Ignore getheaders requests when not synced #6172

1. 
   sdaftuar commented at 6:29 pm on May 21, 2015: member

   Sending headers suggests to our peers that they can download from us, so don’t respond to getheaders requests while in initial block download (just as we don’t relay blocks on tip updates either).
2. laanwj added the label P2P on May 21, 2015
3. sdaftuar force-pushed on May 22, 2015
4. 
   laanwj commented at 9:04 am on May 24, 2015: member

   utACK
5. in src/main.cpp: in 310ddb1a8a outdated

   4173@@ -4174,6 +4174,8 @@ bool static ProcessMessage(CNode* pfrom, string strCommand, CDataStream& vRecv,
   4174 
   4175         LOCK(cs_main);
   4176 
   4177+        if (IsInitialBlockDownload()) return true;
   

   ---

   ---

   

   Diapolo commented at 5:43 pm on May 24, 2015:

   I hope we soon and finally apply the clang-format ;).

   ---

   

   laanwj commented at 8:04 am on May 27, 2015:

   Yes, it’s completely inconsequential, but pedantically the return true should be on the next line and indented.
6. 
   morcos commented at 9:06 pm on May 24, 2015: member

   Tested ACK
7. Ignore getheaders requests when not synced. a1ba0778dd
8. sdaftuar force-pushed on May 27, 2015
9. 
   sdaftuar commented at 4:21 pm on May 27, 2015: member

   Fixed nit
10. 
    laanwj commented at 4:33 pm on June 1, 2015: member

    Needs to be backported to 0.11 at least
11. laanwj added this to the milestone 0.11.0 on Jun 1, 2015
12. laanwj merged this on Jun 2, 2015
13. laanwj closed this on Jun 2, 2015

    ---

14. laanwj referenced this in commit 88a7ead5de on Jun 2, 2015
15. laanwj referenced this in commit b4bbad18ef on Jun 2, 2015
16. 
    rebroad commented at 8:13 pm on June 8, 2015: contributor

    Shouldn’t we still send headers for the blocks we have?
17. 
    sdaftuar commented at 1:31 pm on June 10, 2015: member

    @rebroad Please see related comment here: #5927 (comment). Before IBD has finished, it’s possible to be on a chain that would violate a checkpoint, and responding to a getheaders request at that point could then cause an honest peer to disconnect.
18. rebroad referenced this in commit 22a4a4fd5c on Nov 2, 2016
19. rebroad referenced this in commit f5b82fe0bb on Nov 2, 2016
20. rebroad referenced this in commit f032d43aa0 on Nov 2, 2016
21. rebroad referenced this in commit 7f68d44c58 on Nov 2, 2016
22. rebroad referenced this in commit 83d40a910f on Nov 2, 2016
23. 
    rebroad commented at 5:14 am on November 4, 2016: contributor

    https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/msg/75840350/ @gmaxwell your comment recently is MORE applicable here…
24. rebroad referenced this in commit cc61ff61ea on Nov 4, 2016
25. rebroad referenced this in commit e58dcdd7ce on Nov 5, 2016
26. rebroad referenced this in commit 6c0f1ba60f on Nov 5, 2016
27. rebroad referenced this in commit 0ec255a812 on Nov 6, 2016
28. rebroad referenced this in commit 65a43abf3a on Nov 6, 2016
29. rebroad referenced this in commit ec7fac9a23 on Nov 6, 2016
30. pyritepirate referenced this in commit 94831ea0c7 on Jan 25, 2019
31. reddink referenced this in commit 4f33c94dd8 on Aug 14, 2020
32. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
sdaftuar laanwj Diapolo morcos rebroad

Labels
P2P

Milestone
0.11.0