The current logic for syncing headers may lead to lots of duplicate
getheaders requests being sent: If a new block arrives while the node
is in headers sync, it will send getheaders in response to the block
announcement. When the headers arrive, the message will be of maximum
size and so a follow-up request will be sent---all of that in addition
to the existing headers syncing. This will create a second "chain" of
getheaders requests. If more blocks arrive, this may even lead to
arbitrarily many parallel chains of redundant requests.
This patch changes the behaviour to only request more headers after a
maximum-sized message when it contained at least one unknown header.
This avoids sustaining parallel chains of redundant requests.
Note that this patch avoids the issues raised in the discussion of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6821: There is no risk of the
node being permanently blocked. At the latest when a new block arrives
this will trigger a new getheaders request and restart syncing.
My changes leave all tray icon and menu creation/initialization logic
untouched. It only shows or hides the icon according to the setting.
A new checkbox was added to the OptionsDialog under the Window tab. A
bool option named "hideTrayIcon" was added to OptionsModel. This
checkbox was mapped like other all options to the OptionsModel.
A signal was added to the OptionsModel for broadcasting changes the the
hideTrayIcon option. This signal was connected to a new slot added to
BitcoinGUI named setTrayIconVisible(bool). The slot simply hides or
shows the trayIcon in BitcoinGUI according to the parameter recieved.
Changing NOP3 op name to OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, renaming instances of OP_NOP3 in script_tests.json to CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
Cleaning up NOP3 comment
Re-adding test cases that were accidentally deleted, removing dupicated test case, fixing formatting
Removing re-labeling of OP_NOP3 to OP_CSV
Fixing whitespace issues
- Ban/Unban/ClearBan call uiInterface.BannedListChanged() as necessary
- Ban/Unban/ClearBan sync to disk if the operation is user-invoked
- Mark node for disconnection automatically when banning
- Lock cs_vNodes while setting disconnected
- Don't spin in a tight loop while setting disconnected
Move the version reporting to Wallet::Verify, before starting
verification of the wallet.
This removes the dependency of init on a specific wallet database
library.
A further, trivial step towards resolving #7965.
I made a subclass of QMessageBox that disables the send button in
exec() and starts a timer that calls a slot to re-enable it after a
configurable delay.
It also has a countdown in the send/yes button while it is disabled
to hint to the user why the send button is disabled (and that it is
actually supposed to be disabled).
* The "ERROR" was printed far too often during normal operation for what was not an error.
* Makes the Socks5() connect failure similar to the IP connect failure in debug.log.
Before:
`2016-05-09 00:15:00 ERROR: Proxy error: host unreachable`
After:
`2016-05-09 00:15:00 Socks5() connect to t6xj6wilh4ytvcs7.onion:18333 failed: host unreachable"`
Locking for each operation here is unnecessary, and solves the wrong problem.
Additionally, it introduces a problem when cs_vNodes is held in an owning
class, to which invididual CNodeRefs won't have access.
These should be weak pointers anyway, once vNodes contain shared pointers.
Rather than using a refcounting class, use a 3-step process instead.
1. Lock vNodes long enough to snapshot the fields necessary for comparing
2. Unlock and do the comparison
3. Re-lock and mark the resulting node for disconnection if it still exists
Use std::unique_ptr for handling work items.
This makes the code more RAII and, as mentioned in the comment, is what
I planned when I wrote the code in the first place.
* CAddrDB modified so that when de-serialization code throws an exception Addrman is reset to a clean state
* CAddrDB modified to make unit tests possible
* Regression test created to ensure bug is fixed
* StartNode modifed to clear adrman if CAddrDB::Read returns an error code.
Some developers clearly don't get this and have been posting
"improvements" that create clear vulnerabilities. It should
have been better explained in the code, since the design
is somewhat subtle and getting it right is important.
Warren Togami