LearnBitcoin

Bitcoin Dev Archive 2015

AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.

6 messages, 2 to 4 Sep 2015. Started by hurricanewarn1.

hurricanewarn1 (4), Matt Whitlock, Bastiaan van den Berg

Permalink Original thread on gnusha.org

hurricanewarn1 permalink original

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:

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
>  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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (4 lines)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: odinn

<odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net>

Quoted text (1 line)
> To: hurricanewarn1

<hurricanewarn1@aol•com>; bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org>

Quoted text (1 line)
>

Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 3:16 am

Quoted text (1 line)
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has

effectively banned Bitcoin nodes by closing port 8333 via a hidden firewall in the cable box

Quoted text (8 lines)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>

> Another note on this subject
> to add to the stuff people have already
>

mentioned...

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
> If you have the AT&T
> landline but don't use AT&T's

standard internet /

Quoted text (2 lines)
> tv (what they call Uverse)
> offering - that is, if you

prefer to use

Quoted text (2 lines)
> some local internet provider - you are
> probably better off

(in terms

Quoted text (2 lines)
> of avoiding not only this sort of
> blockage/censorship but as

well,

Quoted text (2 lines)
> potentially getting a better privacy policy
> that isn't going to

be

Quoted text (3 lines)
> like AT&T's long-term data retention).  You can check
> directly with
>

the various local small ISPs to see what their policies

Quoted text (2 lines)
> are
> specifically

on ports and whatnot.

Quoted text (5 lines)
>
> Ideally your ISP should let
> you:
>
> port

forward to SOMEPORTNUMBER for tcp and udp

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
> (above may or may not
> be

helpful for some if you are using

Quoted text (3 lines)
> decentralized markets)
>
> have port

8333

Quoted text (5 lines)
> open
>
> (above is for bitcoin of course)
>
> Supposing you have

FTTN because you

Quoted text (2 lines)
> are paying a local ISP for
> internet service, and that

local ISP has contracted

Quoted text (2 lines)
> with AT&T to be
> able to provide service in an

area where old-style DSL has been

Quoted text (2 lines)
> phased
> out, thus your local ISP is

essentially providing you AT&T FTTN.

Quoted text (2 lines)
> (FTTN
> is Fiber to the Node, FTTN-BP

is FTTN Bonded Pair). Even if a

Quoted text (2 lines)
> local ISP has
> its own privacy policy

posted which is different from

Quoted text (2 lines)
> AT&T, everything is
> subject to AT&T data

retention because the FTTN.

Quoted text (2 lines)
> So get yourself a VPN (or set
> up your own) for

your connection. Tor

Quoted text (4 lines)
> will run through the VPN.
>
> General
> observations
- TWC stores your IP and other stuffs for 6
Quoted text (2 lines)
> months or longer.
> Same for

Comcast. Verizon retains your stuffs for

Quoted text (2 lines)
> 18 month minimum, probably
>

longer though. Qwest/Century, 1 year.

Quoted text (1 line)
> Cox, 6 months.  AT&T retains for

longer

Quoted text (2 lines)
> than a year.  This is just
> what they are telling you, the reality

is it's

Quoted text (4 lines)
> probably longer due to
> stuff like
> this:
>

https://www.lawfareblog.com/odni-and-doj-release-last-section-215-collec

Quoted text (1 line)
>

tion-order

Quoted text (15 lines)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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

Quoted text (2 lines)
> stay
> > on

Bitcoin Core, but now the issue has reached critical mass since

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
> I'm

using the python Bitcoin server module. I have literally spent

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > my entire
>

day trying to open 8333, I thoroughly made sure it was

Quoted text (1 line)
> > open on the router

and

Quoted text (2 lines)
> computer and it's still closed. Strangely
> > enough I got it open for

30 seconds

Quoted text (4 lines)
> once today but something closed
> > it immediately.
> >
> >

After hours of phone

Quoted text (2 lines)
> calls and messaging AT&T finally told me the
> > truth

of what was going on, and

Quoted text (2 lines)
> only because I noticed it myself
> > and demanded

an answer. The internet is

Quoted text (2 lines)
> being routed through a
> > DVR/cable box, and

they confirmed the DVR also has a

Quoted text (2 lines)
> firewall. To
> > make this even more

absurd they refused to turn the firewall

Quoted text (2 lines)
> off
> > because it is their

equipment. So effectively they can firewall any

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
> port they want even if

the customer asks them not to, in the

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > unlikely event
> the customer

figures it out.

