[idibidiart]

Also like I said removal of net neutrality regulations means ISPs esp big ones can kill Bitcoin by blocking the default port used by the Bitcoin client and ISPs can more than just blocking a certain port. ISPs can identify and block all P2P traffic (anything that is not being sent or received to/from an approved central service) and do it in the name of protecting MPAA member revenue or whatever blanket execuse like killing off encrypted p2p communication like Signal et al)

[bufferoverflow]

That would not kill Bitcoin. Nodes will quickly switch to different port, maybe even 80.

[wmf]

Is there any evidence that ISPs want to do this?

(Hint: ISP didn't block BitTorrent because of the MPAA.)

[pas]

Comcast blocked BitTorrent in 2008.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-...

[TehCorwiz]

No, but I'm sure that given the right financial incentives (hint: third-party) they'd be open to implementing this in practice.

[gruez]

bitcoin over TOR? bitcoin over IRC? bitcoin over websocket (w/ TLS)? bitcoin over facebook messenger?

[TehCorwiz]

Sure, but closing the default port limits the tech to people with the interest and technical knowledge to proxy it in such a way. ISPs could also do DPI or timing analysis to id the stream and slow or block it. It was tried successfully (by Comcast) on bittorrent in the the early 00's and is one of the things that triggered the whole Title II fight in the first place.

[gruez]

>It was tried successfully (by Comcast) on bittorrent in the the early 00's and is one of the things that triggered the whole Title II fight in the first place.

torrents are hard to hide because no matter how much encryption/obfuscation you do, you can't hide gigabytes of data being transferred between residential IPs, using random ports. bitcoin uses megabytes of data per hour, which means it's much easier to use stenography to hide it.

[idibidiart]

Here to all the folks who are A) not legal scholars but pretending to be from their mom's basement and B) unable to reason about the implications but still assert their opinions, there are a ton of references to this issue. Here is one:

https://www.coindesk.com/eroding-net-neutrality-hurt-bitcoin...

[EGreg]

To be fair, can't backbone providers already do this?

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

[idibidiart]

I meant legally they can't. They'd be sued and defeated in court. But not if Net Neutrality rules are undone.

[curun1r]

Net neutrality rules are about source/destination of traffic, not the type. ISPs are allowed to discriminate for/against traffic based on the type of traffic and it would be terrible to prevent them from implementing those kinds of QoS rules.

If we're going to defend net neutrality, we should at least understand what we're fighting for. And it's decidedly not to allow BitTorrent traffic to make real-time protocols like VOIP unreliable. It's about not letting ISPs favor one service over its competitors. And it's about making sure that an indie developer can send traffic to internet users just as fast as Google can.

Discussions on technically-informed sites like this one should get the details of net neutrality correct.

[idibidiart]

Going with your "source/destination" definition, one Bitcoin/Signal user is source and the other is destination. They can require traffic to be exclusively between user and approved service provider, can't they?

[curun1r]

If they prioritize traffic to/from one Bitcoin endpoint over another, that falls under net neutrality. If they prioritize non-Bitcoin traffic over all Bitcoin traffic, that doesn't.

[pas]

Everything is (or slowly will be) TLS of UDP port 443. Now what type?

[tscs37]

Deep Packet Inspection. Just run it all over HTTPS.

[EGreg]

Net Neutrality is just about the last mile, not backbone operators. Look it up!

[idibidiart]

Last mile includes my last mile and your last mile and cannot see why blocking P2P traffic would not be part of the definition of last mile. Each user would be limited to a set of approved centralized services. No user to user routing. Only user to approved service and approved service to user.

[EGreg]

Because net neutrality applies only to how the bits flow over the physical wiring (and radio signals) of the last mile. NOT the backbone. That's what it's about. Backbone operators can and do have peering contracts and give priority to some companies and not others.

[idibidiart]

ISPs can block all P2P traffic (bits flowing between residential IPs) and removal of Net Neutrality regulations will embolden them to do so, but it's also about the trend toward ISPs being giving the green light to do whatever they want, with eventually no regulation whatsoever.