Among existing members of the validator network, it's clear what motivates them to accept blocks by other validators: not accepting a verifiably valid block could result in slashing.

But what about when a new validator who doesn't yet have a connection to other validators? Why shouldn't the validators just refuse to share their list of known validators, preventing the new validator from fully joining the network and leaving more rewards for the existing validators? After all, there's no way to verify whether an existing validator was contacted by this new validator or not.

Maybe this is something I don't understand about how the block proposer is randomly selected. Is it possible for a new validator to be chosen as the block proposer even if they're not well-connected in the network, leaving those who don't accept it with a shorter chain?

1 Answer 1


I'm not very familiar with how the block producers and chosen and how connectivity helps. But here's an answer with a bit more generic approach.

Let's say there's just one node in the network, so obviously he gets all the rewards. Why should he accept another node?

The power of Ethereum is in its decentralization. The network is rather useless with just one node. The same logic applies to the millionth node: the network gains value by being more decentralized. Having one more node means it's less likely for the network to go down (or to have other similar issues), which means everyone wins - kinda. The downside of course is that everyone's reward ratio goes down slightly.

Technically speaking, even if everyone wanted to deny any new nodes, 99,99% of users would have no idea how to configure their client to do that. So it also helps that the nodes accept new nodes by default.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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