Simple "chainalytics" for xx chain

[rothbardian]

I seem to recall there was a site where one could create certain analytical reports for addresses and other objects on XX chain.

Does anyone remember what that site URL was, or if it indeed existed?

My use case is address reputation of validators.

Our Explorer has ways to look up transactions, obviously, but if a series of steps one is required one has to do each one manually and copy-paste the outputs of one step into the inputs of another which isn’t very practical if such reports are to be created daily.

Alternatively, anyone know how to use the CLI (JS or Python) to find a validator’s history (nominees, commission, etc.)?

[rothbardian]

Just a quick note that this is progressing based on a generic Substrate chain scanning approach and a piecemeal query-by-query fashion.

Blocks

Since today is the 3rd anniversary, I’ll start with this:

select id,height,timestamp from block where height=1;
        id        | height |       timestamp        
------------------+--------+------------------------
 0000000001-163bf |      1 | 2021-11-17 07:01:36+00
(1 row)

Validators

I’ve started working on info for my “validator wall of shame”.

This query shows a validator (no longer a validator today) who should never be nominated again. His commission was set 5 times, each times to nominator-hostile values. (The same query can also output date of changes, it’s just that I don’t do it in this particular example.)

===> Validator: 6WmCkeCRkPboK39iXNmd6DENBBDQL1MmUVZ7RNQm9y7tbD1j | Public key: 0x40c4d4de8d5e37f2c7eaef7043090468d393e74f2b8f22222b13583dc7600648
        Commission: 39.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 45.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 87.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 55.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 96.0000000000000000%

There are several with identical percentages which may be because they’re sock-puppets of the same puppet-master.

Are they? That remains to be seen… Eventually I’ll have address reputation queries as well. What happens on blockchain, stays on blockchain.

There are other relevant queries, such as cMix points per era, and so on.

Not everything works because of bugs and hard-to-find info, but it’s better than nothing.

Other stuff

I’ve got several other things that work:

• Validator stake over time
• cMix stats
• Nominations
• Governance

In theory everything that you see in the XX Explorer should work here because all the info is there and from the chain, but in practice some details are encoded need to be “unpacked” which needs extra work to decode it, which is another nightmare when there’s not much to go by. I’m referencing various explorer engines from the Substrate ecosystem, etc.

Generating these on a 24x7 basis requires a $40/mo VM (and that’s for 1 user, the site itself) or maybe twice as much for multiple users making ad-hoc queries, so I don’t think I’ll have it running in the cloud and turn it into a free service.

Instead, I’m thinking about periodically publishing small posts in a xx Network Validator Wall of Shame series of blog posts, just to make sure the trash is easy to find in search engines and can’t hide behind Simple Staking.

What about the good validators? If I manage to more info than just the highlights of the worst validators, maybe I’ll publish it on a token-gated Web site (i.e. not free) where I could combine this with a custom nomination script (another challenge) for subscribers.

But I’m not even close to that. For now I just hoping to get 3-4 posts out with the wallets of the worst and least engaged validators which would be useful for those who nominate manually.

[rothbardian]

