![Why Ethereum [ETH] address outflows may be headed for DeFi](https://cryptonoiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/AMBCrypto_An_image_of_a_stylized_Ethereum_logo_with_arrows_poin_22f2aeff-c7bb-4c7d-aec7-547a37a35e82-1-1000x600-360x180.jpg){kind=logo}
F2Pool co-founder Chun Wang has responded to allegations that his mining pool has been manipulating Ethereum block timestamps to “get hold of constantly greater mining rewards.”
The allegations got here from an Aug. 5 paper from researchers at The Hebrew College, claiming the mining pool has been participating in a “consensus-level” assault on Ethereum during the last two years to achieve an edge over “sincere” miners.
Nonetheless, Wang on Twitter responded by saying that “we respect the *consensus* as is”, implying that deliberately exploiting the system’s guidelines doesn’t essentially imply that guidelines have been damaged.
We respect the *consensus* as is. If you happen to don’t just like the consensus, persuade @TimBeiko to ship me one other Announcement and alter it. https://t.co/Lmw2INzOzg
— Chun at 78°N (@satofishi) August 8, 2022
Earlier this week, the researchers shared what they declare has been the primary proof of a “consensus-level assault” on Ethereum, through which miners resembling F2Pool have discovered a option to manipulate block timestamps to constantly get greater mining rewards in comparison with mining “actually.”
The analysis paper was penned by cryptocurrency lecturer Aviv Yaish, software program algorithm developer Gilad Stern, and pc scientist Aviv Zohar, alleging that Ethereum mining pool F2Pool has been one of many miners which were utilizing this timestamp manipulation technique.
“Though most mining swimming pools produce comparatively inconspicuous-looking blocks, F2Pool blatantly disregards the principles and makes use of false timestamps for its blocks,” mentioned Yaish, including that the mining pool has been executing the assault during the last two years.
Wang additionally appeared to come clean with proof offered by Yaish, suggesting that the timestamp manipulation was being completed deliberately.
I can’t cease recognize this elegant implementation of what we’ve completed over the previous two years.
I killed $TRC Terracoin as early as 2013 utilizing the same timestamp manipulation method by decrease the issue to nearly zero. A sturdy system should stand up to all form of exams. https://t.co/z8pLdLtAU0
— Chun at 78°N (@satofishi) August 8, 2022
F2Pool is a geographically distributed mining pool, which principally mines blocks on the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin networks.
How the ‘assault’ works
In accordance with the researchers, Ethereum’s present proof-of-work (POW) consensus legal guidelines embody a vulnerability that provides miners a “sure diploma of freedom” when setting timestamps, which signifies that false timestamps could be created.
“For instance, a miner can begin mining a block now, however set the block’s timestamp to truly be 5 seconds prior to now, or 10 seconds sooner or later. So long as this timestamp is inside a sure affordable sure, the block will nonetheless be thought-about legitimate, in accordance with Ethereum’s consensus legal guidelines.”
The power to create these false timestamps provides these miners an edge in a “tie-breaking” situation as a miner can substitute one other miner’s blocks of the identical block top by making the timestamp low sufficient to extend the block’s mining problem.
Associated: Ethereum Merge: How will the PoS transition influence the ETH ecosystem?
Nonetheless, the researchers additionally famous that the vulnerability could also be solved after Ethereum transitions to proof-of-stake (POS) after the upcoming Merge on Sept. 19, which makes use of a special set of consensus guidelines.
“An apparent mitigation method which can resolve each this assault and another PoW-related one, is emigrate Ethereum’s consensus mechanism to proof-of-stake (PoS).”
“Different options which could be smaller in scope and thus simpler to implement are to undertake higher fork-choosing guidelines, use dependable timestamps, or keep away from utilizing timestamps for problem changes altogether,” the researchers added.
