3 ms·
What prevents exchanges from adding users with negative balances?
by jackhammons 13y ago
What prevents exchanges from adding users with negative balances?
- sillysaurus3 13y agoOther users will see it.
- nullc 13y agoIf the balance is negative enough to subtract from any real users balance it will be visible to at least that user.
- patio11 13y agoI pre-compute two trees T1 and T2, which sum to my claimed total. T1 has a fake user with a negative balance who is visible to @nullc. T2 has a fake user with a negative balance who is visible to @legit_user. If I show @nullc T2 and @legit_user T1, you will both perceive my books as balancing, unless you collude with each other. I can greatly reduce the odds of you successfully colluding by choosing @legit_user to be someone who, e.g., has not logged in in a year, or who hasn't ever bothered to open this verification page.
- nullc 13y agoThis is why you must present the root via a broadcast channel, and quantize the timing (E.g. just daily). Otherwise it has the same problems as certificate transparency). People should really go read the original discussion. One fun way to address the root commitment is to just commit to it in the coins being proven in the balance.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- karl_gluck 13y agoOthers mention that it will be visible to other users, but I can be more clear in what that means: At first glance, it seems you could use a negative-balance user to hide fractional reserve. Say the sum of all deposits is 2000. You only have 1000 BTC that you can sign on the exchange. If you were to generate a proof tree for that 2000 and add a branch with -1000 BTC balance at the top of the tree, everyone on the other branch would have to be provided that balance in their chain in order to get to the 1000-valued root. Any of them could clearly see that the balance was being manipulated. So that won't work. If you move the negative-balance hash down the tree, it is still visible to any user who intersects the branch on the way up.