From 8dd93492244227e0c76731ed47a82846b4ffd946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Block <ablock84@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:00:21 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Don't be too harsh for invalid CLSIGs (#2742)

The local node might be the bad one actually as it might not have catched
up with the chain. In that case, LLMQs might be different for the sending
and receiving node.
---
 src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp b/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp
index 51e85b8eb..94f251117 100644
--- a/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp
+++ b/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ void CChainLocksHandler::ProcessNewChainLock(NodeId from, const llmq::CChainLock
         LogPrintf("CChainLocksHandler::%s -- invalid CLSIG (%s), peer=%d\n", __func__, clsig.ToString(), from);
         if (from != -1) {
             LOCK(cs_main);
-            Misbehaving(from, 100);
+            Misbehaving(from, 10);
         }
         return;
     }