3 ms·

I guess someone finally found a real world use for blockchain. Too bad it was malware.

by josteink 3y ago

yardstick 3y ago
Ironic that even this blockchain still had some centralised aspects: “In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, the BNB Smart Chain (BSC) said its team is aware of the malware abusing its blockchain, and is actively addressing the issue. The company said all addresses associated with the spread of the malware have been blacklisted, and that its technicians had developed a model to detect future smart contracts that use similar methods to host malicious scripts.” I thought one of the big drivers for people using blockchain is the decentralised nature- resistance to censorship etc. Seems like this one isn’t a great long-term choice for malware as it’s not censorship resistant (as evidenced by the blacklist).
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I think this is like a block explorer type url. They can refuse requests to view those blocks. I don't think they can stop the creation of those blocks. The malware guys can probably still find another 3rd party block viewer . But it is hassle for them.
- Arch485 3y ago
  IIRC blacklisting in this manner is basically just a suggestion - it's saying, "hey, in the opinion of Binance, these adresses are bad. Don't do business with them". If the majority of nodes in the network comply with the blacklist, then it works. But at any point, someone who runs a node (or nodes) can choose to ignore the blacklist. It's only centralized if the majority of people running BNB Smart Chain decide to trust Binance.
  - jowea 3y ago
    I'm no blockchain expert but I don't think you need a majority. The majority relates with the financial incentives of following the longest chain, but ultimately you can configure your node to "disbelieve" any block breaking the blacklist and carry on with like-minded nodes in a fork.

3 ms·

I guess someone finally found a real world use for blockchain. Too bad it was malware.

by josteink 3y ago

I guess someone finally found a real world use for blockchain. Too bad it was malware.

yardstick 3y ago
Ironic that even this blockchain still had some centralised aspects: “In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, the BNB Smart Chain (BSC) said its team is aware of the malware abusing its blockchain, and is actively addressing the issue. The company said all addresses associated with the spread of the malware have been blacklisted, and that its technicians had developed a model to detect future smart contracts that use similar methods to host malicious scripts.” I thought one of the big drivers for people using blockchain is the decentralised nature- resistance to censorship etc. Seems like this one isn’t a great long-term choice for malware as it’s not censorship resistant (as evidenced by the blacklist).
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I think this is like a block explorer type url. They can refuse requests to view those blocks. I don't think they can stop the creation of those blocks. The malware guys can probably still find another 3rd party block viewer . But it is hassle for them.
- Arch485 3y ago
  IIRC blacklisting in this manner is basically just a suggestion - it's saying, "hey, in the opinion of Binance, these adresses are bad. Don't do business with them". If the majority of nodes in the network comply with the blacklist, then it works. But at any point, someone who runs a node (or nodes) can choose to ignore the blacklist. It's only centralized if the majority of people running BNB Smart Chain decide to trust Binance.
  - jowea 3y ago
    I'm no blockchain expert but I don't think you need a majority. The majority relates with the financial incentives of following the longest chain, but ultimately you can configure your node to "disbelieve" any block breaking the blacklist and carry on with like-minded nodes in a fork.