PSA - some who’ve set >30%

[['6VV6NTMTW9d3B61wLhytFaaT2GVciuPjL3kdWonJcJtmnhVj', 40],
 ['6XJH2V7dKdnDVDvGXEwg2TPpwFKMXdPzXSa8Evs3kieGbzUS', 45],
 ['6ZNu7cuHRYPb3HAT7MT6GxhevmfcmkUabGcmJwqW7AN5guhR', 45],
 ['6a4RW9onFhEV544wvXZmr2Cy52u3ke8YLtMwfQpYjNRCa6na', 48.5],
 ['6YfKFub7hHeavYrKSfWk626UYD46uwBePBeUvew2exu6123m', 50],
 ['6Z9N2M9FywpH1k3ycK2sAC9egyzAMVikeXJtaAPFkqWmd5Bf', 50],
 ['6ZH6qKPzphhm78S7PJ31FpANUWtmmxuKz36abwULEdo7kvvD', 50],
 ['6axK46dzxY3JHopeKVK3B2YoqSvgWCgvVvBnc5Tc2P3Hxh9K', 50],
 ['6VSrpiHJaSTUb45eSvWL6jsYkKHWoxES1j7BNRBpDnEbRsqn', 75],
 ['6X7UZg3etLuKryRQpnnjvrAz18TYUXF4b9BCuyq3Z1xiML1B', 85],
 ['6XCh5wgEDXHJCEmdvbnPR5niLfdus3aoHswRpCFzKnPEZPfz', 85],
 ['6XLpRoUiGZxeNrqV55fs8LNmYVcTMDDXtGyvPrfvMUdd7zvF', 85],
 ['6XSWwPdc3yYdcF84WbN2mUX3jP4hKQuFyN3d9sx7vF8TU2fV', 85],
 ['6XekHH7sP2JDNtyFBhoLCE5jS8Ci8FQzy3zq2ean6bZQfUDi', 85],
 ['6aWKU9GmbMNeGiVvu6AZW94GsgK6eL9Q3z6zxioVKasjgpfJ', 85],
 ['6ae2WJxJ5LqGab9PRhMDoC7mQtTjsyjsyjLeQmnTyqC8U1gS', 85],
 ['6XUbJWXYvDoieeg8zSCw3QQLQacndgfyZ8RTgJEbJMPmCeMi', 89],
 ['6ZNPt834Y88QrRrFqGCYfQzJX9aTGfprUE3Cx6dvH2i17kW8', 89],
 ['6ZtGJkrYNFh9v7Ht36pj3QoTakXSAvmSk7ngm9NkksuLR9GP', 89],
 ['6aYXj8Dn7RtGmAvKbNARCZ6fXZt7DfbTVeLzot9diE6GmHZr', 89],
 ['6VMsUUUHtvudQrchyUhcwLnv4BGpFDRBBT9YCx7mDTi1QP4m', 100],
 ['6VUyMXGMEA2ZZZ2PryHAbDc9RNLhnqX7uXPBXJaUQJxiBPjq', 100],
 ['6VkYiffpCNwireZhrdE6a4kpJJe8b25X6zeoceVspMvt5RxL', 100],
 ['6WY975E9rXCd6MK14wtXE2S9dCUYwLWVXpChnm4b5keCaiGw', 100],
 ['6WadK6mxKzdDZpd4BAyVmAp85Q1bfAHnhygkq6xmgros2GgV', 100],
 ['6WchMnestUBNwuwHpqYSZaYTmUx1Yiw34PrwNDipY3ea5aY5', 100],
 ['6WfFgy7BMAhFzSVXZjHeATBTcXMsGCmvvpRTvZD951wJZScf', 100],
 ['6WiGq2fwnmW6CdPfYvF9YBC2yjccSmA1YKGt4qjT1EHHp2PT', 100],
 ['6WrHVUFSbazCVf6NaYifoiQEeUkCNL1aJ8Q1dxj7tjgNDqL4', 100],
 ['6Wu3GcoTuvJFMhfosFQJWGzhocyaAB2PRURNJMfforK5CmWK', 100],
 ['6WvnYxX299FffA1WPcAshUpGSFsKbCJWZfMgBjW3dg3ZsgKM', 100],
 ['6X23oWBz1r6NwKbjNn4d5rwdZK4dyHXzyQiCkt3NN73Jdwkh', 100],
 ['6X2X8Vj9WzCZpsbULgTZfhHXMzW5yHdM8bMTwxVGfxewP7Gb', 100],
 ['6X35uN7hEEt9oYFXVwx6XKdK1vXrtCJDtqcWvSGq6mdPinxs', 100],
 ['6XJT8hi5Hwx4yVcqNN6LqQZwc8tzhekZnjU2i1RL8Tbeine8', 100],
 ['6XMQT4a1nCyoBivJx7iodkuXsizhEe21aqGqEghmXhWMbx2D', 100],
 ['6XPfhjfNBQxFzVrv4vmUNTBFGKxAimoyZ2vuP1mcaEhDkA8b', 100],
 ['6XS4Ezcu6aDamTp6pCxohxUE5H2RSmBieUkWyDPGfGjUD2wX', 100],
 ['6XcP5wJZRjYm3GC5PP6KKbPWFpMPQ6MfwGhDXkg5E9e5CZ6W', 100],
 ['6XfPjv3MVgwnhThq4hN4uWVNM43UAGwuXsGQnLrrnFXaBJYP', 100],
 ['6XkJ7YbKWSdkrF7wrWdWj59RWJrUummSsmi5B63V9HiE6MFP', 100],
 ['6XncXXHbNMFKUBVZRsEQdXdc8AQMWL1MMhFeN6zfv4iaFWvv', 100],
 ['6Xtb1AV2HFkHFyhatgMq3wP8CbtHa6fvBFM5aBU1eha4F71a', 100],
 ['6XyYpXtwdA43EA8G3C5HgCMpgSgrSmKSbeHZFv7WqBBUeigF', 100],
 ['6YPBMfr1wGTrKi6aY6zwTJaQXCZ5b6xEtuY4QkKzyr82Z3xN', 100],
 ['6YTxJTqieAevemm9hJ9CuhguyHHcSfxKyDQD8gNGtoyPXFZz', 100],
 ['6YZMPakVJGHN8kz7poXJycFkKkXVceJdTEaM12nEok1fSbqb', 100],
 ['6YZo6U9T4JLS88vp34EqBeFwSPThi57yQP9Ldx2v7xuwFH95', 100],
 ['6YcMdGnqqVEaw31cra8fCFQiusCpkayLwdBJCD12Fqo9UuYJ', 100],
 ['6YeUmeaVYJP6Qu3JbPSYQXnjJuzHvQNr5kbKmASH4XDXGYpD', 100],
 ['6Z7riEgEqcayxUWxEpx9BmDEpgQNpoDxcMwJ4betVJjUDMZf', 100],
 ['6ZHAWkQCDVjKSgQhNYV5Lh3S9nCNG2pvhb9XcJi7EjjW3H8u', 100],
 ['6ZZEoyQNppZq2srPHJmNKgKp3zXyB853sCie1fHQ7BbLCKJz', 100],
 ['6ZZEwjjn4BtjoEzmZMDCF75RR66jWDLkJRQyjPRXZe3fgVZX', 100],
 ['6ZfEoHA6sV2AQ9RPgFqsm3qpU7fgsq3qJRZZgHUX1yFuWJoX', 100],
 ['6ZhWprCgBVafRDW3sm93Y18LMDC4yupvkwsuQLSc1ub4ddMk', 100],
 ['6ZjLYuPEjyijRrPsyvqyADsFxtafuajWc8tZc7AVKhx35dMy', 100],
 ['6ZkVPjMdk4BDajL1nCsZ8hdowhKPcFSGRBsDRmEDxtqMLcDw', 100],
 ['6ZsRxNgJsmbk57TcC9pihDxZNRXBGe1sXBxWpsmbfUWEbjUD', 100],
 ['6ZxhncX1CYXAdoqykq2YQdW7kYELWNrkHsCMTwRqx9XtAd5q', 100],
 ['6a1V1Jo9mvhZMxM4gsKBJVaNNi3XH3i9uTu8PtGy9r8cMqQV', 100],
 ['6aC6FhxYBn5jdiZvcY5LXwdrm7brvhXt3qMf7aDMuVSc26oh', 100],
 ['6aH1TTa6G1itgwwN5kayyCRdTYRLmbK1wmRLZ6CZbmByAuXi', 100],
 ['6aN7ff2ynUvb5VjYAWetbNP7RpvCvKVUbGaKhLnPXnXTekTe', 100],
 ['6aZfKh9rphqbaaWJ1gBFw4JQ4rFsngDxfiiRDA4KTFPh3v2J', 100],
 ['6aj3wW7oRMSUFRd5NDAnys28keth1GvoYCuPanvjF9ivK73k', 100],
 ['6ajhb6wBcPaUKtCbW7TF3noKiQkxBYQVQ2qkZFEWurPkWhfN', 100],
 ['6arrMYMnGRVD4ukZggKoSE2NKmozuh84dEfeCWB29rUUaWiT', 100]]

