Quote from: spin on May 19, 2015, 07:38:48 AM

Quote from: achow101 on May 17, 2015, 12:59:23 PM

Quote from: spin on May 17, 2015, 11:47:59 AM

You are using open slots on other hosts that could be used by people who need to sync.

So you are saying that bitnodes abuses the network since it takes up a connection slot on all nodes.

What I fail to understand is how my node abuses the network, because even though it takes up a connection slot, it still has the full blockchain and can relay blocks and transactions. It is a full node

In my mind:
* It takes up a connection slot on each node meaning one less node can connect to that node.
* It decreases privacy of nodes.

To quote the experts (from here: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/8140)

Quote

Bitcoin by default will not make more than 8 outgoing connections, and -maxconnections only controls how many incoming connections you allow. Feel free to set this higher, but it will take time before others connect to you in large numbers.

Please don't change [outbound connections], as there is no need. Connectable peers on the network are a scarce resource, and essential to the decentralization. If people go try connect to all of them like some sites do, we'll very quickly run out.

In case you're a merchant or miner, you perhaps want to set up a few fixed connections to trusted others (see the -addnode command line/config option), but having more connections does not mean stronger verification (the reference client always verifies everything) or even faster relaying (as you'll slow down by distributing new blocks and transactions to all your peers). It is mostly a matter of providing a server to the network.

It doesn't really make a difference for privacy if those who want to connect to a lot of nodes can modify their clients.
Even with a node not behind NAT its hard to get over 50 connections even when the connection limit is set much higher so I don't think we all that close to being up against the limit.

Quote from: spin on May 19, 2015, 07:45:24 AM

Quote from: bitsolutions on May 18, 2015, 08:02:24 PM

I understand the reasoning behind this but I don't agree with how it is being handled by the core developers. The core developers worry that there won't be enough available inbound connections on nodes if too many people are establishing more than 8 outbound connections.

So you agree.

Quote from: bitsolutions on May 18, 2015, 08:02:24 PM

I don't think putting arbitrary limits into Bitcoin Core is a good idea since it forces others to maintain their own fork if they end up in a situation where these arbitrary limits are not desired.

Well if you want to do something different, you know, you have to actually do it?

Quote from: bitsolutions on May 18, 2015, 08:02:24 PM

The core developers have essentially caused fragmentation of Bitcoin Core because of this issue. They would rather use FUD to keep people from making these modifications instead of working with them to solve the underlying issues.

What underlying issues?

Quote from: bitsolutions on May 18, 2015, 08:02:24 PM

The core developers have essentially caused fragmentation of Bitcoin Core because of this issue. They would rather use FUD to keep people from making these modifications instead of working with them to solve the underlying issues.

The core developers did not change the settings. The core developers even recommend people to not change it. How are they *causing* fragmentation.

I understand their reason, I don't agree with it however.
The bitcoin core node is not good at handling certain amounts of connections, there are improvements there that could help.
The fragmentation is because of the need for certain users to override the limit, if it was a config flag it wouldn't be as bad.