Report Highlights Potential Risks in Ethereum’s Backend Infrastructure
A recent report by The Liquid Collective and Obol highlights potential correlation risks in Ethereum’s backend infrastructure that could pose significant problems for the upcoming upgrade, Pecta. The report emphasizes the need for improved cloud, operator, and client diversity to maintain stability in the network.
One of the risks discussed in the report is Ethereum’s correlated slashing model, which disincentivizes bad validator behavior. However, if a single operator controls multiple nodes in the network, this model can become ineffective and dangerous. The report suggests that nodes deployed by the same operator are likely to have similar staking practices, increasing the risk of widespread slashing events.
In addition to correlated slashing risks, the report identifies other factors that could impact Ethereum’s stability. For instance, the heavy reliance on the Geth client, used by 84% of the network, poses a significant vulnerability. If Geth were to crash or have a bug, the consequences could be severe. Diversifying client usage could mitigate this risk.
The concentration of Ethereum’s validator set in Western Europe and the continental United States also presents a potential problem. Regional AWS outages or policies could affect large portions of the validator set, highlighting the need for greater geographical distribution.
The report also raises concerns about the limited adoption of Distributed Validator Technology (DVT), which enhances validator security by spreading key management and signing responsibilities across multiple parties. By reducing single points of failure, DVT can increase validator resilience.
Furthermore, the report discusses the need for Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) to refine language around correlation penalties and mitigate risks further.
In addition to the backend infrastructure risks, criticisms have been raised regarding Ethereum’s programming language, Solidity. Founder of Sui, Evan Cheng, questions Solidity’s security from his background perspective. He believes that Solidity’s ability to allow dynamic behavior makes it fundamentally broken and unsafe. He attributes certain vulnerabilities, such as reentrancy, to the language and predicts that these hacks will continue to occur due to Solidity’s dominance as the main smart contract language.
To secure Ethereum’s future and resilience against potential threats, the report and critics suggest addressing the correlation risks by diversifying cloud, operator, and client usage. Continuously refining security protocols and considering innovative solutions like DVT are also recommended.
Overall, it is crucial for Ethereum to address these concerns and vulnerabilities to ensure stability and security as it moves forward.