@gunray there is no test atm.
Any ip sends you the right message, you add it to your local “nodes” files, and it’s your personal view of the queue. This is currently clearly being abused.
Idea here is not to define what precise test to do or how to react - yet - but in a first step to tell whether this behaviour is ok or not.
To stick with simple core rules, like nyzo relies on for everything:
right now, the condition to be in queue and eligible for a join is very relaxed, and could be written as
“be able to send a tcp message from a given ipv4 address”
You don’t need a verifier running on that IP, you don’t need to have full control of that IP to do that.
proxies, VPN, webhosting… many services from third parties allow you to do that with tips you do not own.
This also allows some technical users to send messages from full class c - and more - IP networks, with no real verifier running, just fake messages sending.
If the proposal was to pass, then we could discuss ways to move to a slightly more restrictive basic rule, that could be written as
“be able to send a tcp message from a given ipv4 address and answer status messages”
This would imply no consensus change, every verifier still would have its own local “nodes” files, just the core rules to be added or removed from this file would be very slightly different.
So, current question is just “are we ok with current abuses of the relaxed join rule, or do we want to make it harder for mass fakers to join the network”.
There is no need to waste time on counter measures now if the cycle is fine with current working, why this NCFP.