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> > Perhaps this is the driving force behind the
>

inexplicable and

Quoted text (1 line)
> > massive decline in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being

censored

Quoted text (2 lines)
> by the
> > ISPs themselves, and they won't even tell you that. I

had to get in

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
> touch with headquarters and threaten to rip it out of the

wall to

Quoted text (6 lines)
> > get a
> proper answer.
> >
> >
> >
> >

_______________________________________________

Quoted text (2 lines)
> bitcoin-dev mailing
> > list

bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
>
> -
hurricanewarn1 in reply to hurricanewarn1 permalink original

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:

Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
>

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.

Quoted text (5 lines)
>
>
>
>
>

-----Original Message-----

Quoted text (2 lines)
> From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name>
> To:

hurricanewarn1 <hurricanewarn1@aol•com>

Quoted text (2 lines)
> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 4:32 am
>

Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
>
> Respectfully, what the heck are you

talking about? Practically every home LAN

Quoted text (1 line)
> runs on a private subnet. My own

desktop computer has the IP address

Quoted text (1 line)
> 192.168.1.34, which is in a private

subnet. This doesn't prevent my Bitcoin Core

Quoted text (1 line)
> node from making outbound

connections to other nodes. Moreover, almost all home

Quoted text (1 line)
> Internet connections in

the world run on dynamically assigned IP addresses.

Quoted text (1 line)
> Again, this does not

cause any problems for connecting outbound to other Bitcoin

Quoted text (1 line)
> nodes. It's true

that your node can't accept incoming connections unless you

Quoted text (1 line)
> forward port 8333

on your router to your computer, but you don't need to be able

Quoted text (1 line)
> to accept

incoming connections to participate in the Bitcoin network.

Quoted text (4 lines)
>
>
> On
>

Wednesday, 2 September 2015, at 3:20 am, Zach G via bitcoin-dev wrote:

Quoted text (4 lines)
> >
>
>  I
> was about to buy a VPS for Bitcoin, but I really do need Bitcoin Core

for

Quoted text (1 line)
> business reasons so I didn't give up. I once again thoroughly went

through my

Quoted text (1 line)
> computer and made sure there was nothing blocking 8333, a couple

useful tools

Quoted text (1 line)
> are CurrPorts and TCPView. I went through the router to make

sure there was no

Quoted text (1 line)
> block of port 8333. I researched everything thoroughly and

was sure these were

Quoted text (1 line)
> the right settings, but Bitcoin was still getting

throttled every second and

Quoted text (1 line)
> stuck in sys_sent, and python kept saying the

target was rejecting the

Quoted text (3 lines)
> connection.
> >
> > I finally stumbled upon

subnet settings, and saw that I had a

Quoted text (1 line)
> private subnet, one of the few IPs that

are private on earth (

Quoted text (1 line)
> https://www.arin.net/knowledge/address_filters.html ).

Uverse put all their

Quoted text (1 line)
> customers on a private subnet by default. This made my

computer not only hidden

Quoted text (1 line)
> but unroutable for any computer on the Bitcoin

network. That alone is enough to

Quoted text (1 line)
> totally stop Bitcoin connections on any

port, but they made it even crazier by

Quoted text (1 line)
> generating a dynamic IP that changes

all the time, so public IP was meaningless

Quoted text (3 lines)
> for my computer.
> >
> > I

switched over to a public subnet, and right there was

Quoted text (1 line)
> a checkbox to allow

incoming connections. My static IP showed for a minute then

Quoted text (1 line)
> became

dynamic/hidden again without me even touching anything. The final

Quoted text (1 line)
> roadblock

was AT&T charges $15-30/month for a public static IP, which is

Quoted text (1 line)
> obviously

insane and actually one could argue that violates their own terms of

Quoted text (1 line)
> service.

