From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcghd-0000TY-BG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:36:25 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from vm136.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de ([131.173.16.11] helo=smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Qcghb-00006G-0D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:36:25 +0000 Received: from msmtp-using-host (0xbcb2ab7c.ronqu1.dynamic.dsl.tele.dk [188.178.171.124] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p61GaDsE022894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:36:15 +0200 From: jan@uos.de Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:35:58 +0200 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20110701163558.GA7311@dax.lan.local> References: <1309478838.3689.25.camel@Desktop666> <20110701080042.GA657@ulyssis.org> <1309524016.2541.0.camel@Desktop666> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.7.1.162115 (Univ. Osnabrueck) X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report= TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1600_1699 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, FROM_MISSING 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CD 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __INT_PROD_COMP 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0 X-PMX-Spam-Level: X Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE id p61GaDsE022894 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.4 TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT To: misformatted + percentage -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Qcghb-00006G-0D Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.3.24 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:36:25 -0000 On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > Not sure about OS differentiation, seems...wrong? =A0Maybe disabled b= y > > default on bitcoind but on by default on bitcoin? >=20 > OK. I mis-remembered the poll: > http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3D4392.0 >=20 > On by default 8 (20%) > Off by default 22 (55%) > On by default in the GUI, off by default in bitcoind 10 (25%) I just voted as well and now - with some extra votes in the meantime - it's 9 / 22 / 13. So exactly 50/50 between off (22) and some form of on (9 + 13). I'm in favor of turning it on by default in the GUI and leaving it off in bitcoind. I don't like UPnP much, I find it exemplifies exactly what is wrong with computer security today: Convenience trumps security almost every time. BUT: I don't think this is the moment to fight UPnP. It's the standard mechanism in use today to let a computer behind a NAT accept incoming connections. The user has already made the decision in regards to convenience over security. By enabling UPnP (or by buying a product that does this automatically) they are saying: I want it to "just work" instead of having fine-grained but more complicated control. Bitcoin is a P2P application and as such should use this mechanism. I think it's pretty clear that participating in a P2P network requires one to receive messages from other peers. At least no one seems to be concerned that Bitcoin (by default!) listens on port 8333. So I think it's only logical to extend that to work behind NATs as well. Cheers! Jan