Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA85BFBC for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:44:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from omr-m018.mx.aol.com (omr-m018e.mx.aol.com [204.29.186.17]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59FE51D0 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mtaomg-aak02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aak02.mx.aol.com [172.27.2.228]) by omr-m018.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 643CD3800092 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-ada01c.mail.aol.com (core-ada01.mail.aol.com [172.27.0.1]) by mtaomg-aak02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 16C5238000081 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 162.227.126.201 by webprd-a78.mail.aol.com (10.72.92.217) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 02 Sep 2015 09:44:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:44:53 -0400 From: hurricanewarn1@aol.com To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-Id: <14f8e4d93c5-1774-fc36@webprd-a78.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1954364.4gG0cHmrlB@crushinator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_77569_518175199.1441201492930" X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [162.227.126.201] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1441201495; bh=QcD0jW9wfBMUo1qYGTi/xBqDTGEn1UuMGzEcojjLcI4=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tIHkJ1mXPFdOZcfL7zYqJSGxBoookoWml7AQIt7VNqemMCSqLZUFd0s0qXLEs1/tp lwGYiduBEEU4jkMJ3ST8KD+EHYfMaEK2yU/OFWhnoPj7d/qZpfOk3u99mLY/1Fhmu/ pjr2dAxdXUKiXbfARtRPqRG/1l+2bnT7pKfARVC0= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b02e455e6fd577d33 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 13:44:58 -0000 ------=_Part_77569_518175199.1441201492930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Whitlock > To: hurricanewarn1 > 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 > > > To: hurricanewarn1 > ; bitcoin-dev > > > 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----- > > > > > > ------=_Part_77569_518175199.1441201492930 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: hurricanewarn1 <hurricanewarn1@aol.com>
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.
>  
> 
>  
> 
>
-----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-----
> > 
> >  
> 
>
------=_Part_77569_518175199.1441201492930--