Compact Block Tweaks #8235

1. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 8:26 pm on June 21, 2016: member

   As I’m avoiding code churn in #8068, any further changes which are not required for correct operation will be dumped here.
2. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Jun 21, 2016
3. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Jun 21, 2016
4. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Jun 21, 2016
5. Dont remove a "preferred" cmpctblock peer if they provide a block af22191a0d
6. More agressively filter compact block requests 0bd7a4c809
7. Add cmpctblock to debug help list e0786638d9
8. TheBlueMatt force-pushed on Jun 22, 2016
9. laanwj added the label P2P on Jun 25, 2016
10. 
    instagibbs commented at 4:12 pm on July 22, 2016: member

    utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8235/commits/e0786638d999cdd186cf547cf4f4183c63b2a231
11. 
    sipa commented at 8:32 pm on July 29, 2016: member

    tACK e0786638d999cdd186cf547cf4f4183c63b2a231 (tested with the tests from #8418, changing the appropriate 15 and 11 constants in the test to 10 and 6 respectively).
12. 
    sipa commented at 8:24 pm on August 3, 2016: member

    Needs rebase after #8418.
13. 
    btcdrak commented at 11:10 am on August 5, 2016: contributor

    Should this be backported to 0.13?
14. 
    sipa commented at 1:07 pm on August 25, 2016: member

    @TheBlueMatt Feel like adapting the tests from #8418 to not fail here?
15. in src/main.cpp: in e0786638d9

    4623@@ -4620,7 +4624,7 @@ void static ProcessGetData(CNode* pfrom, const Consensus::Params& consensusParam
    4624                         // they wont have a useful mempool to match against a compact block,
    4625                         // and we dont feel like constructing the object for them, so
    4626                         // instead we respond with the full, non-compact block.
    4627-                        if (mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - 10) {
    4628+                        if (CanDirectFetch(Params().GetConsensus()) && mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - 5) {
    

    ---

    ---

    

    dcousens commented at 11:08 pm on August 25, 2016:

    Maybe the 5 would make sense as a named constant w/ explanation?
16. 
    laanwj commented at 1:59 pm on August 31, 2016: member

    What is the status of this?
17. 
    sipa commented at 3:43 pm on August 31, 2016: member

    @laanwj See #8637.
18. 
    TheBlueMatt commented at 4:14 pm on September 10, 2016: member

    #8637
19. TheBlueMatt closed this on Sep 10, 2016

    ---

20. laanwj referenced this in commit 0b5a997acf on Oct 18, 2016
21. gladcow referenced this in commit 09441b8e25 on Mar 2, 2018
22. gladcow referenced this in commit 2a13e773ec on Mar 13, 2018
23. gladcow referenced this in commit 138a84f1f5 on Mar 14, 2018
24. gladcow referenced this in commit 44216c71e0 on Mar 15, 2018
25. gladcow referenced this in commit a0af29c65c on Mar 15, 2018
26. gladcow referenced this in commit 29a34a8d79 on Mar 15, 2018
27. gladcow referenced this in commit 9072fcbe59 on Mar 24, 2018
28. gladcow referenced this in commit cd2c4c6a7e on Apr 4, 2018
29. UdjinM6 referenced this in commit bc45a2f87a on Apr 11, 2018
30. andvgal referenced this in commit fd5c50bc2b on Jan 6, 2019
31. CryptoCentric referenced this in commit dd3fd51204 on Feb 28, 2019
32. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
TheBlueMatt instagibbs sipa btcdrak dcousens laanwj

Labels
P2P