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.

I've tested this on mainnet:

# no anchors or peers, dns=0 dnsseed=0
2024-03-06T11:01:47Z opencon thread start
2024-03-06T11:01:47Z Adding fixed seeds as -dnsseed=0 (or IPv4/IPv6 connections are disabled via -onlynet) and neither -addnode nor -seednode are provided
2024-03-06T11:01:47Z Added 801 fixed seeds from reachable networks.
2024-03-06T11:01:56Z New outbound-full-relay v1 peer connected: version: 70016, blocks=833398, peer=0
2024-03-06T11:01:56Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 833398 (~100.00%)

but testnet doesn't work:

# no anchors or peers, dns=0 dnsseed=0
2024-03-06T10:59:25Z opencon thread start
2024-03-06T10:59:26Z Adding fixed seeds as -dnsseed=0 (or IPv4/IPv6 connections are disabled via -onlynet) and neither -addnode nor -seednode are provided
2024-03-06T10:59:26Z Added 0 fixed seeds from reachable networks.

Although it looks like this was already broken #29574.

In cross-referencing one of my own nodes (as the only ones I can really do any cross-checking on) I notice that the data returned for them from sipa's seeder (for my node) does not match what I expect in two ways:

1. Incorrect version string: reported as 24.0 rather than 26.0. The version is reported correctly to me by another instance of bitcoind connecting to the node.
2. Low uptime: this node has been running uninterrupted (and without fault) since early December, after being updated to v26.0. Before that it ran uninterrupted since the last major version update. Connectivity reported as <=30% does not feel congruent with its uptime.

My interpretation therefore is that it's possible that, if anything, we may be missing out on adding more seed nodes to this list?

In any case, the results of a single node likely don't affect the general accuracy of the changes here and I suppose the changes proposed here are probably correct on balance.