So the router was still ignoring my public IP settings simply because I

Quoted text (1 line)
>

wasn't paying for a public IP, and intentionally changing the settings back. I

Quoted text (3 lines)
> asked for a free public IP and there was no response for awhile.
> >
> >

I found

Quoted text (2 lines)
> this article on cryptocoinnews while working out:
>

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/isps-intentionally-blocking-bitcoin/ It's based

Quoted text (1 line)
> on the first email I sent, and was displayed prominently on their front

page. I

Quoted text (2 lines)
> posted a tweet publicly about it which referenced AT&T (
>

https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/638930065980551168 ) and believe it

Quoted text (1 line)
> or not I had a static public IP and port 8333 was open about 1 minute

later. I

Quoted text (1 line)
> don't know if it was a coincidence cause I already messaged them to

please do

Quoted text (1 line)
> that an hour before, or if that article and tweet spurred them to

action. The

Quoted text (1 line)
> timing was so ridiculous I think it's the latter. Without twitter

I probably

Quoted text (1 line)
> wouldn't have succeeded, the technicians on twitter actually

answered all my

Quoted text (1 line)
> questions 24/7 unlike phone technicians which were clueless

and trying to sell

Quoted text (1 line)
> me a subscription for connection services help. And shout

out to cryptocoinnews

Quoted text (3 lines)
> for making this public.
> >
> > So to clarify, it

appears AT&T has not blocked

Quoted text (1 line)
> port 8333 itself, but rather effectively blocked

all ports via the private

Quoted text (1 line)
> subnet, which makes the computer hidden and

unroutable for incoming peers.

Quoted text (1 line)
> Although this severely limits functionality

and cripples the ability to run a

Quoted text (1 line)
> full node and many other programs it is

understandable, since it just about 100%

Quoted text (1 line)
> prevents hackers from getting in,

since they can't even see your computer. What

Quoted text (1 line)
> isn't understandable is that

AT&T technicians did not inform me about this until

Quoted text (1 line)
> I changed the settings

myself, despite the fact it is a very obvious cause of

Quoted text (1 line)
> ports being blocked.

It's probably just ignorance since AT&T has so many complex

Quoted text (1 line)
> network settings

it's hard to keep track of, although I have a suspicion that

Quoted text (1 line)
> someone in their

command chain is withholding information in an attempt to make

Quoted text (1 line)
> them buy a

$15/month connection service, and once they buy that another

Quoted text (1 line)
> $15-30/month is

needed to get the static IP.

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> > As far as I know there is no
> easy to

find info on the internet about private subnets crippling the ability to

Quoted text (1 line)
> use

Bitcoin. I believe this needs to be explicitly said in instructions for

Quoted text (1 line)
>

running a full node, maybe it wasn't a problem in 2009 but now it is a major

Quoted text (1 line)
>

issue. On default settings Bitcoin is 100% blocked, and most people do not have

Quoted text (1 line)
> the time or motivation to fix this. I talked to at least 10 AT&T

technicians and

Quoted text (1 line)
> worked on it 2-3 days straight, did not receive the right

answer until I found

Quoted text (1 line)
> it myself, although they certainly gave me some useful

clues about how the

Quoted text (3 lines)
> network works.
> >
> > I am very happy that AT&T fixed

it, since other ISPs like

Quoted text (1 line)
> Comcast appeared even worse. I openly talked with

them about Bitcoin and they

Quoted text (1 line)
> showed no prejudice, might've actually made them

more willing to help me cause

Quoted text (4 lines)
> 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

Quoted text (1 line)
> almost no one will figure this out unless

we as a community make it well known.

Quoted text (1 line)
> I guarantee node numbers will improve

if this information is spread to everyone.

Quoted text (1 line)
> Database size and computing

expenditures is simply not the reason people don't

Quoted text (1 line)
> run full nodes, it's

because their ISP has made it just about impossible without

Quoted text (1 line)
> shelling out

nearly 100% more money per month. If you don't pay the fee AT&T

Quoted text (1 line)
> would never

tell you about the private subnet, at least based on my

Quoted text (7 lines)
> experience.
> >
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: odinn
>

<odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net>

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > To: hurricanewarn1
>

<hurricanewarn1@aol•com>; bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org>

Quoted text (5 lines)
>
>
> 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

Quoted text (9 lines)
> the cable box
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >
>
> > Another note on this subject
> > to add to the stuff

people have already

Quoted text (5 lines)
> >
> mentioned...
> >
> > If you have the AT&T
> >

landline but don't use AT&T's

Quoted text (2 lines)
> standard internet /
> > tv (what they call

Uverse)

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > offering - that is, if you
> prefer to use
> > some local

internet provider - you are

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > probably better off
> (in terms
> > of

avoiding not only this sort of

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > blockage/censorship but as
> well,
> >

potentially getting a better privacy policy

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > that isn't going to
> be
> >

like AT&T's long-term data retention). You can check

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > directly with
> >
>

the various local small ISPs to see what their policies

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > are
> >

specifically

Quoted text (10 lines)
> on ports and whatnot.
> >
> > Ideally your ISP should let
>
> you:
> >
> > port
> forward to SOMEPORTNUMBER for tcp and udp
> >
> >

(above may or may not

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > be
> helpful for some if you are using
> >

decentralized markets)

Quoted text (6 lines)
> >
> > have port
> 8333
> > open
> >
> > (above

is for bitcoin of course)

Quoted text (4 lines)
> >
> > Supposing you have
> FTTN because you
> >

are paying a local ISP for

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > internet service, and that
> local ISP has

contracted

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > with AT&T to be
> > able to provide service in an
> area where

old-style DSL has been

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > phased
> > out, thus your local ISP is
>

essentially providing you AT&T FTTN.

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > (FTTN
> > is Fiber to the Node,

FTTN-BP

Quoted text (3 lines)
> is FTTN Bonded Pair).  Even if a
> > local ISP has
> > its own

privacy policy

Quoted text (3 lines)
> posted which is different from
> > AT&T, everything is
> >

subject to AT&T data

Quoted text (2 lines)
> retention because the FTTN.
> > So get yourself a VPN

(or set

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > up your own) for
> your connection. Tor
> > will run through the

VPN.

Quoted text (4 lines)
> >
> > General
> > observations
> - TWC stores your IP and other

stuffs for 6

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > months or longer.
> > Same for
> Comcast.  Verizon retains

your stuffs for

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > 18 month minimum, probably
> >
> longer though.

Qwest/Century, 1 year.

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > Cox, 6 months.  AT&T retains for
> longer
> > than

a year. This is just

Quoted text (8 lines)
> > 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

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

tion-order

Quoted text (11 lines)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Zach
> >

G via bitcoin-dev:

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
> > I have been struggling to get port 8333 open all

year, I

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > gave up
> > > and
> was using blockchain for months despite a

strong desire to

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > stay
> > > on
> Bitcoin Core, but now the issue has

reached critical mass since

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > >
> > I'm
> using the python Bitcoin server

module. I have literally spent

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > > my entire
> >
> day trying to open 8333,

I thoroughly made sure it was

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > > open on the router
> and
> > computer and

it's still closed. Strangely

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > > enough I got it open for
> 30 seconds
> >

once today but something closed

Quoted text (4 lines)
> > > it immediately.
> > >
> > >
> After

hours of phone

Quoted text (3 lines)
> > calls and messaging AT&T finally told me the
> > > truth
>

of what was going on, and

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > only because I noticed it myself
> > > and

demanded

Quoted text (3 lines)
> an answer. The internet is
> > being routed through a
> > >

DVR/cable box, and

Quoted text (3 lines)
> they confirmed the DVR also has a
> > firewall. To
> > >

make this even more

Quoted text (3 lines)
> absurd they refused to turn the firewall
> > off
> > >

because it is their

Quoted text (6 lines)
> equipment. So effectively they can firewall any
> > >
>
> port they want even if
> the customer asks them not to, in the
> > >

unlikely event

Quoted text (4 lines)
> > the customer
> figures it out.
> > >
> > > Perhaps this

is the driving force behind the

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> inexplicable and
> > > massive decline

in Bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin is being

Quoted text (3 lines)
> censored
> > by the
> > > ISPs

themselves, and they won't even tell you that. I

Quoted text (3 lines)
> had to get in
> > >
> >

touch with headquarters and threaten to rip it out of the

Quoted text (2 lines)
> wall to
> > > get

a

Quoted text (6 lines)
> > proper answer.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>

_______________________________________________

Quoted text (2 lines)
> > bitcoin-dev mailing
> > >

list

Quoted text (4 lines)
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> > >
> >
>

