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>
	<BANLkTim-QWvtfL65mo3uW7ESiehKOmHjtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=DWUhGmoHcQB5EPZHF71JE71gcTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1309524016.2541.0.camel@Desktop666>
	<BANLkTimobc7471uBMLBecYT3vz0GO6RLzQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimobc7471uBMLBecYT3vz0GO6RLzQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.3.24
Precedence: list

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