Check BTC node config without IO overhead #4081

dmos62 · 2020-03-21T16:47:00Z

Edit: not proof of concept anymore; this initial post is outdated. TLDR is that this PR has Bisq check if nodes it connects to are suitable for use by Bisq (e.g. that the node isn't pruning). That's currently most useful with a local BTC node or custom nodes (because otherwise Bisq uses our own federated nodes that are known to be well configured), but it checks all BTC nodes it connects to, with negligible overhead. This PR is currently stagnating in large part because it depends on a (minor) BitcoinJ PR.

This is a proof of concept for checking BTC node's configuration. It's an alternative approach to what I had proposed earlier (that was merged and reverted due to reliability issues). In contrast to the previous attempt, this approach doesn't incur additional IO and doesn't use blocking. Whereas the previous attempt initiated a short lived BitcoinJ connection to a node, this approach just listens into the connections we are already establishing. Also, while previously the checking applied only to a local BTC node, this approach generalizes checking to all BTC nodes we connect to.

Currently, it has two problems:

a) connecting to a pruning node, on my setup at least, causes the connection to crash, and the listener never gets triggered; this is a rare BitcoinJ edge case bug and I opened an issue for it #4080 ;

and, b) this WIP implementation just does peer.close(), which causes the PeerGroup to just retry the connection, in case we're in local mode, or possibly retry later in case we're in non-local mode (didn't explore non-local behaviour yet); I'm pondering if this is indeed undesirable or if we would want to use this to get free auto-retry.

Another open question is what to do in case a remote node is found to be misconfigured. Just an error log?

ripcurlx · 2020-03-23T14:57:03Z

@dmos62 Your build is broken right now: https://travis-ci.org/github/bisq-network/bisq/builds/665235608?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification

a) connecting to a pruning node, on my setup at least, causes the connection to crash, and the listener never gets triggered; this is a rare BitcoinJ edge case bug and I opened an issue for it #4080 ;

Yes, I get following exception in the logs

März-23 15:46:57.444 [NioClientManager] WARN  o.b.core.PeerSocketHandler: [127.0.0.1]:18444 -  org.bitcoinj.core.ProtocolException: Received AlertMessage before version handshake is complete.
	at org.bitcoinj.core.Peer.processMessage(Peer.java:478)
	at org.bitcoinj.core.PeerSocketHandler.receiveBytes(PeerSocketHandler.java:184)
	at org.bitcoinj.net.ConnectionHandler.handleKey(ConnectionHandler.java:223)
	at org.bitcoinj.net.NioClientManager.handleKey(NioClientManager.java:86)
	at org.bitcoinj.net.NioClientManager.run(NioClientManager.java:122)
	at com.google.common.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutionThreadService$1$2.run(AbstractExecutionThreadService.java:66)
	at com.google.common.util.concurrent.Callables$4.run(Callables.java:122)
	at org.bitcoinj.utils.ContextPropagatingThreadFactory$1.run(ContextPropagatingThreadFactory.java:49)
	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:844)

and, b) this WIP implementation just does peer.close(), which causes the PeerGroup to just retry the connection, in case we're in local mode, or possibly retry later in case we're in non-local mode (didn't explore non-local behaviour yet); I'm pondering if this is indeed undesirable or if we would want to use this to get free auto-retry.

You mean a retry to the same peer?

Another open question is what to do in case a remote node is found to be misconfigured. Just an error log?

It depends. If it would be a misconfigured provided node/public node I would just ignore it and not connect to it. If it is a node the user has configured by using a config/start parameter I think we should display a warning to the user. Also if it is a misconfigured local node we want to notify the user that something is not correct.

In general if we do this check after the connection I think it should be fine if we block the setup process at that point (e.g. when a local bitcoin node is misconfigured) and do it as with your previous implementation to allow the user to shutdown and fix this issue.

dmos62 · 2020-03-23T16:03:44Z

and, b) this WIP implementation just does peer.close(), which causes the PeerGroup to just retry the connection, in case we're in local mode, or possibly retry later in case we're in non-local mode (didn't explore non-local behaviour yet); I'm pondering if this is indeed undesirable or if we would want to use this to get free auto-retry.

You mean a retry to the same peer?

