Skip to content

Conversation

TheBlueMatt
Copy link
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 (comment) for the compact-block-related issue, though there is a similar(ly rare) version in ::INV processing as well.

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.
Copy link
Contributor

@dcousens dcousens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

concept ACK, utACK

@sdaftuar
Copy link
Member

sdaftuar commented Oct 4, 2016

ACK

@btcdrak
Copy link
Contributor

btcdrak commented Oct 5, 2016

utACK 84a32a8

@NicolasDorier
Copy link
Contributor

NicolasDorier commented Oct 7, 2016

might be worth dropping the pprev parameter completely?

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

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)

@btcdrak
Copy link
Contributor

btcdrak commented Oct 9, 2016

@TheBlueMatt is this for backport?

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@fanquake fanquake added this to the 0.13.1 milestone Oct 10, 2016
@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Oct 10, 2016

I guess this will be backported through #8393 .

@maflcko maflcko closed this Oct 10, 2016
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants