Bitcoin Node Maintainer

[cbeams]

This @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers role is responsible for maintaining the shared configuration for @bisq-network's federation of @bitcoin nodes, as hard-coded in https://github.com/bisq-network/exchange/blob/master/core/src/main/java/io/bisq/core/btc/BitcoinNodes.java.

This role should maintain a shared bitcoin.conf file in this repository, and work with @bisq-network/btcnode-operators to make sure they run the same configuration there.

This role is responsible for responding in a timely fashion to GitHub issues added to this repository, questions asked in the #bisq-btcnode channel, and to ensure that monitoring notifications in #alerts get handled in a timely fashion.

---

Docs: none, other than the above
Team: @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers
Primary owner: @sqrrm
Secondary: @wiz

[sqrrm]

2018.06 report

Took over role as maintainer halfway through the month. Nothing to report on nodes.

@ManfredKarrer @cbeams Regarding maintaining the issue, is there a way for me to update the initial issue #66 (comment) to keep it relevant?

[cbeams]

@sqrrm wrote:

Regarding maintaining the issue, is there a way for me to update the [issue description] to keep it relevant?

In short, yes, but it'll work a little differently than that. I'll have instructions for all role owners about this soon. Thanks.

[cbeams]

@sqrrm, regarding keeping the description for this role (and the Tor Relay Operator role at #72) up to date, I mentioned above that I'd have instructions for all role owners on this soon, but what I'd actually like to do, if you're willing, is to have you try out the instructions first and provide feedback about it before I send out a broader request to have everyone do the same.

I'll provide a little context here, so that hopefully everything makes sense, but in the end, it should be a fairly simple task, one that will probably take 30 minutes or perhaps an hour for most roles.

First it's a good idea to read through the new Roles doc at https://docs.bisq.network/roles.html if you haven't already. It provides (hopefully) everything that contributors need to know about how roles work.

The relevant section of that doc that I want to focus on here is the Docs section at https://docs.bisq.network/roles.html#docs:

To follow those instructions for this role, you'd put together a pull request against the bisq-docs repository that adds a btcnode.adoc file. That file would include:

• an Introduction section that explains what the Bisq federation of Bitcoin Core nodes is for, how it helps protect user privacy, etc.
• an Infrastructure section that mentions the bisq-btcnode repository and btcnode slack channel.
• a Roles section that details the Duties, Rights, GH Issue and GH Team for both the btcnode Maintainer and Operator roles.
• if appropriate, a Processes section that details any processes involved with btcnodes, e.g. upgrades.

The Proposals doc at https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html provides an example for what such a doc should look like; please treat it as a template.

You'll also want to add an entry to index.adoc to make sure that your new btcnode.adoc doc is discoverable. For right now, you can just put it at the bottom of the list in the Contributor Docs section. I plan to revise the index page soon to better accommodate these kinds of docs.

One of the effects of having these docs is that the descriptions in role issues like this one become simple, uniform, and largely unchanging. There's little need to "keep them up to date", and that avoids permissions problems like the one you had where you were unable to edit this issue (because I was the one who created it). The description ends up being as simple as this:

Docs: https://docs.bisq.network/btcnode.adoc#maintainer
Team: @bisq-network/btcnode-maintainers
Primary owner: @sqrrm

So, please let me know if it works for you to do this, and I'll look out for your PR. Thanks!

[sqrrm]

@cbeams I'll try to get that done, hopefully by the end of this week. Will let you know.

[sqrrm]

@cbeams I tried writing this up but three times I gave up. It's in principle not a hard task but I find administrative tasks energy draining so I just push it as long as I can. This is probably not the case for everyone but for me I would waste days of energy on something that, as you say, should take 30 minutes for someone with the inclination. The issues I face are:

• I don't enjoy writing documentation and thus lack motivation but I don't mind the technical details of the role
• There is process that needs to be followed and learned but the benefit seems small for the energy spent
• The need to learn adoc notation to write a reasonable document

I think it would be better to get someone to write these docs up in a minimal fashion for the maintainers to fix if need be. I suspect someone might actually enjoy doing this whereas I and perhaps others with a similar aversion to administrative tasks would be turned off and even avoid taking on roles that could otherwise be taken.

[cbeams]

Understood, @sqrrm, and it’s good feedback all the same. Thanks.

/cc @m52go

[m52go]

Yeah @sqrrm I don't blame you. I'm willing to write the doc if you're willing to provide the details.

But in order to start, I need basic details covering the required content. Let me know if that already exists somewhere.

Otherwise, we could proceed in 2 ways:

• you produce quick written notes that cover the items @cbeams mentioned above. They don't need to be remotely well-formed or even readable (i.e., a "brain dump").
• we have a quick 10-15 minute phone conversation where we talk through the content.

Let me know what you think, or if you've got any other suggestions.

[sqrrm]

2018.07 report

During the month there has been no noticeable events.

There is a new minor bitcoind version out but we have earlier decided to only try to move quickly to new major versions. There is also a question if we actually want to move to 0.17.x when it arrives, to be discussed separately when it's more relevant.

The process of moving to new role management and documentation has been slow, partially due to me and partially due to the process. I will try to get this done for the bitcoin nodes next month with the help of @m52go That should work as a template for the other roles.

[sqrrm]

2018.08 report

Nothing noticeable to report.

[sqrrm]

Cycle 47 report

There were discussions about disabling a mempool feature that would make bloomfilters inoperable but it was rejected since some projects, such as Bisq, actually use bloomfilters.

Another issue was bitcoin/bitcoin#27586, a cpu DoS attack on core nodes running in debug mode. Best to not run nodes in debug mode.

I have also noticed a sharp decline in connected peers on my nodes, from around 600 to 140. I suspect it's due to heavier loads lately.

bisq-network/compensation#1305

[sqrrm]

Cycle 48 report

Bitcoin Core 25 has been released. I think we can upgrade like normal.

There has been quite a bit of talk about the fees being high. A problem for Bisq, but the best we can do is probably start looking at alternative protocols.

bisq-network/compensation#1311

[sqrrm]

Cycle 49 report

Nothing to report

bisq-network/compensation#1340

[sqrrm]

Cycle 50 report

Nothing to report

bisq-network/compensation#1362

[sqrrm]

Cycle 51 report

There are discussions about improving CPFP in bitcoin core. Might be more useful as fees increase but unclear how bisq could use it.

bisq-network/compensation#1380

[sqrrm]

Cycle 52 report

Bitcoin Core 25.1 has been released. I don't see anything that require our attention there.

bisq-network/compensation#1395

[sqrrm]

Cycle 53 report

The new bitcoin core has some changes to how it handles rbf. This might affect Bisq users but I don't think it warrants an upgrade.

bisq-network/compensation#1414

[Emzy]

Cycle 52 report

Bitcoin Core 25.1 has been released. I don't see anything that require our attention there.

bisq-network/compensation#1395

It would be not the first time that security fixes are disclosed later. I think we should upgrade to all new point releases.

[sqrrm]

Cycle 54 report

@Emzy you have a point. Perhaps more urgency is needed to upgrade after point releases. Version 26.0 is out now and should be considered.

bisq-network/compensation#1438

[sqrrm]

Cycle 55 report

Nothing to report

bisq-network/compensation#1465

[sqrrm]

Cycle 56 report

A responsible disclosure of a bug in pre Core 22 that affects LN users has been announced. Bisq doesn't use LN but I still think it makes sense to make sure to run version 22 or later.

bisq-network/compensation#1484

[sqrrm]

Cycle 57 report

There is work on a . release for bitcoin core. Could signify something. Otherwise nothing to report.

bisq-network/compensation#1505

[sqrrm]

Cycle 58 report

Bitcoin core version 26.1 has been released. Probably be worth upgrading to.

A free relay attack has been disclosed, https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/Zfg%2F6IZyA%2FiInyMx@petertodd.org/. I don't if this would be realistic issue to do anything about at the moment for bisq nodes.

bisq-network/compensation#1531

[sqrrm]

Cycle 59 report

Nothing to report

bisq-network/compensation#1562

[sqrrm]

I am unable to perform this role going forward. It might be best to just retire the role completely.

Best practice is to keep running the latest version of bitcoin core, which all node operators can do on their own. Main issue is to keep a look out for planned changes that would retire bitcoinj support.

[sqrrm]

@cbeams do you think this role should be retired at the same time as I'm retiring from it?