📅 Original date posted:2011-07-01 🗒️ Summary of this message: Debate on ...

Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /

npub1e46…xmcu

2023-06-07 01:59:54

in reply to nevent1q…k2jh

📅 Original date posted:2011-07-01
🗒️ Summary of this message: Debate on whether UPnP should be turned on by default in Bitcoin; some argue it's bad for individuals but good for the network.
📝 Original message:Totally agree it really shouldnt be a vote, in the end UPnP is bad for
an individual (more bandwidth usage, etc), but good for the network.
That means people will vote against it, but in the end someone has to
make the tough decision and turn it on.

Also, bitcoind is prebuilt in the daemon folder on the download archives
(though Im not sure about OSX)

Matt
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 12:47 -0500, Douglas Huff wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:35 AM, jan at uos.de wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think this should be a vote at all. Given Greg/Matt's numbers it is a necessity to ensure network stability over the next 90 days.
>
> Also: the default will only apply to pre-built binaries, which bitcoind isn't one of, so for people running bitcoind this default doesn't matter at all. Just continue building without UPNP support as you're already doing.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110701/2d1e6814/attachment.sig>;

Author Public Key

npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 01:59:54

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "9f2dc13469a2052d344636d0d8d779d91c4fed0217fea86032ec0fef26ce2fff", "pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba", "created_at": 1686103194, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "b259aa9a612285804c8ca826465b76b8809982948e0ab24ccddc1c8a657cc6bd", "", "root" ], [ "e", "22af30213542093d1b331157b749a91b6f7e57f6166393eb8e9e3f62e2bcb394", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "304641dbb49ee6a600bce6ea04cb0cb25b3c969f8f11581aedb62736f2bce6b2" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-07-01\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Debate on whether UPnP should be turned on by default in Bitcoin; some argue it's bad for individuals but good for the network.\n📝 Original message:Totally agree it really shouldnt be a vote, in the end UPnP is bad for\nan individual (more bandwidth usage, etc), but good for the network.\nThat means people will vote against it, but in the end someone has to\nmake the tough decision and turn it on.\n\nAlso, bitcoind is prebuilt in the daemon folder on the download archives\n(though Im not sure about OSX)\n\nMatt\nOn Fri, 2011-07-01 at 12:47 -0500, Douglas Huff wrote:\n\u003e On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:35 AM, jan at uos.de wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Not sure about OS differentiation, seems...wrong? Maybe disabled by\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e default on bitcoind but on by default on bitcoin?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e OK. I mis-remembered the poll:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4392.0\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e On by default\t 8 (20%)\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Off by default\t 22 (55%)\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On by default in the GUI, off by default in bitcoind\t 10 (25%)\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e I just voted as well and now - with some extra votes in the meantime -\n\u003e \u003e it's 9 / 22 / 13. So exactly 50/50 between off (22) and some form of on\n\u003e \u003e (9 + 13).\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e I'm in favor of turning it on by default in the GUI and leaving it off\n\u003e \u003e in bitcoind.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e I don't like UPnP much, I find it exemplifies exactly what is wrong with\n\u003e \u003e computer security today: Convenience trumps security almost every time.\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't think this should be a vote at all. Given Greg/Matt's numbers it is a necessity to ensure network stability over the next 90 days.\n\u003e \n\u003e Also: the default will only apply to pre-built binaries, which bitcoind isn't one of, so for people running bitcoind this default doesn't matter at all. Just continue building without UPNP support as you're already doing.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 836 bytes\nDesc: This is a digitally signed message part\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110701/2d1e6814/attachment.sig\u003e", "sig": "1573f642dbcac9cac51b403ee5d66f80a49455cb76e5254914d1783c820542aabe68d1bd6a69955ffc406f6eff953c4512017b2ef5edbc84e118ba5928d81626" }