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Quoted text (8 lines)
> > >
> >
>
> -
> --
> >
> > http://abis.io ~
> > "a protocol concept to enable

decentralization

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> and
> > expansion of a giving economy, and a new

social

Quoted text (5 lines)
> > good"
> >
> https://keybase.io/odinn
> > -----BEGIN PGP
> >

SIGNATURE-----

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> >
>

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV5VDeAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CvkIH/jy4Vo+My3xeBdvFQmxkJWyQ

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

U5mv2zWEvBYw71Xy1EDzQY1AhEBmatUU1eu2AbOqXdUR4511FxCNzFmTxy6roEiz

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

EehBkvXNbBCbEzLRisjxuQw34OKM+xfieCqE1mzJok2uSdLMMQLcbWL1/k3/OmS5

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

9O9z/wMXqU1Jc19MTK+vF1Lz5ilnRn3hEbTaCN3ivYnYFa0DpBH9r0Y07UcoJ6Wr

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

ui/x0sSSuupAGzOkZ75HQ8yeQXckeAu6TB3/jE8QEqNUmAJkmR8eK4ofXZWFrIjy

Quoted text (2 lines)
> >
>

mOKeQL4c+jRQnTR8pt+y89g2QIpzFoHaV5T+WvQuC1t8xNOrxLgYFXWgl0dhoYE=

Quoted text (9 lines)
> > =UCLC
>
>
> -----END
> > PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
>
>
Matt Whitlock in reply to hurricanewarn1 permalink original

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:

Quoted text (62 lines)
> 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.
hurricanewarn1 in reply to Matt Whitlock permalink original

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. That page doesn't even exist in my router, I don't have 2wire. The router I have is the one everyone is getting from uverse.

Literally everything you said is incorrect. It is completely on topic as it pertains to Bitcoin Core functionality, 42 connections is nothing, and that's not how you fix it. If you're gonna call me out for being wrong at least be correct! I spent a lot of time fixing this and the info is useful cause this problem happens to a lot of people, so why obfuscate it with this nonsense.

AT&T u-verse as it is now is near impossible for bitcoin nodes, 42 in the world is absolutely pathetic considering they are among the top 2 ISPs in the USA. Thanks for proving my point.

-----Original Message----- From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> To: hurricanewarn1 <hurricanewarn1@aol•com> Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.

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

Quoted text (1 line)
> 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:

Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.

Quoted text (2 lines)
>
> 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.

Quoted text (9 lines)
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Whitlock

<bip@mattwhitlock•name>

Quoted text (2 lines)
> To: hurricanewarn1 <hurricanewarn1@aol•com>
> Sent:

Wed, Sep 2, 2015 5:34 am

Quoted text (1 line)
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AT&T has effectively

banned Bitcoin nodes via utilizing private subnets.

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
>
> According to

BitNodes, 42 Bitcoin nodes are running on AT&T's

Quoted text (3 lines)
> network:
>
>

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=AT%26T

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
> So I'm thinking
> there's

nothing wrong with AT&T's default network configuration.

Quoted text (3 lines)
>
> Frankly, the
>

things you've been writing strongly suggest that you aren't very knowledgeable

Quoted text (1 line)
> about computer networking. Instead of jumping right into making

wild accusations

Quoted text (1 line)
> about AT&T, you probably should find someone knowledgeable

to verify your

Quoted text (4 lines)
> claims.
>
>
> On Wednesday, 2 September 2015, at 5:20 am,

Zach G via bitcoin-dev

Quoted text (2 lines)
> wrote:
> > First off I couldn't synch the wallet, it

said no block source

Quoted text (1 line)
> available and there was zero connections. Bitcoin was

literally getting thottled

Quoted text (1 line)
> every second. It would not even allow the

connection to get block source. EVERY

Quoted text (1 line)
> port was blocked, making exceptions in

the router firewall did nothing. I was

Quoted text (1 line)
> forced to use Blockchain.info which is

a major security risk.

Quoted text (3 lines)
> >
> > Secondly, I
> am developing a program using

Bitcoin Python modules, so I login to my computer

Quoted text (1 line)
> like it's a server and it

was flat out rejecting the connection. I could not run

Quoted text (1 line)
> any code until this

got fixed, and of course needed the block source to even do

Quoted text (4 lines)
> 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

Quoted text (1 line)
> settings, and

they tried hard to get me to buy monthly subscriptions to get the

Quoted text (1 line)
> answer.

