5 ms·

Not the parent, but I think he was referring to https://electriccoin.co/blog/zcash-counterfeiting-vulnerability-successfully-remediated/ https://electriccoin.co

Not the parent, but I think he was referring to https://electriccoin.co/blog/zcash-counterfeiting-vulnerability-successfully-remediated/ https://electriccoin.co/blog/zcash-counterfeiting-vulnerabil...

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Yup that’s it.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Even stranger are comments made in this link: https://electriccoin.co/blog/defense-against-counterfeiting-in-shielded-pools/ https://electriccoin.co/blog/defense-against-counterfeiting-... Especially this part: >Upon detecting this condition, the Zcash Company would begin its investigation into the possible source of the vulnerability as well as which pool, or pools, are affected. If we are able to identify that the bug affects only a single shielded pool, we might choose to effectively deactivate that pool by invalidating any of its outgoing transactions. A necessary consequence of this action is that any legitimate funds would also be lost forever in the affected pool. The mechanisms for this remote disabling are not mentioned in detail, and I don’t really mind, but this feature seems difficult to square with their desire for transparency. It’s an anti-feature perhaps serving a justifiable goal, but if this feature is possible to be abused, how would we even know if it had been?
  - abecedarius 6y ago
    I'm not sure what they mean there, but I'd guess they mean a hard fork. As with the Ethereum post-DAO fork, you don't have to accept it, but to the extent it seems legitimate, most of the value would go along.
    - dlubarov 6y ago
      There's also this more recent post: https://electriccoin.co/blog/turnstile-enforcement-against-counterfeiting/ https://electriccoin.co/blog/turnstile-enforcement-against-c... It sounds like that plan has been codified in recent clients, so they should automatically reject transactions that would cause a pool's balance to go negative.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        Entirely reasonable mitigation. Thanks for the link.
im3w1l 6y ago
Ouch what a nightmare. At that point it seems like the best way may be to start over? Like have everyone who can prove they have old-money get new-money on a first-come-first serve basis. If too much money shows up you know you got owned. Otherwise you are fine. If too much money shows up years down the line, you just deny them new-money, which screws over people who bought-and-forgot but everyone else is ok.

SkyMarshal 6y ago

Yup that’s it.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Even stranger are comments made in this link: https://electriccoin.co/blog/defense-against-counterfeiting-in-shielded-pools/ https://electriccoin.co/blog/defense-against-counterfeiting-... Especially this part: >Upon detecting this condition, the Zcash Company would begin its investigation into the possible source of the vulnerability as well as which pool, or pools, are affected. If we are able to identify that the bug affects only a single shielded pool, we might choose to effectively deactivate that pool by invalidating any of its outgoing transactions. A necessary consequence of this action is that any legitimate funds would also be lost forever in the affected pool. The mechanisms for this remote disabling are not mentioned in detail, and I don’t really mind, but this feature seems difficult to square with their desire for transparency. It’s an anti-feature perhaps serving a justifiable goal, but if this feature is possible to be abused, how would we even know if it had been?
- abecedarius 6y ago
  I'm not sure what they mean there, but I'd guess they mean a hard fork. As with the Ethereum post-DAO fork, you don't have to accept it, but to the extent it seems legitimate, most of the value would go along.
  - dlubarov 6y ago
    There's also this more recent post: https://electriccoin.co/blog/turnstile-enforcement-against-counterfeiting/ https://electriccoin.co/blog/turnstile-enforcement-against-c... It sounds like that plan has been codified in recent clients, so they should automatically reject transactions that would cause a pool's balance to go negative.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Entirely reasonable mitigation. Thanks for the link.

im3w1l 6y ago

Ouch what a nightmare. At that point it seems like the best way may be to start over? Like have everyone who can prove they have old-money get new-money on a first-come-first serve basis. If too much money shows up you know you got owned. Otherwise you are fine. If too much money shows up years down the line, you just deny them new-money, which screws over people who bought-and-forgot but everyone else is ok.