This leads to all sorts of problems; in particular it's incredibly
slow (days, weeks!) if bitcoind is a long way back. This also changes
the behaviour of a rescan argument referring to a future block: we will
also refuse to start in that case, which I think is the correct behavior.
We already ignore bitcoind if it goes backwards while we're running.
Also cover a false positive memleak.
Changelog-Fixed: If bitcoind goes backwards (e.g. reindex) refuse to start (unless forced with --rescan).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Sometimes the l3 seeker asks for scids, and the reply contains the
channel which is then closed by the time it checks, so it considers
the updates bad gossip.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This was the initial issue that was addressed by #2756 and now we just test
that all is working as expected.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This is just the test that we use to verify block backfilling below the wallet
birth height is working correctly.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
