Should we have entropy at Raintree level?

[deblasis]

Tending to the TODOes:

./p2p/types/raintree.pb.go:	Nonce uint64 `protobuf:"varint,3,opt,name=nonce,proto3" json:"nonce,omitempty"` // DISCUSS(drewsky): discuss if we should have entropy at the RainTree level.
./p2p/raintree/types/proto/raintree.proto:  // DISCUSS(drewsky): discuss if we should have entropy at the RainTree level.

[Olshansk]

Some context for this discussion:

• Nonces will be added into the messages constructed by modules such as consensus or utility
• Additional entropy can be added exclusively at the P2P/RainTree level

Pros:

• Extra deduping at the P2P level if a malicious/faulty node rebroadcasts (e.g. DOSses) the network at the network layer

Cons:

• Malicious node can reconstruct a P2P message (with the same underlying message) and a different entropy so it is processed by the network

Goal

• This is an extra, but not complete, layer of deduiping.

The decision to this discussion can be started here but moved to the M4 milestone,

[bryanchriswhite]

backlinking related issue:

• [TECHDEBT] [P2P] Should we have entropy at Raintree level? #280