Fix peer scoring comment

This commit is contained in:
alrevuelta 2022-11-30 16:38:44 +01:00
parent 6869026ac1
commit 61eb753f6c
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: F345C9F3CCDB886E
1 changed files with 3 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@ -130,9 +130,11 @@ Peer-to-peer networks are made of multiple nodes or peers, typically in the rang
* How do we keep quality peers while being forgiving with nodes with fewer resources or that are syncing?
* Can we handle our peers in a way that prevents eclipse attacks?
* Can we give each peer a score and select the best one based on it?
* Which parameters should be considered in the score?
* What kind of behavior should we consider as bad?
* Can we integrate Waku-specific features into the score and/or the bad-behavior metric?
This not only involves an efficient peer discovery strategy, which gives us a pool of peers to select from, but also strategies to select the ones we are interested in and drop connections with the ones we are not. Protocols like GossipSub have their [score](https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub/gossipsub-v1.1.md#the-score-function)](https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub/gossipsub-v1.1.md#the-score-function) and it's something that can be used as a baseline, but unfortunately does not take into account Waku specifics.
This not only involves an efficient peer discovery strategy, which gives us a pool of peers to select from, but also strategies to select the ones we are interested in and drop connections with the ones we are not. Protocols like GossipSub have their [score](https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub/gossipsub-v1.1.md#the-score-function) and it's something that can be used as a baseline, but unfortunately does not take into account Waku specifics.
# Further Research Collaboration Opportunities