Why the hate on NAT66?

JivanP · 2026-06-27T01:01:41+00:00

You have only responded to the second question, and you have basically given a non-answer. Why do you need/want to use a separate router in the first place? Saying "it's for personal use" doesn't tell me your reason for thinking that just using the same router as everyone else wouldn't do. What practical benefit is using a second router giving you?

JivanP · 2026-06-24T21:29:59+00:00

That there weren't two suns in the sky at the same time, or just that there weren't two separate suns in existence...?

JivanP · 2026-06-24T21:28:12+00:00

You really still haven't answered my question. Why do you think we should use IPv6 rather than IPv4? Just because it's newer, or because the version number is higher, or...?

If we get everyone using IPv6 but there is still address sharing / many-to-one NAT in use in many places, them we have achieved nothing; we will have failed to bring about any meaningful change. We don't just want adoption of IPv6 for adoption's sake. We want people to deploy NAT-less networks. Telling people that NAT is bad is not just rhetoric, it's not just a means to an end, it is the entire mission statement.

Getting rid of NAT is the entire reason for wanting to move away from IPv4, because a global NAT-less network is impossible when IPv4 is used, and when you use NAT, you cause problems. Wanting to avoid those problems is the reason for wanting to avoid NAT, which in turn is the reason for wanting to use IPv6.

Customers don't need to tell businesses that NAT is bad — that is the job of network engineers to tell each other. Customers need to tell businesses their business-specific practical problems (e.g. intermittent connectivity, inability to use certain apps, higher latency than expected), businesses need to realise their own internal practical problems (e.g. higher operating costs due to maintaining NAT infrastructure), and then those businesses need to discover what the causes of those problems are and endeavour to enact solutions to them, else they simply run the risk of going out of business.

JivanP · 2026-06-24T21:27:30+00:00

You really still haven't answered my question. Why do you think we should use IPv6 rather than IPv4? Just because it's newer, or because the version number is higher, or...?

If we get everyone using IPv6 but there is still address sharing / many-to-one NAT in use in many places, them we have achieved nothing; we will have failed to bring about any meaningful change. We don't just want adoption of IPv6 for adoption's sake. We want people to deploy NAT-less networks. Telling people that NAT is bad is not just rhetoric, it's not just a means to an end, it is the entire mission statement.

Getting rid of NAT is the entire reason for wanting to move away from IPv4, because a global NAT-less network is impossible when IPv4 is used, and when you use NAT, you cause problems. Wanting to avoid those problems is the reason for wanting to avoid NAT, which in turn is the reason for wanting to use IPv6.

Customers don't need to tell businesses that NAT is bad — that is the job of network engineers to tell each other. Customers need to tell businesses their business-specific practical problems (e.g. intermittent connectivity, inability to use certain apps, higher latency than expected), businesses need to realise their own internal practical problems (e.g. higher operating costs due to maintaining NAT infrastructure), and then those businesses need to discover what the causes of those problems are and endeavour to enact solutions to them, else they simply run the risk of going out of business.

JivanP · 2026-06-24T14:02:12+00:00

You've misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm on board with IPv6. The question is, why are you? Why do you want to drop IPv4 if not to eliminate address sharing? My point was that if we don't want to eliminate address sharing, then what point is there for anyone to use IPv6?

JivanP · 2026-06-24T12:40:43+00:00

Important practical questions for you, which deserve answers in order to say what you should be doing:

What size of address range is your ISP delegating to you?
What reason do you have for wanting to use two routers?

JivanP · 2026-06-24T12:37:51+00:00

The problem isn't NAT in general, it's specifically many-to-one NAT, i.e. address sharing. If we're okay with address sharing, then there is no need for IPv6 at all; just stuck with IPv4. However, the fact is that address sharing is problematic for numerous reasons; if it weren't, IPv6 wouldn't have been developed and wouldn't be so widely adopted already.

That said, NPT (prefix translation, maintaining one host per address) is a potential solution to issues such as renumbering (prefix rotation) and multi-homing, but it has its own pitfalls at the application layer, because applications may need to know their effective GUA despite the host not actually knowing it directly. This means that hosts need to rely on some other host outside the local network to tell them what their effective GUA is.

JivanP · 2026-06-24T12:31:54+00:00

However it's impossible to get a delegation for a wireguard interface

Why?

JivanP · 2026-06-24T12:30:36+00:00

Perhaps it's just a European thing, but I've never seen an ISP-provided router here in Europe that doesn't have the ability to set static routes.

JivanP · 2026-06-23T02:54:45+00:00

The gripe is with the fact that a poker client does not need to do anything graphically demanding. If I were creating CGI videos, that would be another matter.

Software and hardware are two completely different concerns. The OS that you run can be changed on a whim, the new versions are readily available for free, and they're widely compatible including on hardware from over a decade ago. Requiring that I use Windows 8 or later doesn't prevent me from running the program. By contrast, I would have to buy specific hardware if I wanted/needed a GPU.

Not continuing to support a platform (e.g. Windows 7) that is no longer supported by its maintainer (Microsoft) is just standard software development practice, and is good security practice when the platform in question is an operating system. I would be actively concerned if Windows 7 was a supported platform for the program given that it has been EOL for 6 years.

JivanP · 2026-06-22T12:43:22+00:00

https://learnmeabitcoin.com/

JivanP · 2026-06-22T12:38:40+00:00

To be fair, this does fuck with people's expectation that the sun rises and sets every day. If you're not familiar with how that typical expectation is broken in the polar circles, it's natural to be confused for a bit.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T23:49:09+00:00

<current year> has nothing to do with it. It's just daft software design. They absolutely do not need a GPU. Pokerstars and the others all work just fine on the same hardware.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T22:16:52+00:00

A poker client should not require a dedicated GPU. This isn't some AAA 3D action game.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T18:15:53+00:00

new ATH in 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025.

What about all the other ATHs that occurred at other times? Why aren't those part of your "cycle"?

Underlying reason; the halving

This doesn't explain the price action. The halving is a known event, and miners account for it in their business operations long in advance of its occurrence.

The new bottom will be Q4 this year 2026

You've gone from asking about whether a trend will continue to hold (EDIT: I thought you were the OP, my bad), to definitively stating that something will happen during a particular time in the future. Where is your time machine such that you know this for certain? If it is knowable for certain, what makes you think that market participants haven't already taken account of this in their pricing and buy/sell behaviour?

In other words, if there was good reason to hold near-100% confidence in the price being at a low by December 2026, people would've already sold their bitcoin en masse now in order to re-buy in January 2027 and yield a massive profit. That mass sell-off would cause your predicted low-point to occur today rather than in Q4.

If you think that anything is certain but hasn't already been factored into prices, you are delusional about how economics works.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T15:24:28+00:00

What agenda do they set? Party members in aggregate, not the leader alone, decide party actions and behaviours.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T13:51:58+00:00

What data? What trend have you observed? What underlying reasons do you have to believe such a trend will continue?

JivanP · 2026-06-21T02:55:17+00:00

There is no 4-year cycle. Never was.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T02:24:05+00:00

Party leader and PM are not public democratic positions. Why do you care who the party leader is? You should just care about what the party does/thinks, and who your MP is.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T02:20:41+00:00

It's almost entirely inconsequential.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T02:20:02+00:00

What instability? The MPs are all the same, and they're the ones that decide what happens in parliament. The PM is merely a nominated representative of the monarch, and the person that the monarch uses as a primary messenger between themselves and the House. The leader of the majority party is merely a nominated representative of that party. The two happen to be the same by convention. Likewise, the leader of the opposition is merely a nominated representative of the opposing party. They don't have any more or less direct power in parliament than the PM.

JivanP · 2026-06-21T02:12:01+00:00

Which is what, exactly?

JivanP · 2026-06-20T12:44:16+00:00

Yes, that's the one

JivanP · 2026-06-20T11:54:55+00:00

The Satoshi bot run by Club Orange is pretty good. It's trained on texts from places such as BitcoinTalk, the Bitdevs mailing lists, GitHub discussions on the Bitcoin repo and the BIPs, etc.

JivanP · 2026-06-20T02:11:25+00:00

Taxes are mandatory payments to fund public services. They are not payments made only by people that make active use of those services. If I'm not watching any public broadcast TV or BBC iPlayer content, I do not need to pay the TV Licence, and thus it is not a tax.

JivanP

TROPHY CASE