Make GetFetchFlags always request witness objects from witness peers #8871

1. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 5:04 PM on October 3, 2016: contributor

   This fixes a bug where we might (in exceedingly rare circumstances) accidentally ban a node for sending us the first (potentially few) segwit blocks in non-segwit mode.

   See #8393 (review) for the compact-block-related issue, though there is a similar(ly rare) version in ::INV processing as well.

2. Make GetFetchFlags always request witness objects from witness peers

   This fixes a bug where we might (in exceedingly rare circumstances)
   accidentally ban a node for sending us the first (potentially few)
   segwit blocks in non-segwit mode.

   2da86f9066
3. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Oct 3, 2016
4. Fix overly-prescriptive p2p-segwit test for new fetch logic 84a32a8acf
5. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Oct 3, 2016
6. TheBlueMatt cross-referenced this on Oct 3, 2016 from issue Remove block-request logic from INV message processing by TheBlueMatt
7. dcousens approved
8. 
   dcousens commented at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2016: contributor

   concept ACK, utACK

9. sipa cross-referenced this on Oct 4, 2016 from issue Support for compact blocks together with segwit by sipa
10. laanwj added the label P2P on Oct 4, 2016
11. 
    sdaftuar commented at 7:12 PM on October 4, 2016: member

    ACK

12. 
    btcdrak commented at 7:17 PM on October 5, 2016: contributor

    utACK 84a32a8acfe184041dedfc547d68a9a451406bec

13. 
    NicolasDorier commented at 3:45 PM on October 7, 2016: contributor

    might be worth dropping the pprev parameter completely?

14. 
    TheBlueMatt commented at 9:21 PM on October 9, 2016: contributor

    This late in 13.1, I wanted to touch as little code as possible. I'd call that a candidate for cleanup in 14.

    On October 7, 2016 5:45:50 PM GMT+02:00, Nicolas Dorier notifications@github.com wrote:

    might be worth droppied the pprev parameter completely?

    You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #8871 (comment)

15. 
    btcdrak commented at 11:03 PM on October 9, 2016: contributor

    @TheBlueMatt is this for backport?

16. 
    TheBlueMatt commented at 8:00 AM on October 10, 2016: contributor

    @btcdrak Yes, #8393 is now rebased on top of this.

17. fanquake added this to the milestone 0.13.1 on Oct 10, 2016
18. fanquake added the label Needs backport on Oct 10, 2016
19. MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on Oct 10, 2016
20. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 11:30 AM on October 10, 2016: member

    I guess this will be backported through #8393 .

21. MarcoFalke closed this on Oct 10, 2016

    ---

22. bitcoin locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Milestone
0.13.1