Add network node whitelisting based on jgarzik’s previous pull req. #3584

1. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 2:36 pm on January 25, 2014: member

   This takes jgarzik’s previous pullreq (#3403) and rejiggers a few things so that you can now add IP:0 to allow any port and so that banned nodes can make incoming connections as well. Also fixes an off-by-one in the param count for the listwhite RPC.
2. Add network node whitelisting based on jgarzik's previous pull req.

   This takes jgarzik's previous pullreq and rejiggers a few things so
   that you can now add IP:0 to allow any port and so that banned nodes
   can make incoming connections as well. Also fixes an off-by-one in
   the param count for the listwhite RPC.

   f9463ded68
3. 
   sipa commented at 2:38 pm on January 25, 2014: member

   Would it make sense to add fWhiteListed to CNode, set at first connection, and then checked later when necessary?
4. 
   sipa commented at 2:40 pm on January 25, 2014: member

   I think we should also make transactions received on whitelisted connections always propagate, even if we already had them. This is so that rebroadcasts of wallet transactions behind “us” do not get shielded.
5. 
   BitcoinPullTester commented at 2:58 pm on January 25, 2014: none

   Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/f9463ded6872e86748819d0e4f7e8330e0257a72 for binaries and test log. This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/ Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.
6. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 8:56 am on January 30, 2014: member

   Don’t CNodes get deleted after disconnection?

   Yes, bitcoind could be forced to relay everything it receives from a whitelisted node, but I don’t have time to implement it (I just needed this for another project) :).

7. 
   rebroad commented at 11:44 pm on February 22, 2014: contributor

   Slightly OT, but what about adding a trusted nodes option so that blocks/transactions from these nodes don’t need to be checked before being accepted? Or would it be better to use a node-based signature for this instead of relying on IP addresses?
8. 
   laanwj commented at 3:37 pm on June 21, 2014: member

   Closing in favor of #4378
9. laanwj closed this on Jun 21, 2014

   ---

10. 
    rebroad commented at 4:57 am on July 5, 2014: contributor

    @laanwj I think you meant #4378
11. 
    laanwj commented at 10:04 am on July 5, 2014: member

    Yes, comment updated
12. 
    sipa commented at 10:13 am on July 5, 2014: member

    I think you meant #4378.
13. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
TheBlueMatt sipa BitcoinPullTester rebroad laanwj