4 ms·

> The damage is done. The contract is not immutable. It never was immutable, and generally, that's fine - contract upgrades by DAO vote are pretty normal and h

by lima 4y ago

> The damage is done. The contract is not immutable. It never was immutable, and generally, that's fine - contract upgrades by DAO vote are pretty normal and hard to avoid for complex projects. On Ethereum, you need a proxy contract to implement it, on Solana, there's a native loader that can set an upgrade authority and which works similarly. Either way, working as advertised. What appears to be utterly broken is Solend's DAO governance process, which apparently allows a single whale account to approve changes. There is nothing decentralized about that! > Squirting UDP packets until you see your tx pop up in a block turned out to be a risky design choice. Yes, but how is that related to Solend's (!= Solana) governance? (Solana is fixing this by moving the transaction ingress stage to QUIC with proper flow control - it won't be throttling by stake, but have guaranteed minimum allocations for staked nodes)

YPCrumble 4y ago
I’m not very well versed in crypto so I apologize if this is off-base. Are you saying that “working as advertised” means that a crypto blockchain is adjustable by a centralized authority?
- wilonth 4y ago
  Solana programs have a "final" flag that could be turned on to make it immutable. This project doesn't have it turned on so it's open to update.
  - weego 4y ago
    In short, yes.
    - lima 4y ago
      Actually... no. Solana has no central authorities. Solend is an individual application running on Solana.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  The blockchain itself remained append only. No authority went in and rewrote history. A contract running on top of the blockchain was updated in accordance with its own predefined governance rules. This is an advertised feature of the blockchain. Those governance rules the contract chose were arguably too loose.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Are you saying that “working as advertised” means that a crypto blockchain is adjustable by a centralized authority? It's changeable by anyone/group that has 1% of the votes. Calling that "centralized" seems like a reach.
vgatherps 4y ago
One of the justifications for the original proposal was that liquidators might take solana down by spamming TX. The solana transaction model relies if users to blast udp packet more/less, and so a spammer will just blast packets at line rate to validators since there’s no cost to do so. Imo this event is comparable upside to many of the previously spammed events (idos, nft mints) so if solana still can’t handle this liquidation that’s really unfortunate. What’s shocking about he vote is there are many in between a - they could have voted to give an otc desk special permissions to liquidate first for example (and maybe that’s what they meant)? It doesn’t liquidate the whale early and it doesn’t give their team ability to take over an account, and it solves the solana spam problem.
- lima 4y ago
  Or they could've asked an OTC desk or market maker to provide sufficient liquidity... "We might break Solana" sounds like a bad excuse, plenty of options to mitigate that. Might not even be a concern anymore.

by lima 4y ago

YPCrumble 4y ago

I’m not very well versed in crypto so I apologize if this is off-base. Are you saying that “working as advertised” means that a crypto blockchain is adjustable by a centralized authority?

wilonth 4y ago
Solana programs have a "final" flag that could be turned on to make it immutable. This project doesn't have it turned on so it's open to update.
- weego 4y ago
  In short, yes.
  - lima 4y ago
    Actually... no. Solana has no central authorities. Solend is an individual application running on Solana.
im3w1l 4y ago
The blockchain itself remained append only. No authority went in and rewrote history. A contract running on top of the blockchain was updated in accordance with its own predefined governance rules. This is an advertised feature of the blockchain. Those governance rules the contract chose were arguably too loose.
gruez 4y ago
>Are you saying that “working as advertised” means that a crypto blockchain is adjustable by a centralized authority? It's changeable by anyone/group that has 1% of the votes. Calling that "centralized" seems like a reach.

vgatherps 4y ago

One of the justifications for the original proposal was that liquidators might take solana down by spamming TX. The solana transaction model relies if users to blast udp packet more/less, and so a spammer will just blast packets at line rate to validators since there’s no cost to do so. Imo this event is comparable upside to many of the previously spammed events (idos, nft mints) so if solana still can’t handle this liquidation that’s really unfortunate. What’s shocking about he vote is there are many in between a - they could have voted to give an otc desk special permissions to liquidate first for example (and maybe that’s what they meant)? It doesn’t liquidate the whale early and it doesn’t give their team ability to take over an account, and it solves the solana spam problem.

lima 4y ago
Or they could've asked an OTC desk or market maker to provide sufficient liquidity... "We might break Solana" sounds like a bad excuse, plenty of options to mitigate that. Might not even be a concern anymore.