Yes. I didn't double-check, but I think BitcoinJ uses a FILO queue for keeping addresses of nodes. It pops and connects to them until wanted number of connections is established. In case we're in local-mode, then that queue has size 1 and contains localhost. peer.close() probably causes the node to go to the back of the queue.

block the setup process [when a local bitcoin node is misconfigured] and do it as with your previous implementation to allow the user to shutdown and fix this issue

I'd be in favor of letting an unclosable error popup be displayed asynchroniously. That would involve less fiddling with the setup process (less likely to break something).

ripcurlx · 2020-03-24T10:20:24Z

I'd be in favor of letting an unclosable error popup be displayed asynchroniously. That would involve less fiddling with the setup process (less likely to break something).

I think this should be fine as well.

dmos62 · 2020-03-30T14:33:27Z

This PR now depends on this PR on our BitcoinJ fork: bisq-network/bitcoinj#35. For development I used a BitcoinJ build from a local Maven repository. When that PR for BitcoinJ is merged, relevant changes to build.gradle should be made here.

Screenshot:

As seen in the screenshot, we're not providing a button to revert to not using a user-provided node (don't see how that can be done easily). The reason why before we could offer that option before is that we were blocking on the check and we were only handling the local bitcoin node.

It can also be seen that Bisq is actually loaded, and after you click "shutdown" the informational local BTC node popup will appear briefly before Bisq closes.

In the background, the misconfigured peers are not explicitly closed (BitcoinJ closes them automatically if they're pruning). The errors are logged and if custom BTC nodes are used, or a local BTC node, the above error popup locks the user out.

In other words, advantage over previous tries at getting this implemented, in terms of features, is that now we get errors when remote nodes are misconfigured, and the user is locked out if the misconfigured node is local or custom. Before we were only checking the local Bitcoin node.

stale · 2020-05-10T18:24:46Z

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

dmos62 · 2020-05-11T10:39:58Z

Bump

stale · 2020-07-04T13:16:20Z

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:46:33Z

@dmos62 Sorry that the PR got delayed so long... I asked @oscarguindzberg to review your BitcoinJ PR. If that is done I think we should get that PR in as well asap.

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:47:24Z

core/src/main/java/bisq/core/btc/setup/WalletsSetup.java

@@ -224,11 +228,12 @@ protected void onSetupCompleted() {
                if (preferences.getBitcoinNodes() != null && !preferences.getBitcoinNodes().isEmpty())
                    peerGroup.setAddPeersFromAddressMessage(false);

+                peerGroup.addVersionMessageReceivedEventListener(WalletsSetup.this::handleConfiguration);


We get called from the BitcoinJ thread. We should map it to our userThread to avoid threading issues.

peerGroup.addVersionMessageReceivedEventListener((peer, versionMessage) -> UserThread.execute(handleConfiguration(peer, versionMessage)));

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:50:02Z

core/src/main/resources/i18n/displayStrings.properties

@@ -2527,6 +2527,7 @@ It will make debugging easier if you include the bisq.log file by pressing "Open

 popup.error.tryRestart=Please try to restart your application and check your network connection to see if you can resolve the issue.
 popup.error.takeOfferRequestFailed=An error occurred when someone tried to take one of your offers:\n{0}
+popup.error.userBtcNodeMisconfigured.explanation=The user-provided Bitcoin node {0} was found to be misconfigured. A user-provided BTC node is either a locally running node that was automatically detected and used, or a node explicitly specified via the --btcNodes command-line option. Bisq requires BTC nodes to have bloom filters enabled and pruning disabled. Automatic use of a local Bitcoin node can be disabled by using the --ignoreLocalBtcNode option.


I think we should not show an Error popup as it comes with the bug-report text and is confusing for that use case, even it is somehow an error as Bisq cannot be used in that case. I would suggest to use warning popup and to reflect that in the display string we should use popup.warning.userBtcNodeMisConfigured.explanation. Also changed to camelCase as IDEA static code inspector complains about a typo otherwise. I think misconfigured should be mis-configured in the text.

Warning doesn't seem entirely appropriate, giving the event a milder air than it might deserve (event being not something to keep in mind, but something to fix), but it might be more appropriate than Error, which seems to be dedicated to events that should be bug-reported. I'll switch to Warning.

