Is "top heavyness" for multi asset chains really a problem?

As I understand, the argument: if you have e.g. 10 million dollars of wrapped BTC in an Eth block, and the block reward is in Eth, then as a miner, it might be worth messing with the blocks even though doing so tanks Eth.

This seems suspect to my eye. As a scientist it seems to fail some basic falsifiability tests
First, this not a problem on Etth so far. And the versions of the theory I have heard fail to advance predictions on when it would be a problem. So its either already false (not problem for Eth now) or never will be (b/c its always a future problem)

Second, the theoretical underpinnings seem suspect and closer to a hot take than economic theory. Blocks always carry massively more funds than the rewards anyway no matter the asset. There is always the motivation to cheat. Yes, if the asset in the blocks is BTC and you mess with the bitcoin chain, you would have to cash out before BTC tanks, But futures, swaps, options or w/e make that increasingly possible. Sure, there’s some slippage as the market tanks , but is that 1) large enough to stop someone 2) not large enough for you to profit off of shorting BTC in the process? It seems something means this never works for BTC or multi asset chains. Like maybe tanking the chain makes your ASIC miners worthless. You effectively get slashed.

Again, there’s no answer that can be validated or falsified experimentally here.

1 Like

Zcash wouldn’t have “top heaviness” problem if all assets are private by default. That’s why this is a good use-case for Zcash!

1 Like

This is a good point. It should be substantially harder to mess with blocks if by default you don’t know whats in them. Not impossible, you could imagine many scenarios where one colludes with a miner, but thats a subset of the other ones. It means you could only attack whale transactions.

But the larger problem is, does the risk exist at all? What stops me from selling 10k BTC futures with delivery at 5pm and reorging the chain at 4pm? I’ve effectively exited my position before launching the attack. Top-heavyness assets that for single asset chains, this for some reason cannot happen. But for multi-asset chains, it can but the “theory” fails to state why. And fails to explain why Eth does not have this problem.


What do the key people in the Ethereum project think about it?