Pages:
Author

Topic: Why is Miniupnpc in Bitcoin-Qt? - page 2. (Read 2029 times)

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
July 14, 2013, 11:31:32 PM
#6
Is that really necessary? Most people don't need this and for those who do it should be easy enough to either configure their routers manually or use a patched version.

Most people (as in 99.999% of the planet and rising) have absolutely no idea how to configure a router.  There is a reason why just about all networked software uses upnp.  Now if you are a power user, or want complete control just disable upnp and config port forwarding manually.

Quote
There seem to have popped up a couple of security risks with Upnp router configuration so most people will have this deactivated in their routers anyway.

Once again you massively overestimate the networking knowledge of "most people".  Most people if offered a $1,000 reward couldn't show you how to disable upnp on their own router.   When routers shipped with (paper weak security) WEP by default and WPA as an option the overwhelming majority of routers were never changed.  Hell most people wouldn't know how to configure a SSID or security key ("the wireless internet password") if it wasn't for wizards.   Most routers for home use now have windows install programs which find and configure the router because the concept of going to an IP address 192.168.0.1 results in too many tech support calls.
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
July 14, 2013, 11:23:15 PM
#5
Also I am not sure even the lousy windows firewall prevents this from working.
At least the Windows 7 firewall complains every time when a listening port is being opened and there's no matching firewall rule.
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
July 14, 2013, 05:30:36 PM
#4
Prior to UPNP being integrated and enabled by default the network was beginning to fail from a lack of listening peers, this was remedied by the deployment of UPNP. Your assumptions seem to have been previously proven incorrect.

If you don't want UPNP you can easily disable it (and/or disable listening for incoming connections entirely).
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1094
July 14, 2013, 05:29:37 PM
#3
Why would I like to remove it? In my opinion everything that is not necessary should be removed to keep complexity at a minimum.

That is to binary a choice.  The added complexity needs to be compared to to the benefit.

If most people are behind routers, then the peer to peer effect is lost.  Users would connect to a small number of super-nodes, since they couldn't connect to each other.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
July 14, 2013, 05:17:20 PM
#2
upnp is the future.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
July 14, 2013, 05:16:11 PM
#1
AFAIK the miniupnpc library that is included in the official Bitcoin-Qt versions tries to communicate to the router to automatically configure port forwarding.

Is that really necessary? Most people don't need this and for those who do it should be easy enough to either configure their routers manually or use a patched version.

Why would I like to remove it? In my opinion everything that is not necessary should be removed to keep complexity at a minimum.

There seem to have popped up a couple of security risks with Upnp router configuration so most people will have this deactivated in their routers anyway. Also I am not sure even the lousy windows firewall prevents this from working.

If you think otherwise, please explain.


Edit:
Answer that convinced me of the contrary:
Prior to UPNP being integrated and enabled by default the network was beginning to fail from a lack of listening peers, this was remedied by the deployment of UPNP. Your assumptions seem to have been previously proven incorrect.
OK. That is a strong argument.
Pages:
Jump to: