1 2016-10-01 00:50:00	0|GitHub165|[13bitcoin] 15dcousens closed pull request #7436: AcceptToMempool: extract various policy functions (06master...06expolicy) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7436
  2 2016-10-01 01:09:40	0|GitHub16|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #8854: [qa] Fix race condition in p2p-compactblocks test (06master...06fix-p2p-sync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8854
  3 2016-10-01 02:03:20	0|GitHub93|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #8855: Use a proper factory for creating chainparams (06master...060.13-chainparams-factory) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8855
  4 2016-10-01 06:33:40	0|GitHub196|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #8856: Globals: Decouple GetConfigFile and ReadConfigFile from global mapArgs (06master...060.13-globals-utils-configfile) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8856
  5 2016-10-01 09:20:05	0|GitHub189|13bitcoin/06master 14b5fd666 15Suhas Daftuar: [qa] Fix race condition in p2p-compactblocks test...
  6 2016-10-01 09:20:05	0|GitHub189|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7b784cc2bbcd...6faffb8a83db
  7 2016-10-01 09:20:06	0|GitHub189|13bitcoin/06master 146faffb8 15MarcoFalke: Merge #8854: [qa] Fix race condition in p2p-compactblocks test...
  8 2016-10-01 09:20:15	0|GitHub39|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #8854: [qa] Fix race condition in p2p-compactblocks test (06master...06fix-p2p-sync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8854
  9 2016-10-01 09:39:05	0|GitHub47|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8857: [qa] mininode: Fix order of positional args in wait_until (06master...06Mf1610-qaMininodeWaitUntil) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8857
 10 2016-10-01 09:59:41	0|luke-jr|wtf, 15 minutes after starting my node back up, I have 63 connections, most bitcoinj
 11 2016-10-01 09:59:45	0|luke-jr|is this an attack or random luck?
 12 2016-10-01 10:00:09	0|luke-jr|most are 52.* IPs… :|
 13 2016-10-01 10:00:29	0|luke-jr|AWS
 14 2016-10-01 10:01:33	0|luke-jr|yet claims to be various GUI and Android clients
 15 2016-10-01 10:03:29	0|gmaxwell|yea, that those asshole again.
 16 2016-10-01 10:03:32	0|gmaxwell|report it to the amazon abuse contact form. (it's pretty amazing, they ask for logs and such)
 17 2016-10-01 10:03:32	0|gmaxwell|they're spy nodes.
 18 2016-10-01 10:11:07	0|wumpus|same here, ~50 connections from 52.* IPs
 19 2016-10-01 10:12:54	0|wumpus|all random /bitcoinj or /BitcoinJ variants
 20 2016-10-01 10:14:23	0|gmaxwell|I banned them on my nodes a while ago.
 21 2016-10-01 10:14:32	0|wumpus|and have sent no commands but pong, verack and version
 22 2016-10-01 10:14:39	0|wumpus|good idea
 23 2016-10-01 10:14:47	0|gmaxwell|doesn't really solve the problem...
 24 2016-10-01 10:15:20	0|gmaxwell|I'd at least recommend lodging a complaint with amazon before doing so.
 25 2016-10-01 10:15:29	0|wumpus|stopping listening on IPv4 would stop them for a while, EC2 still has no IPv6 support :)
 26 2016-10-01 10:15:41	0|luke-jr|lol
 27 2016-10-01 10:17:41	0|luke-jr|hmm. I started banning them, and after a few, the rest disconnected on their own :o
 28 2016-10-01 10:18:49	0|wumpus|they're still connected to me, so it's not stopped
 29 2016-10-01 10:20:02	0|wumpus|but yes I've also managed to get banned by a spy node once, after continuously probing them and sending them junk back over their connectinos
 30 2016-10-01 10:20:44	0|luke-jr|lol
 31 2016-10-01 10:22:39	0|luke-jr|hm, I cannot compile BFGMiner with my usual dev config now. too hardened for the CPU mining assembly. XD
 32 2016-10-01 10:23:22	0|sipa|luke-jr: for extra security, also disable networking support on your system
 33 2016-10-01 10:23:32	0|sipa|it great decreases attack surface
 34 2016-10-01 10:26:18	0|sipa|around 10-15% of my bandwidth (for uploaded blocks) goes to height <=288
 35 2016-10-01 10:26:58	0|sipa|twice that for up to 2016
 36 2016-10-01 10:28:45	0|gmaxwell|sipa: do you still have the -1000 quirk?
 37 2016-10-01 10:29:30	0|sipa|nope
 38 2016-10-01 10:29:47	0|sipa|but it's only 1.5 days worth of data
 39 2016-10-01 10:30:52	0|luke-jr|sipa: given unlimited time, I would probably isolate my networking to a VM, but just using Hardened Gentoo with my 64-bit switch is enough for now (I hope) ☺
 40 2016-10-01 10:33:11	0|btcdrak|luke-jr: did you go 64bit?
 41 2016-10-01 10:35:10	0|luke-jr|btcdrak: yes, although I'm being tempted to go back to revert to KDE 4
 42 2016-10-01 10:36:34	0|luke-jr|but for better or worse, I didn't really take enough notes to make it possible to revert back
 43 2016-10-01 10:48:21	0|luke-jr|uh, wow… rm a large directory on my SSD pretty much shuts down I/O for everything else :|
 44 2016-10-01 10:48:48	0|luke-jr|even dmesg and top hung
 45 2016-10-01 10:49:43	0|wumpus|so it goes when your system is swappy
 46 2016-10-01 10:51:58	0|luke-jr|I'm not even swapping right now - killed most of the Chromium tabs
 47 2016-10-01 10:52:25	0|wumpus|but yes it's curious how easy it is to monopolize I/O even on modern OSes, it's even worse on windows
 48 2016-10-01 10:53:06	0|wumpus|any user space process can just hog the entire disk
 49 2016-10-01 10:54:04	0|paveljanik|luke-jr, what IO scheduler do you use with your SSD device?
 50 2016-10-01 10:54:18	0|wumpus|though I guess among the many proc and sys settings, there are ways to tweak this
 51 2016-10-01 10:54:45	0|MarcoFalke|we need a bot to invite people to review :)
 52 2016-10-01 10:54:48	0|luke-jr|paveljanik: how do I find out? ;)
 53 2016-10-01 10:55:05	0|paveljanik|cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler IIRC?
 54 2016-10-01 10:55:25	0|luke-jr|cfq
 55 2016-10-01 10:55:40	0|luke-jr|although I have a udev rule that's supposed to set SSDs to deadline, but it apparently doesn't work
 56 2016-10-01 10:56:01	0|wumpus|s/to invite/to drag people by their hair into PRs and force them to review/
 57 2016-10-01 10:56:20	0|luke-jr|hehe
 58 2016-10-01 10:56:57	0|midnightmagic|If people have a list of those 52.* IP addresses I would appreciate that.
 59 2016-10-01 10:58:12	0|wumpus|have to go now, but sure will make one later
 60 2016-10-01 10:58:52	0|MarcoFalke|luke-jr: It seems odd to place our whole bip process into the hands of a single github user. No one verified who owned this account right now. They could just do anything if they are required to ACK every change to BIP1.
 61 2016-10-01 10:59:16	0|MarcoFalke|I know BIP2 solves this, but we should use common sense to see that BIP1 mostly applies to other bips
 62 2016-10-01 10:59:18	0|MarcoFalke|and not itself
 63 2016-10-01 10:59:44	0|luke-jr|MarcoFalke: well, that'd be a concern with trusting ACKs on github in general
 64 2016-10-01 10:59:53	0|btcdrak|MarcoFalke: +1
 65 2016-10-01 11:00:49	0|MarcoFalke|Sure, but for BIP1 it seems particularly weird. (Given that the (Github)user is not active in any other bitcoin related project)
 66 2016-10-01 11:01:55	0|MarcoFalke|I am looking forward to see the BIP2 changes merged, but there may be some people not approve all changes.
 67 2016-10-01 11:02:15	0|MarcoFalke|Esp. the links in the header for further discussion
 68 2016-10-01 11:02:31	0|luke-jr|MarcoFalke: I think all the disagreement is resolved now. Since the last posting, there have been no objections.
 69 2016-10-01 11:03:40	0|MarcoFalke|You never know. :/
 70 2016-10-01 11:03:59	0|MarcoFalke|We should not forcefully keep us in this awkward situation of BIP1
 71 2016-10-01 11:05:00	0|btcdrak|luke-jr: I havent had time to review it yet.
 72 2016-10-01 11:05:24	0|luke-jr|MarcoFalke: worst case, we can drop BIP Comments and move them to BIP 3 or something
 73 2016-10-01 11:05:45	0|luke-jr|although that's one of the main improvements IMO
 74 2016-10-01 11:06:01	0|luke-jr|so we can discourage people from adopting crappy BIPs
 75 2016-10-01 11:06:21	0|btcdrak|from first glance I think there is a problem with specifically the GPL license part and the comments are fine if it's self contained, without linking to external resources.
 76 2016-10-01 11:06:22	0|MarcoFalke|And then ping people: "Please read BIP2, BIP3, ... but don't read BIP1"...
 77 2016-10-01 11:06:29	0|MarcoFalke|Why not amend?
 78 2016-10-01 11:07:11	0|luke-jr|MarcoFalke: BIPs are amended by replacing them. That's how the process works right now. <.<
 79 2016-10-01 11:07:14	0|btcdrak|replace LGPL with GPL is fine.
 80 2016-10-01 11:07:33	0|luke-jr|btcdrak: so you'd insist libbitcoin code cannot be used in any BIPs?
 81 2016-10-01 11:07:42	0|MarcoFalke|As I said, the BIP process does not make sense to be applied to BIP1 itself.
 82 2016-10-01 11:07:46	0|btcdrak|in any case, I didnt get a chance to read the full BIP and digest it's contents. I think there was something about the workflows too which could be improved.
 83 2016-10-01 11:08:05	0|btcdrak|MarcoFalke: +1
 84 2016-10-01 11:08:54	0|luke-jr|btcdrak: the only licenses BIP 2 *recommends* are BSD, CC0, and GNU-All-Permissive
 85 2016-10-01 11:10:32	0|gmaxwell|that huge list is bleh.
 86 2016-10-01 11:11:57	0|gmaxwell|MarcoFalke: I made the same argument but luke pointed out that we can put a notice at the top of BIP 1 that says read BIP N instead, and that seemed acceptable enough to me.
 87 2016-10-01 11:12:04	0|luke-jr|fine, or delay BIP 2 yet longer by making up new problems that aren't really problems and could have been brought up months ago if it was really a concern.
 88 2016-10-01 11:12:45	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I had no idea about BIP2 until I wigged out about you assigning a BIP number to a restrictively licensed specification. :)
 89 2016-10-01 11:13:06	0|luke-jr|are you subscribed to bitcoin-dev? :|
 90 2016-10-01 11:13:16	0|gmaxwell|Yes. But threads get missed.
 91 2016-10-01 11:15:02	0|gmaxwell|just don't expect anything to go quickly.
 92 2016-10-01 11:15:42	0|gmaxwell|FWIW, IETF requires any source code as part of RFCs be under a fixed three clause BSD license.
 93 2016-10-01 11:15:53	0|luke-jr|interesting
 94 2016-10-01 11:16:14	0|gmaxwell|(you can also offer under additional licenses, at your choice.. of course)
 95 2016-10-01 11:16:15	0|luke-jr|does IETF aim to document standards set by others, or prescribe them?
 96 2016-10-01 11:16:47	0|gmaxwell|It does both.
 97 2016-10-01 11:17:08	0|gmaxwell|Informational RFCs are usually things standarized outside of the IETF that just get documented in IETF form.
 98 2016-10-01 11:17:18	0|luke-jr|BIPs can't do both. maybe not relevant, dunno
 99 2016-10-01 15:01:30	0|GitHub161|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #8858: rpc: Generate auth cookie in hex instead of base64 (06master...062016_10_01_moar_cookies) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8858
100 2016-10-01 15:28:16	0|wumpus|midnightmagic: here's the list of 52.X nodes https://dev.visucore.com/bitcoin/tmp/list.json
101 2016-10-01 15:29:01	0|Lauda|wumpus, this happened 4 months back and I imagine it's the same "entity" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1478418.0
102 2016-10-01 15:29:10	0|Lauda|It started showing on my node today as well.
103 2016-10-01 15:30:01	0|wumpus|midnightmagic: gah, some even have 2-3 connections per IP
104 2016-10-01 15:31:11	0|wumpus|Lauda: I don't think I've ever seen one waste this many connection slots
105 2016-10-01 15:32:54	0|Lauda|Indeed. Any idea on what *they* are trying to do?
106 2016-10-01 15:32:59	0|wumpus|would make sense to report it to Amazon, but too lazy to collect logs and evidence now
107 2016-10-01 15:34:07	0|wumpus|I don't know. For a DoS it seems kind of tame, they don't actually exhaust connection slots
108 2016-10-01 15:34:51	0|wumpus|it must be for spying, but I'd say one connection per node would be enough for that
109 2016-10-01 15:37:03	0|wumpus|also then you'd expect them to be sneaky to *avoid* being detected and banned all over the place. So no, I don't know.
110 2016-10-01 15:37:31	0|wumpus|for griefing it's a bit expensive
111 2016-10-01 15:37:58	0|Lauda|I wonder what could be 'done' to prevent this kind of stuff from happening.
112 2016-10-01 15:38:58	0|Lauda|They're different IPs from last time as I have a compiled list.
113 2016-10-01 15:40:15	0|wumpus|one way to find spying nodes with 99% certainty is to kick them, if they reconnect, it's generally a spy node (or a very freak accident).
114 2016-10-01 15:40:45	0|Lauda|http://i.imgur.com/plndCgd.png
115 2016-10-01 15:40:58	0|Lauda|They do connect-reconnect on their own every now and then here
116 2016-10-01 15:41:01	0|wumpus|another idea that has been brought up a few times is to create a service where nodes can publish their peer lists, and the intersection between those is published
117 2016-10-01 15:41:15	0|wumpus|oh that makes them even easier to detect, no kicking needed :)
118 2016-10-01 15:41:30	0|Lauda|Same behavior as last time, yes!
119 2016-10-01 15:43:52	0|wumpus|could add logic that remembers IPs for a while after disconnection, and if the same peer reconnects again, it's labeled/blacklisted. At least if they're unexpected - someone may also have legitimately addnode'd you.
120 2016-10-01 15:48:38	0|wumpus|in any case the banning doesn't have to be automatic, the software could just warn the user which nodes are 'persistently' connecting to you, it's up to them what to do with that
121 2016-10-01 15:49:02	0|sipa|curl https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json | fgrep ip_prefix | cut -d '"' -f 4
122 2016-10-01 15:49:10	0|sipa|^- all AWS ip ranges
123 2016-10-01 15:49:13	0|Lauda|That would be nice, like 'suspicious activity detected'.
124 2016-10-01 16:05:01	0|phantomcircuit|wumpus: multiple connections breaks some of the transactions trickle relaying stuff i believe
125 2016-10-01 16:06:50	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: transaction trickly is now poisson distributed, so with N connections to the same node you get N times higher accuracy
126 2016-10-01 16:48:01	0|phantomcircuit|sipa: yeah but more than 1 is still going to be better than 1 for spying on people
127 2016-10-01 16:49:11	0|sipa|yes, absolutely
128 2016-10-01 18:21:01	0|midnightmagic|wumpus, sipa: thank you! :-)
129 2016-10-01 18:23:51	0|midnightmagic|(on all aws, using firewall)
130 2016-10-01 18:25:16	0|sipa|seems i get multiple connections per second from aws nodes
131 2016-10-01 18:25:32	0|sipa|(some of which may be actual nodes)
132 2016-10-01 18:28:47	0|GitHub70|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8859: WIP:  [qa] Add script to check for datadir compatibility between versions  (06master...06Mf1610-qaCompat) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8859
133 2016-10-01 19:02:58	0|GitHub163|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8860: [qa] util: Move wait_bitcoinds() into stop_nodes() (06master...06Mf1610-qaUtilWait) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8860
134 2016-10-01 19:07:03	0|GitHub144|[13bitcoin] 15CryptAxe closed pull request #8763: Optionally sweep funds from private key. (06master...062751PullRequest) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8763
135 2016-10-01 23:22:01	0|GitHub19|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #8862: Fix a few cases where messages were sent after requested disconnect (06master...06fix-disconnect-send) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8862