don't trickle messages for whitelisted nodes#5942
Merged
laanwj merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom Mar 26, 2015
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
utACK - For any use of whitelisted node I can imagine, it'd either be advantageous or harmless to get all invs instantly instead of tricking. |
Member
|
utACK |
|
utACK. The recent whitelist PRs, including #5288, beg the question of what's running those server farms. |
Member
|
utACK |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2015
fc72020 don't trickle for whitelisted nodes (Ruben de Vries)
reddink
pushed a commit
to reddcoin-project/reddcoin-3.10
that referenced
this pull request
May 27, 2020
Rebased-From: fc72020 Github-Pull: bitcoin#5942 (cherry picked from commit 78f64ef)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think we don't have to protect our privacy to whitelisted nodes so there's no need to trickle message and we can always send the data.
I also added a comment to the param, it was unclear to me that
fSendTrickle=truemeant sending out the previously trickled data instead of meaning that is should send data trickled ;)