Normally, wallets are hard to find in search engines, but I hope these can be found by using the forum’s search function so anyone who tries will find this one.

In the future controller wallet addresses of these validators (and more) may be shared as well so that people can find other sock-puppet validators set up by the same owner(s).

[rothbardian]

Another example, I ran this in era 1098 so this is just an example of where I’m going with this.

Collected validators: 90
Name                                               Return (%) Commission (7d avg) SS58                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIM-JE-DEOK                                        22.23                5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZL9NXqophtrvFxDYf1k4ToJvPMp67sVZWFqTHTetiX1pqrG
LEE-WOO-SEOK                                       22.17                5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6abksNA5dp8Gkz86EVC9BVYFWNRgpzT4bMNb3rAYosoL53W4
KIM-WOO-JIN                                        21.95                5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YCuzDwkymNHTUFJ2AB6MjuDPF7HubdrLcjDmzbhrXPLMuuu
HAE-IN-SA                                          21.31                5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WnydqSSi7aJMZd99aW4yHjcduZsxMV7xnJ9v2tWfvcJosSC
SONG-GWANG-SA                                      21.02                5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6a22YrSXwheE1zdgrVeVYJdXubYpj2CfBA28zgm6yVn3jTso
PETIT FOUR                                         20.6                 2.0    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WEaEfBWYKGYtT8MU1M9JQnopNXxNVDi8BTvjUuY9Rn5S8kV
CUPCAKE                                            20.33                2.0    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA7iZLpRfoMsRD8zuZwyTFZS5VbKzxnFTHbwNwqy4UBQNj9
CHAMYUVA                                           20.07                11.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aChc8idv5YKuWrsWWz62qfp5kvTALK83FXB6GVikfDDwX2F
CERES                                              19.93                9.99   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YC2oieX73fPiwShGgsPJ1SU5bpGCPFrp4uh9jWuCYwD9Ni6
BLOCKSHARD                                         19.74                16.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6Y58dmMN9H3FqvBzutdRTDA83q6uDFwBtQXpcpqzdh7hnm26
RADIANCE NODE                                      19.66                18.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZUXNuVhDJqBuMtjyzzexR53SYRoAHRE8Yr1zWMycGTMVZuU
SEAL_SENTY                                         19.44                14.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6W3C2vpUSXNgTXjDjBwN8kFB1w5p54gaMrN6aQZRNngQwKTA
VERTEX                                             19.08                13.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XfZWcMorKzCFVXAvxzhUY5V5UGjucLuPCmdokBKAjGRAYQd
EYEZ                                               19.0                 17.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YHzR5k7y6b5vnX2VuByeWzJnLaaye2LDGArpw3yWoZvSTiD

Notes:

• It’s sorted by Return (%) that you can see in the xx Wallet right now, but other sorting may be implemented later because ROI may be deceiving
• To spare you from scrolling, only > 19% are shown here, but I list them all down to 15%.
• The commission column is also the same as in the wallet - it’s an average of last 7 eras, so someone who ran 6 at 2% and went nuts yesterday (99%) may look great (15% only!), but you’ll get screwed if you nominate him
• Wallet address for the on-chain ID is provided for easy basic checks before deciding whether or not to nominate

Wait, but where’s so-and-so?

• All nodes without on-chain ID are not considered. Currently only 88 out of 370 have an on-chain ID. Even many of those who do have an on-chain ID have nothing but 1 field (nothing else). At a later time I may look into that as well - those w/o a Discord or Haven ID may be dropped or deducted as well.
• Pool nodes are dropped automatically regardless of anything else. Have a nice day!
• Validators with more than 4 nodes - to the extent that I can tell who they are - are also dropped. I’m not sure about those Korea-based nodes, 3 and 2, respectively, may be owned by the same wallet, which IMO is fine, but if all 5 are the same guy hosting in 2 DCs, I’ll drop them (TBD).

To-do items are mostly related to including non-obvious info because ROI and Commission don’t give a full picture, it’s 70% and I’d like to get to 90% as well as offer an opinionated ranking:

• Filter out any node who charged > 30% in last 6 months. I have that info, but need to do more data massaging
• Introduce a hybrid ranking - not ROI, not commission - where nodes with essential on-chain identity (e.g. Discord, Haven) and wallets that participate in governance (voting) get extra points. Need to look up these details in different places (I don’t even know where), so this will take time but shouldn’t be very hard.
• Address analytics - this is going to take even time… Just an idea for time being.

