Node age and relocation

[dirvine]

@neo

young nodes prob don’t hold as much data so quicker to relocate. Especially if younger nodes have their max storage at some fraction of more mature nodes.

This is part of the issue. Relocation for a young node is cheap for the node, too, with not too much to lose. So it’s still easy for the attacker to add young nodes until they get to the section they want.

@TylerAbeoJordan

If a simple fee is required to join that doesn’t seem too onerous - even poor people can afford a small fee if they can afford the hardware to be a node.

This is also the problem. For the fee to be enough to put an attacker off then it’s almost certain to be enough to put off the poorest from joining. Plus the fee has a circle jerk type approach. Poor may farm to get initial cash, but they cannot if they need initial cash to join.

@TylerAbeoJordan

I’m curious how new nodes “find” a section? Is it random in terms of time when applying to join?

They just join and see where they land. If it’s not where they want and if joining is cheap for them then they restart and do it again.

@Southside

Could we build a functional client that does NOT accept RUST_LOG=trace

is answered perfectly well here

@tfa

It would be trivial to fork the code and reinstate tracing of current section.

Thanks @tfa

I think you can see now why node age and relocations are a powerful mechanism. Good to see it for what it is, but yes, relocations are a PITA for sure and having an integer value for age is also a pain.

I think this is a worthwhile investigation, though, for sure. If nothing is will cement the power of node age and it’s a loose relationship with a staking-type protection. Still, it feels too complex and I feel there is a clever simpler move here. We will see, though, but it never costs us to think about it deeply. There is a lot at stake here.