SYBILing nodes! 😱 Exploiting IC Network... Community Attention Required!

[Lorimer]

@marcio

IMO, implementing node shuffling and requiring nodes to stake ICP would likely be needed to mitigate this issue.

Node shuffling for sure. I think there are positives and negatives to requiring all NPs to have a large ICP stake. It would significantly limit the rate and amount of nodes that can be onboarded.

However, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be fantastic to have staked NPs as an option. A portion of all NPs in each subnet could be required to have a large stake (which could be a factor in boosting their rewards). I suggested this a little while ago, back when this type of conversation was getting little traction.

Subnet Management - General Discussion

Proof-of-stake, and decentralised systems in general, aren’t about guaranteeing the behaviour of individual entities. I agree that the barriers to entry shouldn’t be too high for NPs (or it would hurt scalability). But scalability shouldn’t be prioritised over robustness. I think you could have both by having two tiers of NPs. As longs as more than 1/3 of the nodes in a subnet are backed by a large proof-of-stake, then you have a significantly more robust subnet than one where the nodes are no…

There could even be dedicated subnets that require all nodes to belong to staked NPs. @EnzoPlayer0ne mentioned something like this the other day →

Drain the Swamp

I agree. We should have more dapp specific subnets, where the rules for validators are slightly different. I would love a subnet with 50+ machines where you need to stake in order to participate.