Andrew Chow [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15 📝 Original message:I don't think the nodes ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15
📝 Original message:I don't think the nodes that you are connecting to that have this
behavior are actually forked from Bitcoin Core. It seems more like fake
nodes - nodes that don't actually do any verification or follow the
protocol. Such fake nodes can set whatever user agent they want, common
ones being Bitcoin Core's user agents.
IMO your best solution would be to drop peers for protocol noncompliance.
Andrew
On 03/15/2018 05:17 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Andrew. I’ve reviewed the relevant Core sources
> and I do not see any problem. We have also synced against a Core node
> locally and not seen the problem.
>
> The reason I suspected it was Core is that it is very common and all
> of the User Agents are consistent (with an occasional exception for
> forked nodes). So there’s no easy way to determine what sort of nodes
> we are seeing.
>
> We tend to cycle through many more connections during sync than a Core
> node, so may just be seeing it more frequently, but I assume Core
> would log this behavior as well. Even so, seeing that wouldn’t help
> much. I’m as certain as I can be at this point that we are setting the
> flag and version correctly (and that we do not set bip37 filters).
>
> This behavior started infrequently with 0.14.0 peers and has become
> more common over time. Just wondering at this point what fork would
> report as Core and be that common? We used to drop peers that did this
> (for protocol noncompliance), and I’m considering reinstating that
> behavior.
>
> e
>
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 16:33, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>> Looking through the code, I don't think that this behavior has
>> changed. Are you sure that you are actually connected to
>> Satoshi:0.15.0 nodes and not a node that has simply set their
>> user-agent to that (i.e. not a real Satoshi:0.15.0 node)?
>>
>> If what you are seeing is true, it is likely a bug and not an
>> intentional change. In that case, can you provide specific details on
>> how to reproduce?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2018 02:50 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> /Satoshi:0.15.0/ and later nodes appear to be no longer honoring the
>>> version.relay=false flag (BIP37). Could someone familiar with the change
>>> please explain the rational?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> e
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180315/831fdf48/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:I don't think the nodes that you are connecting to that have this
behavior are actually forked from Bitcoin Core. It seems more like fake
nodes - nodes that don't actually do any verification or follow the
protocol. Such fake nodes can set whatever user agent they want, common
ones being Bitcoin Core's user agents.
IMO your best solution would be to drop peers for protocol noncompliance.
Andrew
On 03/15/2018 05:17 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Andrew. I’ve reviewed the relevant Core sources
> and I do not see any problem. We have also synced against a Core node
> locally and not seen the problem.
>
> The reason I suspected it was Core is that it is very common and all
> of the User Agents are consistent (with an occasional exception for
> forked nodes). So there’s no easy way to determine what sort of nodes
> we are seeing.
>
> We tend to cycle through many more connections during sync than a Core
> node, so may just be seeing it more frequently, but I assume Core
> would log this behavior as well. Even so, seeing that wouldn’t help
> much. I’m as certain as I can be at this point that we are setting the
> flag and version correctly (and that we do not set bip37 filters).
>
> This behavior started infrequently with 0.14.0 peers and has become
> more common over time. Just wondering at this point what fork would
> report as Core and be that common? We used to drop peers that did this
> (for protocol noncompliance), and I’m considering reinstating that
> behavior.
>
> e
>
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 16:33, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>> Looking through the code, I don't think that this behavior has
>> changed. Are you sure that you are actually connected to
>> Satoshi:0.15.0 nodes and not a node that has simply set their
>> user-agent to that (i.e. not a real Satoshi:0.15.0 node)?
>>
>> If what you are seeing is true, it is likely a bug and not an
>> intentional change. In that case, can you provide specific details on
>> how to reproduce?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2018 02:50 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> /Satoshi:0.15.0/ and later nodes appear to be no longer honoring the
>>> version.relay=false flag (BIP37). Could someone familiar with the change
>>> please explain the rational?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> e
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180315/831fdf48/attachment-0001.html>;