[rothbardian]

As I look at this, there isn’t much to like. Today these are:

• With on-chain ID
• With < 25% commission
• Sorted in descending ROI

Name                           Return (%) Commission (7d avg) SS58                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE-WOO-SEOK                   22.31  5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6abksNA5dp8Gkz86EVC9BVYFWNRgpzT4bMNb3rAYosoL53W4
KIM-JE-DEOK                    22.1   5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZL9NXqophtrvFxDYf1k4ToJvPMp67sVZWFqTHTetiX1pqrG
SONG-GWANG-SA                  22.1   5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6a22YrSXwheE1zdgrVeVYJdXubYpj2CfBA28zgm6yVn3jTso
KIM-WOO-JIN                    22.06  5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YCuzDwkymNHTUFJ2AB6MjuDPF7HubdrLcjDmzbhrXPLMuuu
HAE-IN-SA                      21.9   5.5    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WnydqSSi7aJMZd99aW4yHjcduZsxMV7xnJ9v2tWfvcJosSC
CHAMYUVA                       20.0   11.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aChc8idv5YKuWrsWWz62qfp5kvTALK83FXB6GVikfDDwX2F
CERES                          19.71  9.99   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YC2oieX73fPiwShGgsPJ1SU5bpGCPFrp4uh9jWuCYwD9Ni6
BLOCKSHARD                     19.69  16.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6Y58dmMN9H3FqvBzutdRTDA83q6uDFwBtQXpcpqzdh7hnm26
RADIANCE NODE                  19.69  18.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZUXNuVhDJqBuMtjyzzexR53SYRoAHRE8Yr1zWMycGTMVZuU
PETIT FOUR                     19.32  2.0    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WEaEfBWYKGYtT8MU1M9JQnopNXxNVDi8BTvjUuY9Rn5S8kV
SHELDON                        19.07  17.5   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aX9njNNh2MvWjLofPBiSUMoUsyqg5K7WFv7WeytTts9yq8x
CUPCAKE                        19.05  2.0    https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA7iZLpRfoMsRD8zuZwyTFZS5VbKzxnFTHbwNwqy4UBQNj9
NEWAY                          18.97  12.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aVwUBe8RTnN1UtsjBKr3gyWMqUGyDqDC8FoumMTe2HqNjHj
EXCALIBUR                      18.85  16.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6VfsB3UxXfnz3EqJk12s5aiffeB8ePEqDXzc6MPBfwPTNcFh
VERTEX                         18.85  13.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XfZWcMorKzCFVXAvxzhUY5V5UGjucLuPCmdokBKAjGRAYQd
SPECTRUM                       18.83  15.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA9CzuJ7FL9Wd3iuRwfcYdyZCTkgtL9eMtuh4RJTtzMCLpr
BLOCKBARD                      18.82  14.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XceRx74wAmaK4sXeTr5kPVwjASLhutMVxEP6aWxBGPHbMLo
EYEZ                           18.72  17.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YHzR5k7y6b5vnX2VuByeWzJnLaaye2LDGArpw3yWoZvSTiD
NODE0311                       18.72  14.0   https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WfVqSzGvcmSzYuWPBywqvKwzUvEJtzBbyQ66qiTCN4LxQa4

What’s not to like?

Well, for starters, ALL top 5 are likely the same validator (see blockchain transactions in here).
I’ve nothing against individuals running multiple nodes, but not more than 4. This guy appears to have 5, so … Afuera!

Next, CHAMYUVA. It doesn’t take long to see he’s connected to CERES (incidentally, right after him on the list). Who knows how many nodes… Afuera!

BLOCKSHARD and RADIANCE NODE seem okay.

PETIT FOUR seems related to CHIAMERA (another validator, not in the list), CUPCAKE (in the list), etc. All of them: afuera!

Go down the list, nothing changes. Some 80% may be running multiple nodes (again, fine) but not disclosing that on-chain (NOT fine). And they may have 5 or more, which I haven’t tried to find out because there’s nothing I can do about it in any case.

Nodes without an on-chain ID (which I eliminated up-front) are generally even worse, because while those with IDs aren’t disclosing, many aren’t trying to hide, whereas some of those without on-chain IDs are actively trying to avoid those simple checks.

