Throughout our research, we will need to discuss questions on the sample size required to make statistically significant observations on the Ethereum validator set. These questions will be essential to all of our proposed methods and solutions. Namely,
We answer the first question below, which will provide the required insights to answer the second question for each proposed solution.
Let $c_1, c_2, \dots c_m$ represent different Ethereum client implementations (we analyze the consensus and execution cases separately). For each client $c_i$, there is a proportion $0 \leq p_i \leq 1$ of the entire validator set $\mathcal{V}$ running the client $c_i$.
<aside> ℹ️ Remark: due to architectures such as multiplexers and DVT, it is not true that $\sum{p_i} = 1$. Instead, we have $\sum{p_i} > 1$. This does not affect the analysis, as will be seen below.
</aside>
Goal: Determine a sample size $n\ll N$ that can be used to estimate the true proportions $p_i$ with statistical significance.
The general procedure to follow is outlined below:
<aside> ℹ️ Note: the binomial distribution model is commonplace for statistical estimations of proportions, and is regularly used in various types of experiments, including surveys and clinical trials. (See, e.g., Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. [2013]. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.)
The only additional assumption made here is a steady-state one: we assume that variability in the client diversity distribution is negligible over the period where the samples are collected. This requires the period to be reasonably short (e.g. days as opposed to months)—an assumption that we will check for consistency in each of our methods.
</aside>
For the approximations below, we define the following variables: