|
|
|
|
|
|
by tuxxy
2098 days ago
|
|
|
> about a coordinated effort to mint & publish some blocks without front-runners stealing all the work & claiming a big contract for themselves. Wow, I have no idea how you read that really awesome article and concluded with such a response as this. The article demonstrates how the authors were able to collaborate with miners to safely secure $9M worth of tokens due to a security vulnerability in a smart contract on a public blockchain where anyone could figure out the vulnerability and execute it before they could secure the funds. Being upset that a miner is able to pick transactions that they want to include in their block demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge in how these distributed databases (blockchains) work and any critique similar to this can be disregarded. |
|
|
I think me & the author both identified exactly how dangerous it is that large powerful forces in these pools can pick & choose which transactions they want to win.
The author had to go peer with others to make their own large coordinated/centralized pool to try to make sure they had some chance of winning.
Agreed that this was a public contract, & they managed to save the bacon via this coordination. But it's amazing how user-hostile it is trying to get anything done in these distributed environments. The power is enormously shifted to the hands of the large players. In many ways, a centrally managed but observable is a higher trust, higher security, more user-supporting system than these distributed systems.