So, to sum it up, after few hours of work I disqualified almost 100% of nodes:

• first I removed those without on-chain ID (most of those are similarly fishy, obviously centrally managed)
• then I removed all with > 25% commission
• At this point 84 out of 370 left. Then I sorted (descending) according to the ROI and looked at first 20-30
• Approximately ~80% of those got rated Afuera

(84/370) - 80% is less than 5%.

I also looked at those in Waiting, thinking there are some deserving, hard-working validators there. Mostly very poor quality, some scammers, and 2-3 bottom feeders (some never did any cMixx-ing, just the blockchain part).

In conclusion, if you care just about your ROI as a nominator, there’s value in easy filtering and some DIY “analytics”.
If you care about the ROI as well as the network, it’s probably better to run 1 to 4 nodes on your own, make that transparent in on-chain identity, run them at a reasonable commission, and help kick out some of those undisclosed validators, centralized pools and crooks from active validation pool. You’ll also make more than nominating these groups I just mentioned.

The network has to improve this situation before it gets out of hand, so there’s some work to be done by the Council here…

[rothbardian]

@warnings

And why? Because “maybe” there’s a link between these validators = bad validators?

What do you think these 1K XX amounts are for? Nutritional supplements?

And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously…

[bradford]

Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re pointing out with that screenshot.

Regarding your analytics, a cheap resource (if you’re running a full chain locally) would be to use your analytics scripts once an era then publish the results to github as a static site that will allow some nice ways to view ‘bad actors’. Free hosting.

[rothbardian]

@warnings

Like you see most probably for launch a validator and what is the issue ?

The issue is you won’t transfer 1,101 XX (enough to stake a validator) and then - as if another 1K XX would help you get elected - transfer 1.000.50 XX. What may two 1K XX transfers be about?

@bradford

Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re pointing out with that screenshot.

It shows that the account runs a validator farm. Should be obvious, does it really require an explanation? As I said PETIT FOUR is connected to CHIMAERA and other validators. Now are we to believe they just happen to be friends who know each other and transfer coins among validator accounts for fun?

Or this one - which I didn’t want to single out because it’s too obvious. Could these validators be related? Or one guy shuffling coins among his farm nodes? Could it be a series of typos over the years while using xx Network wallet?

@warnings

Like you see most probably for launch a validator and what is the issue ?

The issue is it’s not a validator, it’s a damn farm. Let me know if you need me to repeat this for you for the 3rd time.

@warnings

I don’t think that’s the case if they offer good rewards, don’t mess with commissions they’re good validators.

Well, maybe I should stand up 8 nodes with 5% commission and be a good validator. Will you nominate my farm?

@warnings

If this validator actually run with 1k, he most probably have 300k from nominators who trust him so what is the point ?

[rothbardian]

@warnings

First : why “you” ?

Colloquial for “one”

@warnings

Second : why send 2k if 1k is enough like this validator stake only 1k ?

Second: because it’s meant to be enough for 2 sock-puppet nodes.

@warnings

Third : why the first wallet detain for sure the second for you ? You prefer people who wash coin to Mexc by example ?

I said several times: I don’t care how people move their coins, I only care that they don’t ruin the network by running a farm of 5 or more sock-puppet nodes, especially without any disclosure in on-chain IDs, which is malicious by default.

And, since you obviously haven’t don any research and randomly shitpost, you may want to take a look at the account from which Petit Four got his funds (you can now ask “why his?” and I will answer in my next post), 6WwABnWwmUYRppZHRcDBr62AEP12Hd4uREoHnuU9HP4DBPft who did, in fact, launder that 1K through MEXC.

But why make any checks when that may mess up your baseless arguments?

To illustrate the extent of your nonsense arguments, even the other account (and there’s just two, so it’s not like you may have checked other 5 and gotten unlucky) which sent funds to PETIT FOUR (6a9FTqCH1eFihuFp1n2GwwqqTS6uwXzDkF8haM3pYphrr5NP) has been involved in node-puppeteering.

The level of ignorance and intellectual laziness you display in these discussions is absolutely astonishing.

[rothbardian]

@bradford

Regarding your analytics, a cheap resource (if you’re running a full chain locally) would be to use your analytics scripts once an era then publish the results to github as a static site that will allow some nice ways to view ‘bad actors’. Free hosting.

Yes, that’s a low-cost (or free, as in this case) plan - without the ability to create custom/ad-hoc SQL queries… Just create a subset of data and post it there as a flat file with a JS front-end. Another option would be post a CSV or JSON blob to S3, so that I don’t have to build a front-end and that people could import in their own app (e.g. dump and import to Excel) or use from own front-end without even downloading or going to my site.

But I’m discouraged to pursue this now that I realize looking for “best” validators makes little sense as many of those are just sock-puppet nodes running by potentially bad actors - it’s probably better for hodlers to stand up additional nodes (as long as it’s < 5) and nominate/pitch those.

I’m now thinking of taking an activist path, to highlight and promote known-good nodes (to the extent that it can be determined, which won’t be 100%) and look for any good nodes “all known good nodes above 14% ROI” rather than “best 50 nodes by performance”.

[rothbardian]

@warnings

You still don’t know if it’s the same people behind or not.

And I don’t care - I’ll simply not recommend any of associated nodes, or nominate them myself. If I want to nominate an honest node, I’ll nominate my own and 3-4 other nodes from old validators whom I checked and found to be okay.

Now, you don’t know it’s not the same people. So what kind of argument is that???

What is the most likely explanation for validators shuffling 1K amounts among validator (not some generic/derived) wallets, or for someone getting 3K XX from MEXC and seeding it among 3 validators?

@warnings

Do you understand that anyone can put a “bond-do-sa” ID on their validator and have no connection with the other one people ?

No, I don’t, because I don’t understand the scenario in which multiple validators shuffle “minimum bond amount” among their wallets if it’s not the same validator and different nodes.

Tell us if you don’t mind - how many times since 2021 have you sent 1K XX to other validators using your stash or validator wallet?
And do you run 5 or more nodes by any chance?

@warnings

And I don’t see any “6Zsym6uKVnQdPbyDuCREpb32FDXspG5C2zeoBhS5yTSgrkKc” who is the Mexc address.

You don’t see it, or it’s not an MEXC address?

You can see it here, it’s had > 92 transfers. It’d better be an MEXC address because other possible explanations are even worse.

Blockchain Explorer

@warnings

You seem like a judge, but you have no idea how money works. A transaction doesn’t equal the same person, no matter what you think.

I never said it equals, I said it’s likely.

Over the past 3 years I’ve sent 0 XX to other validators. I’ve no business sending anyone non-trivial amounts (i.e. 5 XX or 50 XX community tips) of tokens. Do you? Can you share some of these common transaction patterns between wallet addresses not involved in node puppeteering?

If a validator made 3 outgoing 1,105.00 XX transactions to new wallets who then became validators, I don’t have to be a genius to see what’s likely to be going on there.

@warnings

When you go to the supermarket and buy something, you’re not tied to the supermarket and where the supermarket take its product. You have different person even if they are only two transactions and seem the same people from history view.

That’s completely wrong example. What business do I have receiving or sending 1,005 XX from/to a validator (except once, when we had that transition where everyone stopped validating and switched to another wallet)?

There’s no swaps on the network, there’s nothing validators sell for XX, so it’s not anyone selling something and the other party paying for it.

I don’t know what you’re trying to prove and why.

• First, all your attempts are miserable failures.
• Second, at this point I don’t care what you think about my analysis of validators. I replied to your comments with solid answers, your provided yours (which I think were laughable) and there’s little new info to be added after several back-and-forth exchanges.
• Third, this thread is about analysis of validator behavior, not about some Council motion or Democracy proposal that impacts anyone. I said I looked at many validators, found that most suck, and recommended that people who care about the network stand up their own (and, right on cue, you come in here arguing against that idea, whereas everywhere else and over years you want people to become validators): pools good, community validators who transparent ID their nodes on the network bad. Can’t make this up!!!

[rothbardian]

@warnings

Ok have may be two running nodes and what ? It’s still less than 18 or 20 so why target them in particular ? What have you against these two validators ?

