Is the two thirds of hive that resides on the exchanges an attack vector?
How much of that 2/3 is from the ninjamine and who does it belong to?
We should be able to trace all transfers to exchanges by account, yes?
These questions are the only remaining sword of Damocles that I see.
If half of that hive powered up tomorrow all hell would break loose, eh?
The piano hanging above Hive in the form of exchange custody tokens can't snap and instantly fall. It's more like a grandfather clock weight, because now there's a 30 day period during which any potential stake-based attack can be calmly evaluated and mitigated.
I'm still not comfortable with the potential economic fallout that exchanges risk by not bothering to use cold accounts (Binance, Bittrex, and more). And to be clear, their cavalier and lazy token handling isn't a big risk to them, but it's a risk to Hive and those who own the tokens. I don't like how that risk is externalized to us and we haven't done more to strongly remind them of better security practices.
I'll be sooo glad when our dex's replace the cex's.
I've been using blocktrades for anything hive related and stealthex for other coins.
If one of those exchanges was 'hacked', a soft fork could mitigate this?
I'm betting a 'not your keys, not your coins' day would burst some cex bubbles.
What happened to those, anyway?
I'm most worried about a bot army coming out of nowhere and running amok.
Or, being here already and getting large enough to eat the rest of us.
I'm guessing code is available that can exclude any accounts involved in such an attack once implemented by a soft fork?
Is anybody watching?
The 90-day lock-up is the kryptonite to exchanges. It just isn't feasible for them to try and attack the network. They could not afford a bank run, have to disable trading, and all negative press would bring them to their knees. Lucky for us, we have seen this in practice, and I believe CZ couldn't say "I'm so sorry" enough. I doubt we'll see it again; if we do, we have a 1month lock up and can freeze their funds. Check mate there unless they moved funds to many anon accounts, slowly powered up without anyone noticing, but now we are getting into sci-fi lvl reality.
I'm not so worried about the exchanges willingly putting a noose on their necks, again, they lost that battle in the press.
I'm worried about 'ned', or anybody else with a grudge, still holding 'free' coins.
Even with a 30 day grace period, if a substantial amount of that hive is held by somebody that doesn't have the success of the hive in mind they could upset the apple cart pretty easily.
They can 'legitimately' cause havoc just voting that much hive power in the pool.
Presuming it is held in few enough hands.
It's not a pressing issue, but something to bear in mind in the contingency planning.
Presuming they came in low profile over an extended period, or spread it out enough to avoid suspicion, by voting that hive in concert they can run amok until the soft fork is put into place by the witnesses.
I don't think they would win, but they could excite us nonetheless.
Might even turn out to be a good thing.
I guess my question is about the readiness of a soft fork to quell this type of attack once recognized.
And, is somebody watching for this to be done quietly before coming out into the open as blatantly obvious?
Telling people what they're allowed to do with their own tokens is anathema.
Coercing people who spend in ways that you personally disagree with is DEMONSTRABLY WORSE than the current PAPER FIAT system.
We should be working to IMPROVE protections for personal sovereignty, not looking for ways to CONFISCATE value from people we disagree with.
I would agree with you if we weren't still in the bootstrapping stage.
Anybody dumping everything now is counterproductive to getting bootstrapped.
It's no more wrong to flag away rewards than it is to give them in the first place, when you give them they have come from the same place that flags send them back to.
Games have rules, without rules there is no game.
If we change the rules to fit our purposes, what was the point of the game?
Playing a different set of rules changes this game fundamentally.
Anybody not liking the rules can divest, if they so choose.
Flags confiscate nothing.
Nothing is your's until it is in your wallet.
Harsh, yes, but succeeding in a tough game deserves more accolades than just showing up.
Imo.
ME: GIANT WHALE UPVOTING MYSELF TO EARN DIVIDEND
YOU: GIANT DAILY DOWNVOTE
ME: GIANT WHALE FOLLOWS YOUR CURATION TRAIL TO EARN DIVIDEND
HOW IS THIS NOT NAKED COERCION ?
Upvoting yourself is a hive faux pas.
This game has rules, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in playing it.
One rule is that we have to flag abuse, or get sucked dry by low effort posting.
If you are not doing that, you are playing the game in contradiction to its rules.
I guess I'm not following your example.
Please clarify.
every single time i've asked the vigilantes what "the rules" are, i've been told "there are no rules", "anybody can downvote anybody else for any reason".
how is anyone supposed to know "don't self-vote" ?
that seems like a simple code fix.
the "rules" should be in code.
Not selfvoting is a small sacrifice the community asks you to have the self discipline to make.
In return you can blog for money.
You can comment for money.
If you are that selfish that you can't make yourself stop taking from us and giving to yourself, we probably don't want you here anyway.
If everybody self voted the platform will fail.
Nobody wants to play that game.
I prefer that people self control rather than be controlled, eh?
Without knowing wrong, there is no right, irrespective of any labels.
Without the option to offend, not offending loses its moral victory.
this sounds like a systemic design failure.
not an individual moral failure.
it's bad game design.