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
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I think we have rate limits in the snap design.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Per user, per hub. Not sure if the cover an attacher with 100k fids and 100 or more hubs. But there's nothing stoping us adding rate limits to this design too. Hubs may reject any block that do not fall within these limits.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
