Straightpool

> If we prefer the later slot leader, isn't the later slot leader can attack by ignore the previous block? > > I thought node only switch to longer chain?...

> Isn't the pool able to set the parent hash to the one before last block, ignore the last block, treat it as the slot is empty? A hacked block...

> [..] block 07fca3a9479c79cd7e434561218b17b9ecd990e62dca444b25afd962656a0e2e at slot 20551061 and the block 05edad11b536a25efdc312ae546c93457015fc2750cf88271932067d87cfeb92 at slot 20551063. [...] but 07fca3a9479c79cd7e434561218b17b9ecd990e62dca444b25afd962656a0e2e won the slot(?) battle coz its vrf value was lower Yes, same issue....

> By the slot number of the chain tip, with higher values preferred Good find, yes this is the place to add the fix most likely. Adding the simple logic...

> If the malicious actor want to skip the previous block, it can simply set block hash to the one before that block? From my understanding this attack will not...

> > > If the malicious actor want to skip the previous block, it can simply set block hash to the one before that block? > > > > >...

I would love to see this issue at least get acknowledged. Today I lost my forth block to this issue since I started tracking this since December 21st 2020. This...

As I know a number of fellow SPOs are following this issue, I am adding the following info as I was not clear on this myself: "the research pipeline is...

This epoch I got a new record for this delay attack: 21 full seconds! My blockhash a099f0c653e443c14c8a2abd77d4e6a886975d3469988d75f0bc00266fa72eb4 at slot 264065 vs. blockhash 59d12b7a426724961607014aacea1e584f3ebc1196948f42a10893bc at slot 264044 full 21 seconds earlier!...

IOG researchers apparently started to work on this issue as the latest node release 1.26.1 has the following point in the release notes: "Add a tracer for the delay between...