Shuffling node memberships of subnets: an exploratory conversation

[Lorimer]

@timo

Node shuffling per se (vs not shuffling) increases the probability that the subnet is compromised at some point in time

I’m not convinced this is true. Would you mind have a look at this post @timo →

Drain the Swamp

Indeed, and additonally the size of each subnet does not change in terms of nodes. Despite what some have claimed, anyone is allowed to raise a Subnet Membership proposals. Nodes go offline or degraded all the time within subnets and need replacing. A bad actor in the future could respond proactively to these incidents and progressively move more and more of their nodes (belonging to apparently separate NPs) into a specific subnet they’d like to attack. Yeah, I think the community should try t…

The attack vector described there would be a lot harder to action under a periodic node shuffling regime. I might have a quick stab at writing a simulation that demonstrates this.