These (POA) networks do NOT provide censorship resistance, finality or security of the funds they hold.
Hi Barry,
Are you familiar with Dunning–Kruger effect? It is a well-known effect in psychology when one’s lack of knowledge of how something works leads to overestimating abilities, in this case how to actually break stuff, censor stuff, or steal stuff. If it’s me who is under such effect please show how to implement any of those attacks on any POA networks widely used in prod and we will try to fix them by upgrading their protocols.
Do you mean censor transactions
or censor transactions via censoring blocks of other validators?
In the POA model, 100% of validators should agree on censoring transactions (which is unanimity and not supermajority) or they should start to censor other validators’ blocks.
Could you please show the attack on how to revert finality? We actually need it on Kovan to revert some transactions to remove PWASM support from two years ago. We can organize a supermajority of validators for this attack.
Here is one tx which created the first PWASM contract on Kovan https://kovan.etherscan.io/tx/0x5adeea1aeebb8911ed989a692de65b59083d517c566c9d41b3b18825830ae0cc
can steal these funds
Please provide a more detailed attack vector how validators can steal funds of users.
Also, we invite you as a validator on Kovan or Sokol where you can show this attack
These systems improve upon POA by providing much stronger guarantees.
Do you have any proofs of stronger guarantees of the observers model vs consensus model?
Each token that wants to use this chain deploys its own token bridge contract.
It’s overhead. OmniBridge multi-token extension for the Arbitrary Message Bridge between Ethereum and such chain is the simplest way to transfer tokens to another chain https://docs.tokenbridge.net/eth-xdai-amb-bridge/multi-token-extension
With Optimistic TokenBridge there is no need for validators of the bridge to exit to Mainnet which is a better solution Optimistic bridge between Mainnet and a POS chain
When optimistic rollups are ready to join they can update token bridges with their fraud proofs. This is opt in for the projects who now can choose when to use optimistic rollups.
there is no need to use optimistic rollups when there is an optimistic bridge. It doesn’t add security or reduce expenses but adds a complexity of the operation
They are intrinsically flawed.
The COOP model (which is used in POA) with one head is one vote is one of the oldest ways of solving coordination problems in societies.
You run the risk of the chain prevent your users from exiting with high fees when you try and upgrade to another solution
one can always deploy their own bridge and not use the abovementioned bridges by respectful validators, one can use Optimistic TokenBridge and not rely on the abovementioned bridges by token project Optimistic bridge between Mainnet and a POS chain