From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B02F31 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:44:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78F645D4 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v90so7644616qte.12 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=achow101-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=ThHjTzSP0rQTBo7fSteTKzMhLW+QKbRi+/MO2xGuGMI=; b=yxf41wwb+C7aEjnVLH3TZqVRnwOHnGMOo2D7w2Q+5TjXSEiHVUzWRQg0RvPoKTwD/Y ogu2+mkx1RL25mJpZXPgi146jtnS8GILbQMN+kPADXnyJid/VXBc+JHf7YMRgDqIR+hP iEsr0IrBR3QUUb6QZk1nD0v1UP/6jaPolcZCPaXwhFaWTTYU66cBt5VGS4KAVCaFYcWn 9uzCJCto6qtSUaIsyD1zXPFdhmNoRVzEwUFV0cLwRuZ6Ew97NolXFuvz/spBkqLZ1Vvx QgvZ1YNfo9nbiHvjYNjXB3e7IiiBeLIewhN14ybiVX+IvyF/s5e6Yvfv3JGsW4LNzdZJ bPzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=ThHjTzSP0rQTBo7fSteTKzMhLW+QKbRi+/MO2xGuGMI=; b=rIlT2p1/AfJ4PAOFWsXGRtftVa/0oiW7kz3G519yc4Mf59QniEQ4h8ebhadL/fVA2R +I9EKcccjowXGJwDmE3WR+lNRxqcICK3eKYl3L4mUAShUtRnDV2wN+TJJK1XzdIqtLVo yGJrH/HacHKqO8BcfbgLGHdDRBPneLz8iTMgO7YjoCCmj78zbh6KQmkfbwgCdH1E0nhC k5AbjghjA2yNjk6zO8aPUNzDdIyELtHVSdlHuaKvExh6sTRWumbpkrjjWBxvWN/uCTTR fg3uSq6RN3XxyK9JoklAw0YAxRdtrDvbnJIs7fpDc54Oso0lVJr0k4yyRh0lCkUOKGas o42A== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HEvC3ZjH2mKkNfmlKVPLJtDuZn1lAFI5MnllpfzfOA2feJCDbs FDezGKTOZyQ4LQcNID+GA1V4TwelMUc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsNEAuLpmyKubUTFdiCVGGnJ1htsfvhq1llTW7rPJsqvaZvtEzuVqYu/rexNg4dPcVN3hzi3w== X-Received: by 10.200.4.9 with SMTP id v9mr13333242qtg.69.1521128685282; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.247] (c-73-191-37-221.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [73.191.37.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b125sm3430207qkd.29.2018.03.15.08.44.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:44:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Eric Voskuil , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <620d4b5e-61c4-4501-9787-c73109908418@achow101.com> <8C660724-A76D-44C1-9140-AD3215768CE1@voskuil.org> From: Andrew Chow Message-ID: <1659f63f-5003-40d5-85a9-11e7a8f34edb@achow101.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:44:43 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8C660724-A76D-44C1-9140-AD3215768CE1@voskuil.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F6B1D6987E61B7A6B2D82F36" Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] version.relay behavior change X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:44:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------F6B1D6987E61B7A6B2D82F36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > > 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------F6B1D6987E61B7A6B2D82F36 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------F6B1D6987E61B7A6B2D82F36--