Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Forta Firewall acts like a Web2 application firewall but for Web3, integrating into the transaction flow and blocking malicious transactions before they are included in a block 🎯 Exploits can’t be executed without passing through the Firewall —making it more effective than auto-pausing via frontrunning ✅

202,004 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von Circus Maximus
Circus Maximusvor 1 Jahr

Forta Firewall: Protecting Web3 transactions like a bouncer at an exclusive club. No sketchy moves allowed no malicious exploits, no entry! 🎯

Profilbild von Circus Maximus
Circus Maximusvor 1 Jahr

"ensuring real-time detection and decision-making without introducing any delay" How did you do it?

Ähnliche Videos

Great infrastructure is what underpins the technological trends that consumers/users end up experiencing in their daily lives, it will be the same for Web3. Web2 applications like Uber are a great example of how infrastructure has shaped Web2. This breakthrough ridesharing application wouldn’t have initially been possible without the infrastructure provided by Twilio APIs to message users, Google Maps to see location data, and payments APIs to pay drivers. The same story is now unfolding for Web3 applications enabled to come into existence by Chainlink. When Chainlink launched, DeFi had less value than what one application in DeFi holds today. With access to secure and reliable price data via Chainlink, DeFi grew to over $200 billion in just a few years; There is a clear pattern between the launch of oracle networks and the growth of advanced applications on a blockchain: Developers can’t build truly “smart” contract applications without the oracle infrastructure that Chainlink provides. As the Chainlink platform has expanded, I’ve been excited by the sheer amount of advanced features that developers are now able to put into their smart contracts by using Chainlink. It’s clear to me that giving Web3 developers reliable and extensive infrastructure is the best way to unlock the next leap forward for our industry and for the creation of a cryptographic truth-powered society. API and cross-chain connectivity through oracle advancements such as Chainlink Functions and CCIP represent additional new building blocks for the next wave of Web3 apps. CCIP is also something we are actively working with the capital markets/banking industry on adopting for enabling their systems to efficiently interact with hundreds of blockchains via a single integration. When Chainlink enables all the world’s systems to efficiently connect to multiple chains through a single, cryptographically-secured interface is when we will all see a large acceleration in the value that flows into our industry and the widespread adoption which that leads to. Thank you to Jacquelyn Melinek for hosting me on TechCrunch’s Chain reaction podcast, where I explore these concepts in more depth:

Sergey Nazarov

316,490 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

An interesting thought I had on my morning walk. Filters on their own are not effective to censor all spam from motivated attackers, that's true. But filters do make spam more prone to censorship at the mining pool level. Miners can get away with mining transactions that are used for illegal purposes because they have plausible deniability: they don't know what they are used for, they are "just including what's relayed" by the p2p network. But with many forms of spam, such as OP_RETURN, it is not so. They do not have plausible deniability. MARA is perfectly happy inscribing NFTs and non-standard troll OP_RETURNS via its slipstream service. Since they are legally low risk, it makes sense for them to profit from it. However, if I was to submit something really nasty like torrent links to child pornography (or child porn jpegs) or Mein Kampf (illegal in many countries) MARA could not plausibly deny that it is publishing and distributing illegal content. It’s right there in the OP_RETURN for everyone to see. Consequently they would probably not allow it. If they did, they would get in trouble. And it would be much easier for the content submitters to get caught. If nonstandard node relay software (i.e. libre relay) started being abused by pedophiles, its likely mining pools would just ban these types of higher-risk peers. Of course the pedophiles can always run their own mining pools and get a few transactions every month: bitcoin would remain censorship resistant if you are patient enough. But now, with relaxation of standardness rules and “filters” anybody can easily publish blatantly illegal content as OP_RETURNS and get it relayed to a mining pool in a more censorship-resistant way, cheaper and more effective. Good? Bad? It's possible mining pools are going to have no choice but to develop software that analyzes transaction OP_RETURN to assess what they will publish or not. They may develop content moderation policies, because the illegality of the OP_RETURN content will be blatant and they will have no plausible deniability. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised that miners haven't already done this for obviously "higher risk" transactions like coinjoin. However coinjoin transactions are not illegal per se, and there is very wide international support for financial privacy. Not so for child porn. Once miners start developing software to moderate what transactions go in the blockchain, a Pandora's box is opened: if you can easily filter transactions that have illegal data in the OP_RETURN, why are you allowing whirlpool tx0? Why are you allowing coinjoins? Why are you allowing sanctioned addresses? Ironically, the attempt at making spam transactions less prone to censorship might make economic transactions more prone to censorship. Bitcoin is censorship resistant from a network perspective because anybody can mine anonymously. This censorship resistance is compounded when large centralized mining pools and mining farms have plausible deniability that the transactions they mine aren't blatantly illegal because they are anonymous (“there is no way to know”). The more mining is centralized, the more this component of censorship resistance matters. Non-monetary content puts that aspect at risk. I'm not sure I’m right, but I don't think this idea has been widely discussed. The only thing that can prevent certain txs formats (i.e. the low hanging fruit spam vectors like OP_RETURN) from making it into the chain is consensus rules. Yes I'm aware spammers will always find a way to get spam in eventually. It would be sad to see fork-level consensus to ban OP_RETURN entirely, because there are reasonable harm-reducing use cases for it (e.g. open timestamps). We are nowhere near consensus on restriction spam vectors at a consensus level, not even close. But who knows after 10 years of child porn being distributed via the Bitcoin network nodes and miners both will have had enough. It would be interesting to watch this play out.

FRANCIS - BULLBITCOIN.COM

18,041 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten