Don't use third-party "what is my IP" services (rebase) #3461
Conversation
|
Rebased again. |
|
Nice! |
|
@bardiharborow did you test yet? |
|
@laanwj oh no, i don't have a copy of the blockchain. Far too large. =P |
|
Give me your address I will mail it to you.. its quicker. |
|
@int03h, i'm referring to the fact that not everyone has Internet quotas that are big enough. |
|
@bardiharborow I understand the pain. I am not fighting with you. The offer stands. I will mail it to you if you need it. It seems tarded but I bet I could get you the blockchain on a key drive faster than you could pull it down. |
|
Rebased, moved IsInitialBlockDownload back to main.cpp |
| @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ | |||
| #include "addrman.h" | |||
| #include "chainparams.h" | |||
| #include "core.h" | |||
| #include "main.h" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I took a ton of work to break this dependency; if at all possible, I'd like to keep main purely a client of net (and not the other way around).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that was the reason for moving IsInitialBlockdownload to checkpoints.cpp. I reverted that move because you didn't want it. I'm sure there is some other way of not reintroducing this dependency, but it looks like no one cares about this pull so it may be better to stop maintaining it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a fine and good pull, I didn't yet care to test it. Please don't close it :).
This patch eliminates the privacy and reliability problematic use of centralized web services for discovering the node's addresses for advertisement. The Bitcoin protocol already allows your peers to tell you what IP they think you have, but this data isn't trustworthy since they could lie. So the challenge is using it without creating a DOS vector. To accomplish this we adopt an approach similar to the one used by P2Pool: If we're announcing and don't have a better address discovered (e.g. via UPNP) or configured we just announce to each peer the address that peer told us. Since peers could already replace, forge, or drop our address messages this cannot create a new vulnerability... but if even one of our peers is giving us a good address we'll eventually make a useful advertisement. Rebased-From: a851bf8 Rebased-By: Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>
|
Automatic sanity-testing: FAILED BUILD/TEST, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/p3461_2672e726dab23a5a19d2685f113c7096592156e7/ for binaries and test log. This could happen for one of several reasons:
If you believe this to be in error, please ping BlueMatt on freenode or TheBlueMatt here. This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/ |
|
I'm sad my comments don't get answered... |
|
@Diapolo Right, I'm going to close this pull for now. There are lots of problems with it, and it doesn't rank very high on my priority list. |
Rebased version of #3088. I've split the changes into two commits.
Note: this is not ready for merging yet, there are some known problems, see #3088 for discussion