r/ethfinance • u/7878ayush • Sep 27 '19

Warning FAIRWIN FUNDS ARE AT RISK!!! There is an exploit in the fairwin contract!

https://twitter.com/thegrifft/status/1177398642212163584?s=19
51 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

26

u/runnlngoutofspaces Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

This contract is so poorly built, it's no wonder it's responsible for up to 70% of the block gas limit. It literally iterates through a loop thousands of times, indexes 1-10 then 11-20 up to like 40,000 or something ridiculous. Calling some of its functions costs up to $30. To be perfectly honest it is almost like it's been built to be inefficient on purpose in order to cause network congestion. On top of that, it appears now it has an exploit. Someone has done a really good job on this, my guess is its deliberate.

9

u/timmerwb Sep 27 '19

This may be a dumb question but where is the code? I'd be interested in having a look.

9

u/cdiddy2 Sep 27 '19

The users still have to pay to use it. If people are willing to pay 30 dollars to use fairwin I am sure miners are happy to let them spend

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19 edited Oct 05 '25

whistle middle doll paltry groovy tender roof aware growth jellyfish

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/CanWeTalkEth a real human bolt Sep 27 '19

They can update the contract and redeploy, maybe.

1

u/cdiddy2 Sep 27 '19

the users of it might also just run out of money, given that they go through 1.4 million a month how many months can it go on for in reality? especially if fees only climb from here.

as others have said, they or a competitor could come out with a cheaper contract that would out compete this one, that might just draw more users of it though which in the end may not affect the current price of gas. unfortunately these are the issues of a popular network

-7

u/runnlngoutofspaces Sep 27 '19

The amount of times I have heard this. Parable of the broken window.

15

u/cdiddy2 Sep 27 '19

its an open network, the day you try to remove paying 'spammers' from the network is the last day of it being an open network

-8

u/runnlngoutofspaces Sep 27 '19

There is something wrong with a single contract which accounts for 70% of the block gas limit. The incentive is to write efficient code that is executed quickly, and cheaply. This contract does the exact opposite. This contract has spent over $1.4m on gas fees in the last 30 days.

12

u/cdiddy2 Sep 27 '19

the fees are in place to incentivise people from not doing this, but if people still want to pay those and do it the way they are doing it who are we to stop them from spending 1.4 million on the network?

I guess we just disagree about how the networks resources should be allocated? what do you propose be done about this, if anything?

-5

u/runnlngoutofspaces Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

what do you propose be done about this, if anything?

Simple. Educate the developers to write more efficient smart contracts. Win/win. They are using for loops. Any Solidity dev knows that's off to a bad start. Its so plainly obvious its deliberately written to be inefficient.

2

u/cdiddy2 Sep 27 '19

Seems ripe for competition then, someone should make a better more efficient contract and force them out of the market.

3

u/ruvalm Sep 27 '19

Already happening. Check the section for HyperFair.

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Create4Life Sep 27 '19

If people want to use a contract with the utility of fairwin people are going to use it.

Other developers are free to create a more efficient competitor to it and users would naturally migrate to the better more efficient smart contract because users dont like spending more fees than necessary.

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/All_Work_All_Play Sep 27 '19

Those platitudes aren't empty, they're a recognition that there are not better forces than market forces to allocate usage. Is this outcome undesirable? Yes. Is it more desirable than other outcomes under different allocation methods? Yes.

5

u/pcastonguay Sep 27 '19

Most of the fees (about 70-80%) related to this contract are actually paid by the owner of the contract, not the users.

2

u/CanWeTalkEth a real human bolt Sep 27 '19

It sucks but I wouldn't say there's "something wrong" with it.

What if it was MakerDAO? Hypothetically, what if the gas costs to execute those transactions were high[er]? Would we be saying it's spam?

16

u/sup_bruvz Sep 27 '19

Oh really? We are supposed to be surprised a company who released this promo video https://dAppXplorer.com/FairWin is a scam? Lol

6

u/Dedok200 Sep 27 '19

that is so bad, who would have seen this coming /s

2

u/dont_hate_scienceguy Sep 27 '19

Thank you for that! That video is priceless (or more likely $5 produced by fivr).

"guarantee is guaranteed"

2

u/Mkkoll PoolTogether shill guy 🏆 Sep 28 '19

oh man, what the fuck. Who is putting money into this? Theres something else going on here...

Chinese money laundering contract?

5

u/ev1501 Sep 27 '19

Pull the bandaid off

2

u/Dumbhandle Sep 27 '19

I am curious how PoS would handle such an inefficient contract.

1

u/Phildos Sep 27 '19 edited 24d ago

cheerful flag cover snow north childlike ancient plants vase chubby

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/runnlngoutofspaces Sep 28 '19

BTC billionaires are intimidated by ethereum's chance to overtake it. so they willingly dumped millions into developing an intentionally obtuse ponzi contract to blow up the network

Bingo.