1

A big drawback with connecting to a remote node is adding a central point of failure by trusting that node. Being able to connect to multiple remote nodes would reduce this significantly - is this possible?

1

No, connecting to multiple remote nodes would increase your risk as you are then having to trust more remote nodes.

Remote nodes are not a centralization risk in any case (you can use any remote node that is open and you can always use your own node). Using a remote node, your risk is hoping they are not a bad actor (e.g. they could be logging your usage/IP, not on the correct chain, not broadcasting your transactions). If these risks are unacceptable for you, run your own node, local or remote.

  • If you are checking the most recent blocks from multiple nodes instead of just one wouldn’t that be less trust? Just connecting and trusting one seems riskier – Electric_Sheep01 Jun 12 at 14:22
  • No, because you are only seemingly solving one issue whilst at the same time increasing risk with other issues. If you want to reduce risk, use your own node (local or remote). Bottom line, public remote nodes are just a convenience, they are not risk free. – jtgrassie Jun 12 at 16:01
  • Yeh I get the trade offs of using a remote node. But why would checking say 10 nodes on the block state before broadcasting my tx over 1 be less risky? – Electric_Sheep01 Jun 14 at 1:42
  • You want to divulge your IP address to 1 public node or 10?? – jtgrassie Jun 14 at 3:55
  • IP is less of a concern than getting fed incorrect blocks, could connect to 10 Tor nodes to get around that also. – Electric_Sheep01 Jun 15 at 1:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.