net: Hardcoded seeds update January 2016 #7415

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 28, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@laanwj
Member

laanwj commented Jan 25, 2016

Update hardcoded seed list for mainnet.
(not sure where to get one for testnet3, but it's less important...)

Also update documentation in contrib/seeds/README.md.

Fixes #7399

@laanwj laanwj added the P2P label Jan 25, 2016

@laanwj laanwj added this to the 0.12.0 milestone Jan 25, 2016

@MarcoFalke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarcoFalke

MarcoFalke Jan 25, 2016

Member

Tested ACK 4818dba (I get roughly the same seeds)

Member

MarcoFalke commented Jan 25, 2016

Tested ACK 4818dba (I get roughly the same seeds)

@paveljanik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Contributor

paveljanik commented Jan 26, 2016

@PRabahy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PRabahy

PRabahy Jan 27, 2016

Contributor

I'm still not on the list. :( I have been running a node consistently at 68.34.102.231 for quite a while. I did a little investigation back in #6333 and found that it was probably something to do with IPv6, so I have been running onlynet=ipv4. http://bitcoin.sipa.be/seeds.txt shows my node at almost 100% up-time.

Contributor

PRabahy commented Jan 27, 2016

I'm still not on the list. :( I have been running a node consistently at 68.34.102.231 for quite a while. I did a little investigation back in #6333 and found that it was probably something to do with IPv6, so I have been running onlynet=ipv4. http://bitcoin.sipa.be/seeds.txt shows my node at almost 100% up-time.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Jan 27, 2016

Member

Prefer to avoid listing nodes that have a specific interest in being on the list anyway.

Member

luke-jr commented Jan 27, 2016

Prefer to avoid listing nodes that have a specific interest in being on the list anyway.

@PRabahy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PRabahy

PRabahy Jan 27, 2016

Contributor

My motivation is to make sure that the list of hardcoded seeds is accurate. For the 1 data point that I have direct knowledge of (my own node), it does not appear that the list is accurate. If I was interested in attacking the bitcoin network, there would be much more effective ways that getting my node on this list.

Either way, I manually verified about a dozen of the nodes on the new list and most of them showed up as online. Looks good enough to me.

Contributor

PRabahy commented Jan 27, 2016

My motivation is to make sure that the list of hardcoded seeds is accurate. For the 1 data point that I have direct knowledge of (my own node), it does not appear that the list is accurate. If I was interested in attacking the bitcoin network, there would be much more effective ways that getting my node on this list.

Either way, I manually verified about a dozen of the nodes on the new list and most of them showed up as online. Looks good enough to me.

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Jan 27, 2016

Member

If somebody wants to compare the output, my dns seeders data would be here:
https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/dnsseed.dump

Member

jonasschnelli commented Jan 27, 2016

If somebody wants to compare the output, my dns seeders data would be here:
https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/dnsseed.dump

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Jan 27, 2016

Member

@PRabahy I have no idea why you're not listed, but if it appears in seeds.txt it should be straightforward to trace it through the makeseeds.py script and see which filter pass "eats" it.
(and maybe correct the script if you think it does so for no good reason)

Member

laanwj commented Jan 27, 2016

@PRabahy I have no idea why you're not listed, but if it appears in seeds.txt it should be straightforward to trace it through the makeseeds.py script and see which filter pass "eats" it.
(and maybe correct the script if you think it does so for no good reason)

@MarcoFalke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarcoFalke

MarcoFalke Jan 27, 2016

Member

@PRabahy your weekly uptime is 87% (sipa) or 86% (21). I don't think this is enough to get into the list.

Member

MarcoFalke commented Jan 27, 2016

@PRabahy your weekly uptime is 87% (sipa) or 86% (21). I don't think this is enough to get into the list.

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Jan 27, 2016

Member

utACK

Member

gmaxwell commented Jan 27, 2016

utACK

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 4818dba into bitcoin:master Jan 28, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2016

Merge #7415: net: Hardcoded seeds update January 2016
4818dba net: Hardcoded seeds update January 2016 (Wladimir J. van der Laan)

laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2016

net: Hardcoded seeds update January 2016
Github-Pull: #7415
Rebased-From: 4818dba
@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Jan 28, 2016

Member

Backported to 0.12 as cb83beb

Member

laanwj commented Jan 28, 2016

Backported to 0.12 as cb83beb

@JeremyRand JeremyRand referenced this pull request in namecoin/namecoin-core Apr 25, 2017

Closed

Add contributed seed node. #149

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment