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.
Owen Ross
at the very least, this was an expensive attack to enact because the attackers didn't actually make off with anything. The article saying ETH were "lost" makes it sound like they were stolen, but nothing was actually stolen and the attacker probably paid a good amount of LINK in the whole process
Luke Morgan
Yeah every attack against the network just gives Ari juels et al a chance to masturbate and sell something else to sergey
Nathaniel Peterson
Maybe Serg hired a pentesting team
Jace Campbell
the thing about this is that there wasn't even any possible financial gain from this attack. there was not a vector to steal anyhting from by succeeding.
It was purely done to try make Link network fail for a little while. that was the only possible end goal. doing that wouldn't have made them money directly unless they were either short on LINK or they found an exploit in a DeFI App using Link. However, that second scenario is very sketchy at best
Liam King
tinfoil hat, maybe it was Band or some other competitor
Luke Johnson
one 500k dump well spent
Ryan Hall
This doesnt marry up with the article headline?
William Martinez
it was either band or zeus capital
David Bell
My bet is on chinese centralized exchanges
Christopher Walker
>twitter.com
This is an ETH scalability failure, these gas fees are outrageous.
Hunter Bell
fpbp, but are you serious?
Jason Roberts
How did they get half of a two man team to fly like that?
Matthew Taylor
That's a good theory. I guess they could've been short on LINK, but because this massive dump has been pretty much market-wide, it's hard to tell if the attack actually did anything. Given that it happened on Sunday the 30th and there wasn't any significant price movement until the entire market dumped, I'd say making this type of attack while going short on LINK would not generally be profitable. It looks like the market didn't react at all to it and the network didn't even fail as far as I (or any investor probably) would know.
And again, I'd be curious to know the cost of the attack in LINK fees paid by the attacker. Probably pretty substantial
I agree that if this was an expensive attack with no direct financial gain, it's reasonable to suspect that it was carried out by a competitor hoping to freak out potential Chainlink customers or nodes so they consider using Band network or at least diversifying to include Band services. Even more tinfoil hat is that this could've been whales attempting to push LINK off the precipice in order to collect more
Seriously, look in fucking etherscan. The payments are broken up into tiny amounts and each sent to unique aggregators. None end up at exchanges. Tired of writing this out
Isaac Reyes
it was a joke fren
Brody Cooper
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH STAINSTINKERS BTFO
Asher Harris
Wow dude holy shit what is that???
< $500,000 lost in ETH to a multi billion dollar protocol?
Damn that’s crazy
Juan Jones
If they managed to cause financial damage, didn't it succeed?
Gabriel Cox
cost of doing business
Eli Thompson
>DUDE PEOPLE WILL USE STAINSTINK CAUSE IT REDUCES COSTS
>DUDE HALF A MILLION IS LIKE LITERALLY NOTHING, RELAX
THE COPE IS REAL
Parker Edwards
You realize the nodes lost the ETH, not the users of the network?
It’s literally mitigated risk for an end user as the network itself takes the brunt of the financial risk
You’re actually autistic, huh?
Andrew Carter
Gabriel Myers
user tagged last provided what you need if you really are stupid and not a fudder
Isaiah Richardson
I got hard midway through reading the third paragraph