I get a lot of spurious messages like this in the log:
```
2019-08-31T18:07:53Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592633 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
```
also
```
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=0
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=1
2019-08-31T18:19:48Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:19:48Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=2
2019-08-31T18:19:49Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
```
This log message was introduced in #15615 by @jonasschnelli..
From what I understand, it's supposed to only be shown once per 2000 blocks, not multiple times for the same block.


bool ret = DisconnectTip(state, chainparams, &disconnectpool);
        
        
        
        
        
        UpdateMempoolForReorg(disconnectpool,  (++disconnected <= 10) && ret);
        if (!ret) return false;
        assert(invalid_walk_tip->pprev == m_chain.Tip());
        
        
        
        
        
        invalid_walk_tip->nStatus |= BLOCK_FAILED_VALID;
        setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(invalid_walk_tip);
        setBlockIndexCandidates.erase(invalid_walk_tip);
        setBlockIndexCandidates.insert(invalid_walk_tip->pprev);
        if (invalid_walk_tip->pprev == to_mark_failed && (to_mark_failed->nStatus & BLOCK_FAILED_VALID)) {
            
            
            to_mark_failed->nStatus = (to_mark_failed->nStatus ^ BLOCK_FAILED_VALID) | BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD;
            setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(to_mark_failed);
        }
        
        
        to_mark_failed = invalid_walk_tip;
    }
    {
        LOCK(cs_main);