Do not require non-aggregators to subscribe to attnets#1685
Conversation
… subnet for beacon committee duties
|
Do I understand correctly that after this change the mesh of a subnet will consist only from aggregators assigned to particular slot? If yes, doesn't it increase a surface for eclipse attack? |
|
plus to @mkalinin: open subnetwork of many nodes provides better security properties than small subnetwork even if its private. |
No, the mesh consists of the persistent committee plus the aggregators for a range of slots (something like 5 to 20 slots worth of aggregators, assuming aggregators join some amount of slots in advance to prepare). Persistent committees are simulated in phase 0 (see Phase 0 Attestation Subnet Stability)
Assuming that there is a distribution of validators across nodes and that each validator subscribes to a random subnet (rather than just each node), then there would be multiple more than 2-3 nodes of attnet capabilites in your routing table. |
|
addressed comments @protolambda |
As suggested by @AgeManning and discussed on the recent networking call, this PR distinguishes from an aggregating and non-aggregating beacon committee member for the purposes of attestation subnets.