Skip to content

Conversation

@The-Huginn
Copy link

Please feel free to review & discuss.

eip-0045.md Outdated

The long-term security of the Ergo protocol should be prioritized and should try to avoid any potential vulnerabilities. One such can occur from claiming storage fees from boxes, that are subject to such claims. Resulting from fact if block rewards are no longer present, or negligible, compared to the claim from storage fees, mining a block claiming multiple storage fees might be subject to so called **undercutting attack** introduced in [[1]](#references). This happens when certain block has much higher reward compared to other blocks and therefore miners might be tempted to remine it to claim the reward for themselves instead of the original miner.

To circumvent such problem we introduce a Smart Contract, where the storage fees should be send and then this Smart Contract will redistribute the rewards across a span of selected blocks (for example 720 blocks, i.e. 1 day). Providing a reward from claiming storage fees to multiple blocks not only the one it was claimed in. A ratio of M to C can be used, where a miner can claim M of the storage fees and has to send C ratio to the Smart Contract. However we argue the ratio should be much smaller in favor of M as claiming storage fee is not very predictable and repeatable as claiming transaction fees, refer to [section](#previous-considerations).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
To circumvent such problem we introduce a Smart Contract, where the storage fees should be send and then this Smart Contract will redistribute the rewards across a span of selected blocks (for example 720 blocks, i.e. 1 day). Providing a reward from claiming storage fees to multiple blocks not only the one it was claimed in. A ratio of M to C can be used, where a miner can claim M of the storage fees and has to send C ratio to the Smart Contract. However we argue the ratio should be much smaller in favor of M as claiming storage fee is not very predictable and repeatable as claiming transaction fees, refer to [section](#previous-considerations).
To circumvent such problem we introduce a Smart Contract, where the storage fees should be sent and then this Smart Contract will redistribute the rewards across a span of selected blocks (for example 720 blocks, i.e. 1 day). Providing a reward from claiming storage fees to multiple blocks not only the one it was claimed in. A ratio of M to C can be used, where a miner can claim M of the storage fees and has to send C ratio to the Smart Contract. However we argue the ratio should be much smaller in favor of M as claiming storage fee is not very predictable and repeatable as claiming transaction fees, refer to [section](#previous-considerations).

)
)
)
```
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@The-Huginn, please explictily describe the box which should be protected by this contract and if it has additional registers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants