Kim Altintop
Kim Altintop
Rate limiting is limited due to the stream-per-message model. That was a bad idea, I'm changing it. At the end of the day, a peer flooding the network cannot really...
Also heard from @cloudhead on matrix that it was sprout misbehaving. Did no further action follow this statement?
> I thought the last thing we talked about was Upstream updating > librad to this commit [1]cb91ccd and seeing how that might improve > usage? > > That didnât...
I must say that this waiting room logic escapes me mostly. It is probably the case that the bandaid of screaming "have" into the forest should just be removed --...
> is this a soft-fork? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Yeah sure. It would be an optional field, which should just be ignored by older clients.
> Donât we have some rate limiting in place that should prevent a peer > being flooded by messages from another peer? Yes we do, and I saw in one...
Thanks for reporting. This is already fixed indeed, but not yet included in a released version.
Actually, https://github.com/radicle-dev/radicle-link/pull/439 seems to be in `maint`, so I'm not sure what's going on.
Very closely related to #97, perhaps a nice :duck: exercise for @FintanH and @massimiliano-mantione