odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
> To: hurricanewarn1
<hurricanewarn1@aol.com>; bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 3:16 am
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has
effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in
the cable box
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>

> Another note on this subject
> to add to the stuff people have already
>
mentioned...
> 
> If you have the AT&T
> landline but don't use AT&T's
standard internet /
> tv (what they call Uverse)
> offering - that is, if you
prefer to use
> some local internet provider - you are
> probably better off
(in terms
> of avoiding not only this sort of
> blockage/censorship but as
well,
> potentially getting a better privacy policy
> that isn't going to
be
> like AT&T's long-term data retention).  You can check
> directly with
>
the various local small ISPs to see what their policies
> are
> specifically
on ports and whatnot.
> 
> Ideally your ISP should let
> you:
> 
> port
forward to SOMEPORTNUMBER for tcp and udp
> 
> (above may or may not
> be
helpful for some if you are using
> decentralized markets)
> 
> have port
8333
> open
> 
> (above is for bitcoin of course)
> 
> Supposing you have
FTTN because you
> are paying a local ISP for
> internet service, and that
local ISP has contracted
> with AT&T to be
> able to provide service in an
area where old-style DSL has been
> phased
> out, thus your local ISP is
essentially providing you AT&T FTTN.
> (FTTN
> is Fiber to the Node, FTTN-BP
is FTTN Bonded Pair).  Even if a
> local ISP has
> its own privacy policy
posted which is different from
> AT&T, everything is
> subject to AT&T data
retention because the FTTN.
> So get yourself a VPN (or set
> up your own) for
your connection. Tor
> will run through the VPN.
> 
> General
> observations
- TWC stores your IP and other stuffs for 6
> months or longer. 
> Same for
Comcast.  Verizon retains your stuffs for
> 18 month minimum, probably
>
longer though. Qwest/Century, 1 year.
> Cox, 6 months.  AT&T retains for
longer
> than a year.  This is just
> what they are telling you, the reality
is it's
> probably longer due to
> stuff like
> this:
>
https://www.lawfareblog.com/odni-and-doj-release-last-section-215-collec
>
tion-order
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach
> G via bitcoin-dev:
>
> I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all year, I
> gave up
> > and
was using blockchain for months despite a strong desire to
> stay
> > on
Bitcoin Core, but now the issue has reached critical mass since
> >
> I'm
using the python Bitcoin server module. I have literally spent
> > my entire
>
day trying to open 8333, I thoroughly made sure it was
> > open on the router
and
> computer and it's still closed. Strangely
> > enough I got it open for
30 seconds
> once today but something closed
> > it immediately.
> > 
> >
After hours of phone
> calls and messaging AT&T finally told me the
> > truth
of what was going on, and
> only because I noticed it myself
> > and demanded
an answer. The internet is
> being routed through a
> > DVR/cable box, and
they confirmed the DVR also has a
> firewall. To
> > make this even more
absurd they refused to turn the firewall
> off
> > because it is their
equipment. So effectively they can firewall any
> >
> port they want even if
the customer asks them not to, in the
> > unlikely event
> the customer
figures it out.
> > 
> > Perhaps this is the driving force behind the
>
inexplicable and
> > massive decline in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being
censored
> by the
> > ISPs themselves, and they won't even tell you that. I
had to get in
> >
> touch with headquarters and threaten to rip it out of the
wall to
> > get a
> proper answer.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
_______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing
> > list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
> >
>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > 
> 
> -
--
> 
> http://abis.io ~
> "a protocol concept to enable decentralization
>
and
> expansion of a giving economy, and a new social
> good"
>
https://keybase.io/odinn
> -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----
> 
>
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV5VDeAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CvkIH/jy4Vo+My3xeBdvFQmxkJWyQ
>
U5mv2zWEvBYw71Xy1EDzQY1AhEBmatUU1eu2AbOqXdUR4511FxCNzFmTxy6roEiz
>
EehBkvXNbBCbEzLRisjxuQw34OKM+xfieCqE1mzJok2uSdLMMQLcbWL1/k3/OmS5
>
9O9z/wMXqU1Jc19MTK+vF1Lz5ilnRn3hEbTaCN3ivYnYFa0DpBH9r0Y07UcoJ6Wr
>
ui/x0sSSuupAGzOkZ75HQ8yeQXckeAu6TB3/jE8QEqNUmAJkmR8eK4ofXZWFrIjy
>
mOKeQL4c+jRQnTR8pt+y89g2QIpzFoHaV5T+WvQuC1t8xNOrxLgYFXWgl0dhoYE=
> =UCLC
>
-----END
> PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>  

 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15022 bytes --]