You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In current implementation, if node A is synced up to a certain block and node B, being on a fork started NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects + 1 blocks before A tip, node B even if "understand" the exact branching point of node A, will send just NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects ids of its active chain. In such situation A, even after having received these new blocks, will publish the new SyncInfo without any information about these new blocks (node A is still on the old branch) and for this reason B will again send to A the same NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects blocks already sent at the previous iteration. This will be a never ending loop preventing the two nodes to converge to the same tip.
Using the locator (and not just the simple contiguous list of ids) will even cause the problem more easily.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In current implementation, if node A is synced up to a certain block and node B, being on a fork started NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects + 1 blocks before A tip, node B even if "understand" the exact branching point of node A, will send just NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects ids of its active chain. In such situation A, even after having received these new blocks, will publish the new SyncInfo without any information about these new blocks (node A is still on the old branch) and for this reason B will again send to A the same NetworkSettings.desiredInvObjects blocks already sent at the previous iteration. This will be a never ending loop preventing the two nodes to converge to the same tip.
Using the locator (and not just the simple contiguous list of ids) will even cause the problem more easily.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: