Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lefteris Karapetsas
@lefteris.eth
😬 If client diversity is so important for ethereum can we get more accurate monitoring tools that are not based on self-reporting and provide confidence on the displayed stats?
7 replies
14 recasts
118 reactions
Izzy 🎩
@izzyp
There's a bunch of different efforts in this direction, but ultimately it's actually a very hard (technical) problem. There's no way to get confidence on the data unless you have control over operator systems (and no one wants that) or you're running everything in a TEE (won't happen from technical+speed perspective).
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Lefteris Karapetsas
@lefteris.eth
I know it's a hard technical problem but it needs to be addressed. We can't fly blind as a community. Also the systems monitoring diversity should be air-tight. Not like this one here where it does not even add properly up to 100%. Gives zero confidence on correctness.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Izzy 🎩
@izzyp
There's a lot of nuance here that you're sidestepping. Data doesn't end up to 100% for a variety of logical reasons, here's one example: a validator client can be connected to multiple EL nodes at the same time (via various manners). What's the correct way to report this?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lefteris Karapetsas
@lefteris.eth
just report the primary not secondary EL. The point of these statistics are to guide people to decide which EL/CL to run. Which means you only care about the primary EL, as in the armageddon case this is what would affect how the network behaves
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