So you’ve checked all these related addresses and know it’s just 2 and not 6. Good to know!

And running multiple nodes without disclosing it on-chain identity is apparently okay, because nominators don’t need to know about that (unless they engage in forensic chainalytics). Very reasonable expectation for a privacy-focused network!

@warnings

I should really explain you how generate a unique wallet address and buy coins for send them to this brand new wallet ?

Right, so you bought coins on MEXC, and transferred them to your validator wallet.

You didn’t transfer coins to a validator wallet, and then ask that validator to transfer to your wallet.
Or you didn’t send the coins from MEXC to a “temp” wallet and from there to two other wallets of yours.
Or ask a validator friend to use his MEXC account to transfer XX to his wallet because you couldn’t open a MEXC account to buy XX and transfer proceeds back when you need to pay for hosting expenses.

@warnings

I think you are someone dangerous for yourself, for the whole XX network and for the other who is the most dangerous !

I confess, I’ve watched this video.

[rothbardian]

@warnings

I not check anything because I will not lost my time for check any validators. I just don’t care at all. But you look that and have the conclusion to not nominate anyone.

If you haven’t done any work, why not post less arguments against specifics and argue or more abstract points?

Instead, you defend these bad actors and get proven wrong at every step.

@warnings

You call that forensic looking transactions and dream about what they mean ?

Says a man who couldn’t be bothered to check anything at all and who elsewhere claims nominators need an easier way to find good validators.

And yet, validators aren’t supposed to pseudo-ID themselves on-chain because it’s trivial to look at blockchain transactions of each node you want to consider… Got it!

[rothbardian]

@warnings

You have the exact number of unique IP inside the network.

It took me 5 minutes to write a script for that. There’s 309 unique IPv4 addresses in this era.

@warnings

Now the damage has been done not by me but by yourself inviting anyone doing that now. Most probably the majority not know that. You understand what you do ?

That’s hilarious. In the previous comment in this very same thread you said my writing about this involved a trivial level of insight and laughed off the use of the word “chainalytics”.
Now in this comment you’re hinting at that what I wrote about should be treated as “confidential”. Which is it?

Any SecOps or chainalytics hobbyist already has all these tools and scripts (e.g. developed for Kusama or other Substrate-based chain) ready to run - they don’t need anyone’s help. All info is on XX chain or otherwise available to hundreds of people out there, including adversaries.

The reason why I haven’t even started doing any real “chainalytics” is that, sadly, I’ve seen enough by simply looking in the Explorer - didn’t even need to do graph analysis or look at the nodes w/o on-chain ID (the ones with were brazen enough).

For whatever reason, I’ve put in the work and time and you did not. And now there’s info out there to (roughly) understand the extent of this problem, and fix it.
For the record, as I’ve maintained throughout this topic, it’s a growing problem, but not a big problem: we have several non-transparent multi-node validators with 5 or more nodes, and we have several centralized pools. Both can be easily be dealt with, if xx Network finds that necessary.

I’ll keep highlighting these problems.

[rothbardian]

@warnings

You are able to understand what is the security red line to not cross for any reason ?

I haven’t been warned by admins, so I think I’m on the right track. I’ve shared nothing but - paraphrasing what you said earlier - superficial, low quality facts from public sources (which is precisely why we have blockchains, to allow and encourage free inquiry.)

xx Network has a history of openness and allows substantiated discussions of this nature (e.g. early discussions about the broken PQ algo).

@warnings

I will ask the community to all rename their validators Cryptocalibur XX just for fun.

Meh. They’d have to have similar validator stakes, node locations, commissions and more, so it won’t fool even most careless xx Network Wallet users, let alone anyone who checks on the details.

The idea about KYC is a good one, maybe the Council should take that into consideration?

@warnings

do my job by sending a PRIVATE message directly to the people concerned by that.

xx Batman!

@warnings

What you would fix exactly if this problem has been already catch long time ago and nothing has been done by the people in charge ?

Maybe we wouldn’t have these problems if you didn’t campaign so hard for ever lower validator stakes, standards and criteria, as if the goal was to recreate eurozone on blockchain.

[rothbardian]

There’s nothing on topic of chain or validator analytics in there, so I’ll just ignore that last reply. Sorry!