a3789c700b Improve getpeerinfo pingtime, minping, and pingwait help docs (Jon Atack)
df660ddb1c Update getpeerinfo/-netinfo/TxRelay#m_relay_txs relaytxes docs (for v24 backport) (Jon Atack)
1f448542e7 Always return getpeerinfo "minfeefilter" field (for v24 backport) (Jon Atack)
9cd6682545 Make getpeerinfo field order consistent with its help (for v24 backport) (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Various updates and fixups, mostly targeting v24. Please refer to the commit messages for details.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK a3789c700b
brunoerg:
ACK a3789c700b
vasild:
ACK a3789c700b
Tree-SHA512: b8586a9b83c1b18786b5ac1fc1dba91573c13225fc2cfc8d078f4220967c95056354f6be13327f33b4fcf3e9d5310fa4e1bdc93102cbd6574f956698993a54bf
to the current p2p behavior. We only initialize the Peer::TxRelay m_relay_txs
data structure if it isn't an outbound block-relay-only connection and fRelay=true
(the peer wishes to receive tx announcements) or we're offering NODE_BLOOM to this peer.
1dc03dda05 [doc] remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (glozow)
32024d40f0 scripted-diff: remove mention of BIP125 from non-signaling var names (glozow)
Pull request description:
We have pretty thorough documentation of our RBF policy in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md. It enumerates each rule with several sentences of rationale. Also, each rule pretty much has its own function (3 and 4 share one), with extensive comments. The doc states explicitly that our rules are similar but differ from BIP125, and contains a record of historical changes to RBF policy.
We should not use "BIP125" as synonymous with our RBF policy because:
- Our RBF policy is different from what is specified in BIP125, for example:
- the BIP does not mention our rule about the replacement feerate being higher (our Rule 6)
- the BIP uses minimum relay feerate for Rule 4, while we have used incremental relay feerate since #9380
- the "inherited signaling" question (CVE-2021-31876). Call it discrepancy, ambiguous wording, doc misinterpretation, or implementation details, I would recommend users refer to doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md
- the signaling policy is configurable, see #25353
- Our RBF policy may change further
- We have already marked BIP125 as only "partially implemented" in docs/bips.md since 1fd49eb498
- See comments from people who are not me recently:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038#discussion_r909507429
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25575#issuecomment-1179519204
This PR removes all non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (if people feel strongly, we can remove all mentions of BIP125 period). It may be useful to refer to the concept of "tx opts in to RBF if it has at least one nSequence less than (0xffffffff - 1)" as "BIP125 signaling" because:
- It is succint.
- It has already been widely marketed as BIP125 opt-in signaling.
- Our API uses it when referring to signaling (e.g. getmempoolentry["bip125-replaceable"] and wallet error message "not BIP 125 replaceable"). Changing those is more invasive.
- If/when we have other ways to signal in the future, we can disambiguate them this way. See #25038 which proposes another way of signaling, and where I pulled these commits from.
Alternatives:
- Changing our policy to match BIP125. This doesn't make sense as, for example, we would have to remove the requirement that a replacement tx has a higher feerate (Rule 6).
- Changing BIP125 to match what we have. This doesn't make sense as it would be a significant change to a BIP years after it was finalized and already used as a spec to implement RBF in other places.
- Document our policy as a new BIP and give it a number. This might make sense if we don't expect things to change a lot, and can be done as a next step.
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK 1dc03dda05
ariard:
ACK 1dc03dda
t-bast:
ACK 1dc03dda05
Tree-SHA512: a3adc2039ec5785892d230ec442e50f47f7062717392728152bbbe27ce1c564141f85253143f53cb44e1331cf47476d74f5d2f4b3cd873fc3433d7a0aa783e02
fadd8b2676 addrman: Use system time instead of adjusted network time (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This changes addrman to use system time for address relay instead of the network adjusted time.
This is an improvement, because network time has multiple issues:
* It is non-monotonic, even if the system time is monotonic.
* It may be wrong, even if the system time is correct.
* It may be wrong, if the system time is wrong. For example, when the node has limited number of connections (`4`), or the system time is wrong by too much (more than +-70 minutes), or the system time only got wrong after timedata collected more than half of the entries while the time was correct, ...)
This may slightly degrade addr relay for nodes where timedata successfully adjusted the time. Addr relay can already deal with minor offsets of up to 10 minutes. Offsets larger than this should still allow addr relay and not result in a DoS.
ACKs for top commit:
dergoegge:
Code review ACK fadd8b2676
Tree-SHA512: b6c178fa01161544e5bc76c4cb23e11bcc30391f7b7a64accce864923766647bcfce2e8ae21d36fb1ffc1afa07bc46415aca612405bd8d4cc1f319c92a08498f
Our RBF policy is different from the rules specified in BIP125. For
example, the BIP does not mention Rule 6, and our Rule 4 uses the
(configurable) incremental relay feerate (distinct from the
minimum relay feerate). Those interested in our policy should refer to
doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md instead. These rules may also
continue to diverge with package RBF and other RBF improvements. Keep
references to the BIP125 signaling wrt sequence numbers, since that is
still correct and widely used. It is helpful to refer to this as "BIP125
signaling" since it is unambiguous and succint, especially if we have
multiple ways to signal replaceability in the future.
The rule numbers in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md correspond
largely to those of BIP 125, so we can still refer to them like "Rule 5."
