Quote from: altcoinUK on January 18, 2017, 03:27:52 PM

Quote from: drays on January 17, 2017, 01:18:31 PM

Quote from: strasboug on January 17, 2017, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: drays on January 16, 2017, 12:36:56 AM

Quote from: lordoliver on January 15, 2017, 11:31:09 PM

The nodes outside of the lan don't have to connect to you, if you want run a local node/wallet. They only have to know your public ip in order to "allow" your access.
But the nodes you are connecting to have to be public, of course...

Edit: if you want to make your computer public available you have to configure your routers routing tables.

Thanks a lot for the answer! So the two nodes behind different NAT servers have no chance to connect. If I have my PC behind a NAT, and have no access to router to configure it, I have to search for peers running on public machines only...
It looks like people should specify whether whey run public IP or not, when they ask for nodes in nodesharing channel... so there will be less issues.

One more question: lets say I have access to router, so can forward traffic to my PC, but I do not want to forward all the traffic. Which port should I forward, so IOTA wallet can be connected from outside? In other words, which ports IOTA uses? Is it one port or many? TCP or UDP?

Thanks for help. I know if this goes to technical, I'll have to go to Slack...

I did not try IOTA, but with byteball there's no problem to run within a subnet, behind the NAT. The nodes communicate well and have no issue. Maybe I should try IOTA for that too.

I also have Byteball wallet successfully running in a LAN behind a NAT... Actually with Byteball its easy, as it just works. With IOTA it would be tricky, as you have to manually find nodes, which are nowhere publicly available. You have to go to Slack, ask for nodes and somehow make sure you find only peers who run node on machines directly connected to Internet and running public IP address... As you need to find 5-9 nodes of that kind (involving a chat with every other node owner, just to find out whether he runs public IP or not and whether he agrees to connect to node like yours, expect about a week of setup time

I am not complaining, as I understand it is the way it is, and there are good reasons for removal of auto peer discovery and introducing this notorious manual node search instead. For me the tech part is easy, chat part is tiresome. Hopefully light wallet comes soon.

Do you realize what you are banging on about is plain stupid?

I am a pernsioner old man and not a developer anymore, but even I can see the Byteball project uses this library https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore-p2p/blob/master/lib/peer.js. As you can see the bitcore peer module connects to the Bitcoin network via a websocket server. Websocket is a centralized solution. Meanwhile if I understood correctly the IOTA peers connect to each other directly without a central service provider. You compare apples with oranges. Do you realize at all that there is no NAT traversal needed as the websocket uses the HTTP protocol? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455

I am a long time critics of IOTA, but what you are banging on about is a complete nonsense. You are asking why a peer cannot be as convenient as a centralized, websocket based solution. Normally there is a tradeoff between usability and security.

Well, not sure why my post inspired you to return to this thread...

Please, before commenting, try to understand what people are writing about. You obviously didn't care to read my previous posts, to understand the context.
Just for your information, I was not comparing Byteball to IOTA at all. In the quoted post I was merely replying to a person who told Byteball was easy to setup, thats the only reason I mentioned Byteball at all. I know Websocket and HTTP have no problems with NAT. But discussing Byteball connection method was out of my interest, and my posts were made barely about Iota, as I was interested in setting up a IOTA node behind NAT, and needed some info. Moreover, though your statements about BB are interesting and have some ground, I do not want to discuss BB in this thread, because of obvious reasons.

I am glad you were able to look into the Github of BB and understand some things, regardless of your old age. That is great, but looks like your temper became worse with those years, and your manners are far from being the finest too.

P.S. What a nervous place this thread has become... One cannot even ask something without being attacked from both sides Undecided

I hope Iota Slack is more friendly. To everyone who is has issues with either Byteball or Iota, and still has plans to attack me or my posts - please f**k off!! I am beyond all of your politics and inter-project relations, as well as have no willingness to argue with you.

Quote from: iotatoken on January 17, 2017, 10:52:44 PM

The question is: what are your ambitions with IOTA? IOTA is not meant for random speculation, but real world deployment, hence the different requirements from random crypto forum projects.

I guess you are right (though I would not use 'random forum projects' wording related to BB, but that is a matter of taste Wink

). I have no ambitions on Iota, have a small share which I just keep, and am just watching the project mostly. Maybe at some point in future I could integrate it into the phone systems I am working on now (that could be a part of other major feature though), but unfortunately up to now my RL job left me no time to dig more or less deep into this, or help this project somehow Embarrassed

@rage1337: thanks for wonderful news. CfB told me Light Wallet is coming soon, but I was not expecting it so soon

.