Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Another day, another block ordering proposal. If you're into these things, check out my alternative proposal on the Ordering FIP. I think I'm aware of all the benefits that come with it, you can help by pointing out flaws and inefficiencies :-) https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/193#discussioncomment-10722075
2 replies
4 recasts
11 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I have 100,000 accounts under my control. I publish new messages privately to my block to make it win. I also control 101 miners. I now rotate programmatically between the miners with my bot accounts (so to maximize my block score). Now legitimate casts are stuck waiting?
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
I think so. However - Flooding the network with messages has similar effects in any model. For example, snaps will have a size limit, which means the attacker could create a situation that messages are competing for snap space. - It seems that what you describe has a measurable cost, i.e. security budget. It's easy to increase this cost (for example staking?), in which case that question is how much is it worth to attack Farcaster, and for how long?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
BTW, the "100 blocks" parameter was picked randomly to make it easy to talk about percentages. It could be 1000 blocks, in which case the cost is 10x. Or it could be adjusted by the protocol itself (like block halving), but I have not thought about it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
For example, if 100 consequent blocks are produced by 100 different miners, the protocol could double the limit to 200 blocks, and so on. And lower it to 10 if you only have 2 miners generating blocks, etc. In which case, the attacker will have to keep adding miners at an exponential rate.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
