The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.

Note that the current domain name continues to resolve for now; I'm just preemptively doing this in case it becomes a bigger issue in the future.

DNS points to the same host.

dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org. 40000 IN	NS	ipv4.jun.dashjr.org.
dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes-maybe-malware.us. 39994 IN NS ipv4.jun.dashjr.org.

So should be no difference is answers.

The main outcome I can see from this change is confusion from (maybe less-technical) users, when they see this unusual domain / maybe-malware printed to their console/logs:

2023-12-28T11:54:27.034530Z [dnsseed] Loading addresses from DNS seed dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes-maybe-malware.us.

I don't think we should ship software that will do that.

I agree with @fanquake, so NACK the choice of domain name.

Anyone who actually sees the domain name used and uses it for some purpose will very likely be able to understand that these IP addresses may be anything, so there is no need for this disclaimer. Meanwhile, putting malware in the name just invites confusion and unnecessary support requests from curious people who don't understand what they are seeing.

Seems like if debug log is the concern, we could just mask it there... Doesn't seem like a good reason to make it easier for scammers by removing the warning?

I've chosen a domain name that is explicitly verbose about its purpose

Er, how is "maybe malware" the purpose of the seeder? It seems like this would just confuse/alarm users, maybe choose something else instead. I don't think adding a log filter makes sense either.

The DNS seeds resolve to IPs of random peers. It's entirely possible (and apparently reality) that some of those host malware. Putting maybe-malware in the name cautions users who might put the domain in a browser, that whatever loads could be malicious.

It seems like a low-cost improvement to avoid abuse IMO, but if there's a hard objection to it, I can come up with another domain for it.

The DNS seeds resolve to IPs of random peers. It's entirely possible (and apparently reality) that some of those host malware.

It's entirely possible that one could be hosting a nascent superintelligence that's just escaped from a AI lab, but you're not adding "maybe-superintelligence" to the name. Even more likely for some of them to be chainanalysis spy nodes, or any number of other potentially worrying things.

FWIW, knots hasn't yet been updated to be malware adjacent: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/aed49ce8989334c364a219a6eb016a3897d4e3d7/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp#L135

but if there's a hard objection to it, I can come up with another domain for it.

I'd say objections to your current choice of domain name have been made clear from various contributors. Along with objection to changing any logging to accomodate it. Moved this to draft for now. Feel-free to undraft with a different domain etc.

Given it's been more than a month, and there's no more followup here, I'm going to close this for now. Feel free to ping for a re-open, if/when you've picked a more suitable domain name.