Age Manning

@nisdas @rolfyone @terencechain Hey guys, we're starting to have to make engineering decisions related to our DAS work. The current state of of the specs related to this topic is...

> Even if you decouple the rotation periods, you should still have peers equally distributed between all the network shards. You could have Peer X move from Att Subnet C...

> In PeerDAS, we can get good security properties directly from the column distribution, before even doing sampling, as long as the pieces of data that each node downloads are...

@fradamt @cskiraly From what I understand from your messages, I think there is a misunderstanding of what this PR does and how it works in practice. Perhaps it might be...

@cskiraly > The part where I'm confused is why you would not keep a reasonably large set of node-ids and ENRs. Your Discv5 buckets already have a large number of...

I've modified this PR to decouple the rotation periods. Because we are decoupling the rotation periods, the concept of a "shard" becomes more ambiguous (due to different topics rotating differently,...

I've spoken with @fradamt out of this channel. To summarise our conversation: The problem @fradamt is raising is that this PR is essentially bucketing all node-ids into 64 buckets (what...

Tagging people who were interested in the original modification: @djrtwo @nisdas @mcdee @ppopth @Nashatyrev

> I'm not sure this is a show-stopper but does this make it much easier to grind node-id's to take over a particular subnet(s)? Might need to clarify a bit...

> > I currently don't see an issue in partial upgrades as long as client teams dont downscore nodes yet. > > @AgeManning I'm less worried about peer-scoring and more...