undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAgentME5y ago0 comments

I think it's an important detail to point out that legitimate transactions mostly aren't vulnerable to the "Dark Forest" issue. A lot of comments I'd seen on the original "Ethereum is a Dark Forest" blog post seemed to be under the impression that this was a general Ethereum issue affecting normal users.

0 comments

3np5y ago

Arbitrage trades and related activities like MakerDAO keepers would be legitimate transactions vulnerable to this (essentially someone else extracting the value from their discovery). Granted that is a very small subset of users.

nonsens35y ago

Liquidation contracts and Arbitrage contracts do check the caller and would not allow to be executed by non-approved senders. This raises the bar, so that you can front run only contracts that you can implement and deploy.

If anyone could just replace an address and execute a profitable transaction by being first on existing contracts, surely miners would be doing it already, no?

3np5y ago

> If anyone could just replace an address and execute a profitable transaction by being first on existing contracts, surely miners would be doing it already, no?

To a large degree not yet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsAgentME5y ago0 comments

0 comments

3np5y ago

nonsens35y ago

If anyone could just replace an address and execute a profitable transaction by being first on existing contracts, surely miners would be doing it already, no?

3np5y ago

> If anyone could just replace an address and execute a profitable transaction by being first on existing contracts, surely miners would be doing it already, no?

To a large degree not yet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse