Hello Tim, Thanks a lot for the patch. I will try it out and let you know the results.
BR., Emerson Em qui, 3 de jan de 2019 às 21:18, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> escreveu: > Emerson, > > Am 03.01.19 um 21:58 schrieb Emerson Gomes: > > However, the underflow scenario only seem to be possible if the peers are > > sending relative values, rather than absolute ones. > > I don't believe so. My hypothetical timeline was created with absolute > values in mind. > > > Apparently both cases (absolut and offset values) exist. > > I am looking at src/peers.c to understand how the peer protocol works and > > maybe create the patch you proposed (do not decrement counter if already > 0). > > I attached a patch which I believe fixes the issue (checking for 0 when > decrementing, not touching the peers). > > > However it seems that a real fix would require some big changes on the > > protocol itself. > > Yes I agree. > > > One potencial implementation I could imagine, would be to, rather than > > broadcasting absolute values or offsets, each neighbor peer could report > > the amount of connection it has locally only, and it would be up to the > > local node to resolve the actual value by adding up the different values > > received from all neighbors. > > Yes, that probably would be the most reliable implementation. It takes > up more memory and processing power, though. > > > Not even sure if my understading is correct, but it's task currently out > of > > my reach. > > Should I do a bug report somewhere? :) > > > > I suspect that the developers will notice this thread. A proper issue > tracker is a wish of mine as well > (https://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg32239.html). > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus >