📅 Original date posted:2011-07-01
🗒️ Summary of this message: Jan suggests enabling UPnP by default in the GUI but leaving it off in bitcoind. He acknowledges the security risks but believes it's necessary for P2P communication.
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > Not sure about OS differentiation, seems...wrong? Maybe disabled by
> > default on bitcoind but on by default on bitcoin?
>
> OK. I mis-remembered the poll:
> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4392.0
>
> 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
jan at uos.de [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q4…x8aml
2023-06-07 01:59:44
in reply to nevent1q…sdmc
Author Public Key
npub1q4mxmcaamghs49c995y7xj5a9ndnrnnqm4z8rjaj0t9amc9uw4dsmx8amlPublished at
2023-06-07 01:59:44Event JSON
{
"id": "4aec117800569884fd8ae394056aa8549fafdee5873ba95f743e1fd9607acc34",
"pubkey": "05766de3bdda2f0a97052d09e34a9d2cdb31ce60dd4471cbb27acbdde0bc755b",
"created_at": 1686103184,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b259aa9a612285804c8ca826465b76b8809982948e0ab24ccddc1c8a657cc6bd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c176e06f596c0dbbe9c5cead956dfee35666f382be351f5489a4620f85a7d82f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-07-01\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Jan suggests enabling UPnP by default in the GUI but leaving it off in bitcoind. He acknowledges the security risks but believes it's necessary for P2P communication.\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Not sure about OS differentiation, seems...wrong? Maybe disabled by\n\u003e \u003e default on bitcoind but on by default on bitcoin?\n\u003e \n\u003e OK. I mis-remembered the poll:\n\u003e http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4392.0\n\u003e \n\u003e On by default\t 8 (20%)\n\u003e Off by default\t 22 (55%)\n\u003e On by default in the GUI, off by default in bitcoind\t 10 (25%)\n\nI just voted as well and now - with some extra votes in the meantime -\nit's 9 / 22 / 13. So exactly 50/50 between off (22) and some form of on\n(9 + 13).\n\nI'm in favor of turning it on by default in the GUI and leaving it off\nin bitcoind.\n\nI don't like UPnP much, I find it exemplifies exactly what is wrong with\ncomputer security today: Convenience trumps security almost every time.\n\nBUT: I don't think this is the moment to fight UPnP. It's the standard\nmechanism in use today to let a computer behind a NAT accept incoming\nconnections. The user has already made the decision in regards to\nconvenience over security. By enabling UPnP (or by buying a product that\ndoes this automatically) they are saying: I want it to \"just work\"\ninstead of having fine-grained but more complicated control.\n\nBitcoin is a P2P application and as such should use this\nmechanism. I think it's pretty clear that participating in a P2P network\nrequires one to receive messages from other peers. At least no one seems\nto be concerned that Bitcoin (by default!) listens on port 8333. So I\nthink it's only logical to extend that to work behind NATs as well.\n\nCheers!\nJan",
"sig": "a4c2065382308a38c2798abe1c413a098f39d3c4ecde37a7f1b5e64ab807afba3d960c01b34cec76854e68424893845bd40b79379186dc74ff122f1bcd1ea770"
}