• shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Here is a more detailed explanation of the exploit.

    The Pepaire-Bueno brothers exploited a bug in MEV-boost’s code that allowed them to preview the content of blocks before they were officially delivered to validators, according to the indictment.

    The brothers created 16 Ethereum validators and targeted three specific traders who operated MEV bots, the indictment said. They used bait transactions to figure out how those bots traded, lured the bots to one of their validators which was validating a new block and basically tricked these bots into proposing certain transactions. […]

    So hardly an attack on any core system of cryptocurrencies.

    • survirtual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      So they discovered faulty code and made some money?

      Can anyone explain to me how this is illegal?

      The code is a contract. If someone writes bad code and loses money, then write better code - just like if someone writes a bad legal contract and loses money.

      The justice system is awful.

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        IANAL and all, but bad/unfavorable contracts and literal deception/fraud are two different things, at least in the legal system. Not everything that’s technically possible is also allowed, obviously.

        Compare it to using a security flaw to hack into a system. Technically you’re only using the official API, maybe in unusual ways, but still. But you’re doing it in bad faith and causing harm, maybe pretending to be someone you’re not or injecting fake data into the system, and that can make a difference.

        • survirtual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hacking a private corporate system, which is generally on closed nets and requires an internal actor / phishing, is significantly different from exploiting a code fault on a public network.

          Trustless systems rely on mathematics to secure their networks. This is both the revolution of them and the risk. If you build a system of value and it is on a public network, and you fail to properly secure it, that is supposed to be the risk. You lose money, hopefully go bankrupt / lose credibility, and a more efficient actor eats your lunch.

          Treating it like a traditional system with these unspoken legal safeguards when it uses a public blockchain and public network is absurd.

          • shrugal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            What’s absurd is this crypto maximalist take.

            You can’t just make up your own permission and punishment system, and then expect the legal system to just step aside and let it handle all disputes, especially when it comes to fraud. That’s like founding your own city in an existing country, and declaring all existing law obsolete. I know some people think this is a real possibility, but the real world doesn’t work like that.

            • survirtual@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              The “real” world works however the people want it to.

              As it stands, it works with laws that protect the rich and elite with superior rights.

              Someday, maybe the people will decide on a more equitable system. Nature and mathematics might be heavy contributors to that system.

      • blargerer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is like saying they discovered how to pick a lock so deserve everything in whats locked by it.

        • survirtual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          7 months ago

          No.

          It is more like finding a gold mine on public BLM land. It is over treacherous mountains only experienced climbers can access. There are no signs or doors saying it is licensed to anyone; indeed, it isn’t officially registered with BLM. So the climbers go in and take as many gold nuggets as they can carry.

          Unbeknownst to them, it was a mine discovered by rich and connected people who have cronies in BLM. Rangers go and arrest the climbers and say that you aren’t allowed to climb, climbing is illegal, and taking gold from that mine is illegal because someone else found it and dug it, even though they didn’t properly secure it nor did they put up any signs. They assumed the mountain was enough protection.

          This is closer to the situation.

            • survirtual@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Do you know how BLM land works?

              If you find a valuable resource on it, you can register it and you get exclusive access to mine it.

              Look it up.

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        7 months ago

        You withdraw cash at an ATM but the software has faulty code which causes your balance to remain the same after withdrawing any amount.

        You notice this and then empty the entire ATM this way, making $200,000. I’m sure once you explain to the jury that the ATM just gave you a bad contract, they will acquit you.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Doesn’t sound a huge deal different to High Frequency Trading, and Wall Street nobheads fall over themselves to exploit that.

        • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Sounds to me that the difference is they exploited a bug to get private information in order to game the bots.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Frustratingly vague for a Slashdot write-up.

      “These brothers allegedly committed a first-of-its-kind manipulation of the Ethereum blockchain by fraudulently gaining access to pending transactions, altering the movement of the electronic currency, and ultimately stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency from their victims,” said Special Agent in Charge Thomas Fattorusso of the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) New York Field Office.

      Good to know the prosecutors have an understanding of what they’re prosecuting… Not even a single mention of MEV in the DoJ press release.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        by fraudulently gaining access to pending transactions

        That makes no sense to me. The mempool is public, everyone can see pending transactions.

        • treadful@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Because it’s not the public mempool. It’s a private MEV mempool that people pay to add their transactions to for special priority or conditional inclusion. For instance, asshole profiteers can use it to sandwich attack traders to siphon off “market inefficiencies” or some people just want immediate front of the line inclusion in the next block.

          Presumably they exploited something in this MEV system (completely unrelated to the Ethereum protocol) that allowed them to see the pool and they shouldn’t have. Wish I knew more but everything I read was incredibly vague and misleading.

          • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s a private MEV mempool

            Are you sure there is such a thing? My understanding was that they just submit their sandwich transactions to the mempool with higher and lower gas respectively to achieve their desired priority ranking. Could be wrong though.

            • treadful@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m sure, yes. If you submit to a public mempool, you have no guarantees that your two transactions will land on either side of the target transaction in the same block (They likely won’t). You need to leverage conditional transactions with MEV so you guarantee the miner will select and position your transactions where you need them. In this case, before and after the target transaction.

              Check out the Ethereum Foundation’s page on MEV for more info.

              • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Wow, thanks for the link. It seems things have gotten a lot more complicated with PoS. I didn’t even know about PBS. I haven’t been following along properly.

      • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        What’s funny is that that’s a description of MEV.

        gaining access to pending transactions, altering the movement of the electronic currency, and ultimately stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency from their victim

        I skipped “fraudulent” because neither MEV bots nor this attack can be called fraudulent imo, although MEV is definitely taking value one didn’t help create.