Skip to content

Trusted light clients system #2223

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
3 tasks
tomaka opened this issue Apr 8, 2022 · 2 comments
Open
3 tasks

Trusted light clients system #2223

tomaka opened this issue Apr 8, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@tomaka
Copy link
Contributor

tomaka commented Apr 8, 2022

In order to solve paritytech/substrate-connect#882, I think we should add a "trusted light client" system.

In details:

  • When a connection is opened, the connection_opened callback gets an additional parameter "trusted: bool". "Trusted" means "we assume that the node isn't going to eclipse attack us". This should only ever be done for /memory nodes, but in principle it can be done for anything.
  • When smoldot wants to send a request, it prioritizes full nodes. But if it's not connected to any full node, it will then send the request to a trusted light client.
  • Smoldot only answers blocks and storage requests from trusted nodes.

This makes it possible to have a local peer-to-peer network of light clients that all share a single connection to a full node. The light clients that don't have the full node connection instead send requests to their trusted light client peers.

@tomaka
Copy link
Contributor Author

tomaka commented Apr 8, 2022

Note that this is not a full solution. There's the problem of being able to track who you've made a request against in order to ban them and/or be sure the further requests aren't made towards the same target.

@tomaka
Copy link
Contributor Author

tomaka commented Nov 22, 2022

Note that this is not a full solution. There's the problem of being able to track who you've made a request against in order to ban them and/or be sure the further requests aren't made towards the same target.

This is kind of a blocker. There's no real point in doing the above without finding a solution to this first.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant