STINKY LINKIES BTFOD BY THE BLOCK
Absolutely bodied faggots
twitter.com
OHNONONONONONONO
Colton Brown
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
twitter.com
Josiah Rogers
HOLY SHIT A STEVE ELLIS JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE
Ethan Lopez
Fucking rekt kek
Benjamin Harris
seek help op
Leo Moore
The attack failed. Quite bullish actually
Luke Thompson
Jacob Perry
One source with knowledge of the matter told The Block that an attacker began sending valid price feed requests, which resulted in operators having to pay a lot of gas fees, or Ethereum transaction fees.
and
There was a "brief spam attempt on Sunday" that lasted for "approximately two hours," a Chainlink spokesperson told The Block. "While this spam attempt did require Chainlink nodes to spend additional ETH, this need was quickly removed when the network properly addressed the spam."
Angel Gutierrez
Oh boy that's awful! I guess Sergey will have to withdraw 514,000 link instead of 500,000 this week.
Nathan Wood
Can't read ngmi
Samuel Walker
Correct. The attacker did not find or exploit any weaknesses in the Chainlink network itself. In fact saying that the ETH were "lost' makes the article sound like it was written from an incredible bias against Chainlink. The "lost" ETH were actually the nodes just paying the unnaturally high Ethereum network gas fees because the attacker spammed them with queries for price feeds. The attack was dealt with within 2 hours which I assume means they were ignored by the nodes.
What the article doesn't mention is how much LINK the querying attack cost the attacker and how much the nodes made on that front. I bet it was still a net loss, but I would not be surprised if this makes Chainlink implement some further security measures or at least reconsider their tokenomics. They could have nodes price their services based on an assumed maximum ETH gas cost to guarantee profitability over time--- if a customer queries them during times of high gas fees or pushes the nodes over some per-customer threshold of gas expenditure, the customer could be required to provide extra LINK payment to cover current ETH gas costs. The point of gas to begin with was to be a stand-in for "block size," guaranteeing you would have manageable-sized blocks and that attackers couldn't spam the network because it would simply cost too much to do so. By having LINK nodes at least partially shift the ETH gas cost to the data requester, you could make a spamming attack prohibitively expensive.