I think the spelling of "misconfigure" is correct. "Mis" + "construct" is a rarer combination, so it's not found on many dictionaries, but you can find more common uses of the prefix mis in entries like "misplace" [0] or "misconduct" [1]. If you take a look at the descriptions of the prefix mis- in popular dictionaries [2], it's normal to use it without a hyphen. I think a hyphen is used uniquely when connecting entire words (something like the hyphenation in post-modernism [3] is a discouraged spelling: redirects to postmodernism).

IDEA static code inspector complains about a typo

Can words be added to its dictionary, like you would in a spellchecking text editor? It would be awkward to alter writing to match a spellchecker.

[0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/misplace
[1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/misconduct
[2] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mis-
[3] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/post-modernism

You can set the header message as well, so the title is not warning but something more appropriate. The error type popup carries the automatic support for bug report...

Re misconfigure: Ah ok. I am not native speaker and IDEA suggestions is my teacher ;-).

Can words be added to its dictionary
Yes.

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:50:34Z

desktop/src/main/java/bisq/desktop/main/MainViewModel.java

+                (String peer) ->
+                    new Popup()
+                        .hideCloseButton()
+                        .error(Res.get("popup.error.userBtcNodeMisconfigured.explanation", peer))


As per prev. comment:
-> .warning(Res.get("popup.warning.userBtcNodeMisConfigured.explanation", peer))

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:53:23Z

core/src/main/java/bisq/core/btc/setup/WalletsSetup.java

+     * always available and this is meant to be called from a listener that is triggered
+     * when the VersionMessage becomes available.
+     */
+    private Void handleConfiguration(Peer peer, VersionMessage versionMessage) {


The uppercase Void is probably a leftover from the previous code. Should be void.

chimp1984 · 2020-09-07T03:53:51Z

core/src/main/java/bisq/core/btc/setup/WalletsSetup.java

+            BtcNodes.BitcoinNodesOption.CUSTOM.ordinal() == preferences.getBitcoinNodesOptionOrdinal();
+        if (usingLocalNode || usingCustomNodes) {
+            displayUserBtcNodeMisconfigurationHandler.accept(peer.toString());
+        }
      }
      return null;


If void is used above the return need to be removed.

chimp1984

utACK

Thanks for the update!

dmos62 · 2021-02-04T14:55:45Z

I've ported this PR and a BitcoinJ PR that this depends on to BitcoinJ 15.8. No noteworthy changes required.

This PR currently needs a locally installed BitcoinJ library instance, for development purposes (you have to git checkout the above mentioned BitcoinJ PR and run gradle install on it). Hence Travis failing. Once the BitcoinJ PR is merged, we can update this PR to use our Github hosted fork.

kaiwolfram · 2021-06-07T09:24:12Z

core/src/main/java/bisq/core/btc/setup/WalletsSetup.java

+        var wellConfigured = isWellConfigured(versionMessage);
+        if (wellConfigured) {


A temp variable is not necessary imo, the method call is already very concise and readable

Suggested change

var wellConfigured = isWellConfigured(versionMessage);

if (wellConfigured) {

if (isWellConfigured(versionMessage)) {

A variable defining the condition is a style I use (and propagate) and, even if the called method is descriptive as well, I still use it. One reason is consistency of style. Another, the if statement doesn't care that the node being well configured is predicated on the version message (that's an implemenation detail), so there's no reason to put that in the if statement. I would be against your suggestion, because it optimizes for terseness at the cost of readability.

kaiwolfram · 2021-06-07T09:30:37Z

core/src/main/java/bisq/core/btc/setup/WalletsSetup.java

+        if (wellConfigured) {
+            log.info("Peer well configured: {}", peer);
+        } else {


Redundant else clause bc the if can return. Makes it more readable

Suggested change

if (wellConfigured) {

log.info("Peer well configured: {}", peer);

} else {

if (wellConfigured) {

log.info("Peer well configured: {}", peer);

return;

}

If you don't remove the wellConfigured intermediary variable as you suggested above (which I am against), this originally reads "if the node is well configured log that, else perform following steps", which is favourable over your suggetion: "if the node is well configured, given provided version message, exit the method, foregoing steps that would only be executed in case the node were not well configured." Your edits have a negative effect on readability and a very minimal effect on terseness, which, in my opinion, should not be a consideration anyway (but that's besides the point).

