Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.45; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJmBT7Fai525-+Wba0HeU=WTjTpf_Ox66FnWQgsJatSOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140103052243.GK3180@nl.grid.coop>
	<CAKaEYhJmBT7Fai525-+Wba0HeU=WTjTpf_Ox66FnWQgsJatSOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:16:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJC2Z2NNdSWTvkwcJS8jEHx=ytFiWLH7-4OLD8-L89AOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: register with IANA for
 bitcoin/cryptocoin port numbers
Precedence: list

--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Ideally it would be good to have two ports, one for the main net, and one
> for the test net.  However, in light of conservation only one may be
> granted.  The question as to whether traffic could be multiplexed over a
> single port may be raised.
>

I'm sure it would be *possible*, but testnet and mainnet are entirely
separate networks. Not only that, but the entire point of the testnet is
separation. There is no logic to multiplexing them.

If conservation is an issue, I'd forgo the testnet port. We don't have a
'test ssh' or 'test mail server' port either, most people will just
allocate a temporary number for those themselves.

In case the port is already in use, bitcoin can run on and announce any
another port. There is no strict need for it to be 8333 (or 18333) at all.

There isn't even an argument for convenience. Most of the time, users don't
specify nodes. And in the rare cases that they do they can specify a port
as well.

If a whole slew of alt coins also tried to reserve ports, I suspect that
> may raise eyebrows.
>

That's somebody else's problem. Bitcoin is by far the most well-known of
the 'coins' so it may be considered realistic to allocate one or two ports
for it. Or not, in which case the altcoins can forget it too.

Regards,
Wladimir

--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
>Ideally it would be good to have two ports, one for the main net, and=20
one for the test net.=C2=A0 However, in light of conservation only one may =
be
 granted.=C2=A0 The question as to whether traffic could be multiplexed ove=
r a
 single port may be raised.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>I&#39;m sure it would be *possible*, but testnet and mainnet a=
re entirely separate networks. Not only that, but the entire point of the t=
estnet is separation. There is no logic to multiplexing them.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>If conservation is an issue, I&#39;d forgo the testnet =
port. We don&#39;t have a &#39;test ssh&#39; or &#39;test mail server&#39; =
port either, most people will just allocate a temporary number for those th=
emselves.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><div>In case the port is already in use, bitcoin can run o=
n and announce any another port. There is no strict need for it to be 8333 =
(or 18333) at all.</div><div><br></div><div>There isn&#39;t even an argumen=
t for convenience. Most of the time, users don&#39;t specify nodes. And in =
the rare cases that they do they can specify a port as well.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div>If a whole slew of alt coins also tried to reserve ports, I suspect th=
at may raise eyebrows.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>That&#39;s somebody else&#39;s problem. Bitcoin is by far the most =
well-known of the &#39;coins&#39; so it may be considered realistic to allo=
cate one or two ports for it. Or not, in which case the altcoins can forget=
 it too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div><=
/div></div>

--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d--