New idea to promote validator diversity.
Promote diversity across validators in the following areas:
Client
Operating System
Geo Location (avoid concentration)
CPU / other hardware
Cloud Hosting provider / ISP
1 Like
Unfortunately we can’t make rewards directly dependent on what client a validator runs. There is no objective way to measure this that can’t be spoofed.
From: Ethereum Merge: Run the majority client at your own peril! | Dankrad Feist
Would that be true of all features?
Client - can we not use a crypto hash of post installation to validate that the client hasn’t been tampered with?
OS - most languages have the ability to check the OS version?
Geo Location - granted - not sure if there is a way to avoid spoofing if relying on IP
IP/ISP/cloud hosting check - could we use WireGuard baked into the validator bootstrap so that during handshake we can validate that the client is really at a specific IP? Post registration I guess its not needed?
CPU likewise with the OS - should be able to detect ARM vs AMD vs Intel architectures?
For privacy could ZKP be used so that the handshake info can be kept private?
Blockprint uses finger printing to estimate consensus layer clients:
Check out research kickoff on voluntarily providing some data on the execution layer:
I assume so. Especially if you were to attach a penalty, then there would be an incentive to spoof any feature.
Unfortunately this idea is dead in the water.