said by Dude111 :

...(Which is safer)

said by SYNACK :

That's an old myth.

said by SYNACK :

Stealth has exactly one advantage:

It allows relatively clueless users to easily verify with online tools that the firewall software is actually enabled and running.

Here's an old discussion that might shed some light on your questions.

A very misguided effort for stealth (as suggested elsewhere) is the idea of forwarding a port to a nonexistent or stealthed machine or on the LAN. Since each probe will create a temporary entry in the NAT table of the router while the router tries to ARP or contact the nonexistent machine, it can lead to resource starvation on the router. This creates a vulnerability, because flooding that port can overload the router, knocking the entire LAN offline. What do you think is a more graceful handling of a stray packet arriving on the WAN side: (1) Having the router return a RST for a "closed" response, then going back to regular work? (2) triggering a flurry of local LAN and router activity, but resulting in a stealth response to the outside viewer? Though so!

said by antdude :

Interesting. So would having one or a few ports be any differences? I only have one port opened for SSH.

said by SYNACK :

A very misguided effort for stealth (as suggested elsewhere) is the idea of forwarding a port to a nonexistent or stealthed machine or on the LAN. Since each probe will create a temporary entry in the NAT table of the router while the router tries to ARP or contact the nonexistent machine, it can lead to resource starvation on the router. This creates a vulnerability, because flooding that port can overload the router, knocking the entire LAN offline.

said by SYNACK :

As long as you forward to a real server you're fine.

said by chascent :

Can you run this thru the router??