From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C04712CE for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:21:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9559A115 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-ch2-13v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.109]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id CKMh1r0012N9P4d01KMqkR; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:21:50 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) by resomta-ch2-13v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id CKMo1r00L4eLRLv01KMqtp; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:21:50 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: hurricanewarn1@aol.com Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 15:21:48 -0400 Message-ID: <2439331.T3Lg2rgENG@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <14f8e4d93c5-1774-fc36@webprd-a78.mail.aol.com> References: <14f8e4d93c5-1774-fc36@webprd-a78.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1441221710; bh=lWBnJXSDFD73G/XLvSsPQb2L86QwgSvai+CHXouKZC0=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Ug+teqNSCCxFm728NDp4eVpp3/AmXHwQzMx7sFGow2B6duLeaY9vkx3LGOsEZSSrK dUl1nCw2kPzyeKN4YQdMF1gwifaLIhAfhyG4GQynTpn3PWYxDLwu+4JgXANCOxO1Dr g24lAkMfYMHVOwp2dkAX8IXFAaqcEoTTmQUI2HV9nyTtI3R4jApciDlYIY7IYAbr/Q AEJOyp6pYTUwUfnbhuhcyWIU5curpx4q/YBgfFAod4/o9NzzZHiR3cTiDuEnFSGC37 OGg+doP2GRPP7gd+jUnLD9YXmGeTfhD8sVIs62KwrpdHnlWVa+5Av+/6GdhFRA3O8j oXcuSr5K4RoYQ== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:21:52 -0000 I've been trying to keep our discussion off-list because it is off-topic, but you keep adding the list back on in your replies. http://steamforge.net/wiki/images/2/29/Settings-Firewall-Advanced.png Settings > Firewall > Advanced Configuration > Outbound Protocol Control > All Other Protocols That's all you had to do. On Wednesday, 2 September 2015, at 9:44 am, Zach G via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 42 in the whole world, and I'm one of them. Clearly that is a problem, do you even know about AT&T or are you in another country? Cause that statement is utterly ridiculous given the fact there are hundreds of millions of people using AT&T. I was simply sharing my knowledge on this issue since it poses a threat to the health of the bitcoin network, no need for personal attacks. > > None of my accusations were false, there is a firewall in the DVR that is uncontrolled and all ports are blocked via private subnets and no fixed public IP allowed unless you pay. I confirmed every one of these details with AT&T technicians or I wouldn't be saying them. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Whitlock > To: hurricanewarn1 > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 5:34 am > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets. > > > According to BitNodes, 42 Bitcoin nodes are running on AT&T's > network: > > https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=AT%26T > > So I'm thinking > there's nothing wrong with AT&T's default network configuration. > > Frankly, the > things you've been writing strongly suggest that you aren't very knowledgeable > about computer networking. Instead of jumping right into making wild accusations > about AT&T, you probably should find someone knowledgeable to verify your > claims. > > > On Wednesday, 2 September 2015, at 5:20 am, Zach G via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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.