This makes it likely that Bitcoin Core is unusable for most AT&T

Quoted text (1 line)
> customers

and other ISPs, hence the massive node decline. I'm sure this disrupts

Quoted text (1 line)
> alot

of other people besides Bitcoiners too, hence the monthly subscriptions

Quoted text (1 line)
>

geared towards people who can't figure out their connection situation.

Quoted text (4 lines)
> >
>
>
> AT&T literally blocked access to static IP if you don't buy one, so it

wasn't a

Quoted text (1 line)
> normal network setup. Unfortunately the same security used to stop

hackers and

Quoted text (1 line)
> viruses stops Bitcoin too, so this is probably the settings for

almost every

Quoted text (1 line)
> router in the country. Nodes are in fact declining worldwide,

down 15% in the

Quoted text (1 line)
> past year alone. Community needs to speak up and also educate

before this gets

Quoted text (1 line)
> completely out of control.

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/?days=365 6,000

Quoted text (1 line)
> nodes is pathetic as it

is and it's constantly declining.

hurricanewarn1 in reply to Matt Whitlock permalink original

I sent out an email after 48 hours of dealing with trying to open up my ports for Bitcoin, I was quite frustrated and angry since I had to call like 10 times and I was making zero progress. Most of the AT&T people didn't give me any helpful clues on how to fix the situation. The original email described how there is a firewall in the DVR, and I thought it was blocking the ports. It is true there is a uncontrollable firewall in the DVR, it is false this blocks 8333.

The actual problem is due to AT&T Uverse customers being forced to use a private dynamic IP, the IP is literally hidden from the internet, so it isn't possible to send any requests at it. It will literally ignore pings across all ports. So the solution is to switch to public static IP and make sure you allow incoming traffic.

It's not so simple though, AT&T will not let you have a public static IP without paying. I've had my router reset 10 times today by AT&T (probably automatically) and it comes back with a private dynamic IP. Then I have to reset it to use public IP and that lasts less than an hour. It literally went from open to closed while typing this email... the IP address went from public to private dynamic.

https://i.gyazo.com/3c732687fc3d21acb7d62f6d0e23a346.png

This is making using Bitcoin Core almost impossible. I'm at least getting some synch now but maybe a few days of blocks the entire day, cause I can't sit here all day with the computer and keep fixing it.

The proof is in the pudding, there are 37 nodes using AT&T in the ENTIRE world. AT&T is a massive ISP so this is strong evidence that using Bitcoin Core as a full node on AT&T is extremely difficult and actually just about impossible.

https://i.gyazo.com/90beebe056f5fc338165e8d200536c06.png

The other big ISPs have pathetic numbers also due to the same sort've things that AT&T does, but at least Comcast has 400 nodes. AT&T is much harder to use than any other ISP I've dealt with when it comes to Bitcoin Core.

I apologize for sending out the wrong info the first time, although it is still worth noting the DVR firewall is out of your control, which might be a problem if not now then in the future. In any case AT&T has effectively blocked full nodes for Bitcoin Core via the private subnet, and the disability to change it to public without paying $15 more per month, and buying a $15 connection service so they will give you that info (if you dont pay the connection 'specialists' hang up on you).

It is important to note this is not Bitcoin specific, but effects every program that depends on freely open ports. I don't think AT&T has anything against Bitcoin, it's just their security settings and policies have disabled Bitcoin Core for most customers. Also important to note this isn't a problem specific to AT&T, all the big ISPs are doing similar things. I believe the changes in ISP protocol are the main driving force behind the massive decline in Bitcoin nodes. Another big factor is firewalls, most people can't even remove the firewalls enough to open ports at will. The community needs to educate people on how to use Bitcoin Core when facing these intensifying security measures, or the decline of node numbers will continue.

Bastiaan van den Berg in reply to hurricanewarn1 permalink original

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Zach G via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:

Quoted text (2 lines)
> It's not so simple though, AT&T will not let you have a public static IP
> without paying.

Not sure, but, what part of bitcoin development are you addressing in this email?