dmos62 mentioned this pull request Mar 30, 2020

Permit listening to version messages bisq-network/bitcoinj#35

Closed

dmos62 changed the title ~~[WIP] Check BTC node config without IO overhead~~ Check BTC node config without IO overhead Mar 30, 2020

ripcurlx added this to the v1.3.0 milestone Apr 1, 2020

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.3.2, v1.3.3 Apr 10, 2020

ripcurlx mentioned this pull request Apr 15, 2020

For Cycle 12 bisq-network/compensation#542

Closed

stale bot added the was:dropped label May 10, 2020

stale bot removed the was:dropped label May 11, 2020

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.3.4, v1.3.6 Jun 4, 2020

stale bot added the was:dropped label Jul 4, 2020

ripcurlx removed the was:dropped label Jul 7, 2020

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.3.6, v1.3.7 Jul 7, 2020

dmos62 mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2020

Bisq tries to connect to local (pruned) node even if I specified custom node IP address. #4303

Closed

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.3.7, v1.3.8 Aug 23, 2020

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.3.8, v1.3.9 Sep 2, 2020

chimp1984 suggested changes Sep 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

chimp1984 previously approved these changes Sep 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

dmos62 dismissed chimp1984’s stale review via 8415c04 September 11, 2020 12:54

dmos62 force-pushed the different-peer-configuration-checking branch from 8415c04 to c1203c9 Compare February 3, 2021 15:56

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.5.7, v1.6.0 Mar 1, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.6.0, v1.6.1, v1.6.2 Mar 27, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.6.3, v1.6.4 Apr 22, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.6.5, v1.6.6 May 21, 2021

kaiwolfram reviewed Jun 7, 2021

View reviewed changes

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.7.0, v1.7.1 Jun 24, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.7.2, v1.7.3 Jul 16, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.7.3, v1.7.4 Aug 23, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.7.4, v1.7.5 Sep 21, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.7.5, v1.8.0 Oct 19, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.8.0, v1.8.1 Dec 9, 2021

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.8.1, v1.8.2 Jan 12, 2022

ripcurlx modified the milestones: v1.8.3, v1.8.4 Feb 24, 2022

dmos62 closed this Feb 28, 2022

This pull request was closed.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Check BTC node config without IO overhead #4081

Check BTC node config without IO overhead #4081

dmos62 commented Mar 21, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ripcurlx commented Mar 23, 2020

dmos62 commented Mar 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ripcurlx commented Mar 24, 2020

dmos62 commented Mar 30, 2020 •

edited

Loading

stale bot commented May 10, 2020

dmos62 commented May 11, 2020

stale bot commented Jul 4, 2020

chimp1984 commented Sep 7, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 7, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 7, 2020

dmos62 Sep 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

chimp1984 Sep 10, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 10, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 7, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 7, 2020

chimp1984 Sep 7, 2020

chimp1984 left a comment

dmos62 commented Feb 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

kaiwolfram Jun 7, 2021

dmos62 Jun 7, 2021

kaiwolfram Jun 7, 2021

dmos62 Jun 7, 2021

		var wellConfigured = isWellConfigured(versionMessage);
		if (wellConfigured) {

	var wellConfigured = isWellConfigured(versionMessage);
	if (wellConfigured) {
	if (isWellConfigured(versionMessage)) {

Check BTC node config without IO overhead #4081

Check BTC node config without IO overhead #4081

Conversation

dmos62 commented Mar 21, 2020 • edited Loading

ripcurlx commented Mar 23, 2020

dmos62 commented Mar 23, 2020 • edited Loading

ripcurlx commented Mar 24, 2020

dmos62 commented Mar 30, 2020 • edited Loading

stale bot commented May 10, 2020

dmos62 commented May 11, 2020

stale bot commented Jul 4, 2020

chimp1984 commented Sep 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmos62 Sep 10, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chimp1984 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmos62 commented Feb 4, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmos62 commented Mar 21, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dmos62 commented Mar 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dmos62 commented Mar 30, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dmos62 Sep 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dmos62 commented Feb 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading