Report: Potentially Abusive Miners Exploiting Filecoin Plus (>600PiB+)

[herrehesse]

Issue Description

A group of miners within the Filecoin network has been engaging in potentially abusive behaviour since early Q2 of last year. These miners are suspected of storing verified data with highly questionable origins, and keeping the data unretrievable. They have also been hiding their locations by using VPN services, while it is highly likely that all of these miners are operated by the same entity. This deceptive strategy allows them to exploit the system, benefiting from the multiplier and generating more block rewards without adhering to program rules.

Impact

The actions of these miners have severe implications for the integrity and fairness of the Filecoin network. By storing data with questionable origins, from unknown clients, signed by the same set of notaries each time, they undermine the trustworthiness of the entire system. Furthermore, their manipulation of location data through VPN services creates a false impression of decentralisation, compromising the principles on which Filecoin is built. These miners are not only violating ethical standards but also engaging in activities that warrant immediate attention and resolution.

The minerID list: f01852325 f01852023 f01851482 f01852664 *f01852677 f01966534 f01969202 f01964073 f01965334 f01964002 f01938721 f01938718 f01938717 f01938665 f01938714

(below are only metrics for f0185 range) Client	Selfdealing Count	GitHub Link
f02006894	6	GitHub Link
f02006103	6	GitHub Link
f01972306	6	GitHub Link
f01972309	6	GitHub Link
f01837711	3	GitHub Link
f01987325	6	GitHub Link
f01980990	6	GitHub Link
f01999116	6	GitHub Link
f01973010	6	GitHub Link
f01941690	6	GitHub Link
f01973609	6	GitHub Link
f01968227	6	GitHub Link
f01948527	6	GitHub Link
f01952539	6	GitHub Link
f01769561	6	GitHub Link

Notary Signatures Tom-OriginStorage: 12 stcouldlisa: 9 newwebgroup: 9 NDLABS-OFFICE: 8 kernelogic: 7 NiwanDao: 6 ipfscn: 4 fireflyHZ: 4 1ane-1: 3 liyunzhi-666: 3 YuanHeHK: 3 Joss-Hua: 2 zhujiaqi: 1 Swift-scouts: 1 J1a-wei: 1 zhang14725804: 1 cryptowhizzard: 1 flyworker: 1 mjroddy: 1 psh0691: 1 s0nik42: 1 xinaxu: 1 metacodebean: 1 willingchem: 1 qituo: 1 gien1hu2: 1 joycejade0810: 1 Alex11801: 1 chenfan76673: 1 Zhangcffff: 1

Proposed Solution(s)

It would be beneficial to engage in a discussion with these teams, which collectively possess over 600PiB of QaP. The ideal outcome would involve the following:

• Enabling retrieval on all miners and files after upgrading to the latest versions of HTTP/BITSWAP.
• Ensuring that the entities operating the miners are physically distributed and not under the same umbrella company.
• Verifying that the files stored within the network are valid and comply with the (questionable) applications.

To address this issue, the following proposed solutions are recommended:

• Public Disclosure of Miner Identities: The identities of the miners should be made public, bringing their actions to the attention of the wider Filecoin community. By exposing their activities, it increases the pressure on these miners to respond and be held accountable for their actions.

• Explanation and Defense: The miners must be given an opportunity to explain themselves publicly. They should be required to provide a clear and coherent defense regarding the allegations against them. This step allows for transparency and a fair hearing before any further actions are taken.

• Implementation of a FIP: If the miners are proven to not adhere to the program rules, a Filecoin Improvement Proposal should be introduced to remove the multiplier from miners engaged in this form of abusive behaviour. This would effectively curtail their ability to benefit from fraudulent activities and restore fairness within the network.

Timeline

Ongoing: Investigation continues to collect evidence and analyse the activities of the miners. Present: The miners have not yet responded publicly to the allegations against them (6M+). Immediate Future: Public disclosure of miner identities and a call for explanations from the miners is initiated. Future: If the miners are proven to not adhere to program rules, implementation of a Filecoin Improvement Proposal (FIP) to remove the multiplier from these miners is pursued.

[herrehesse]

@fil-quan I would love to understand why you are threatening me in stead of finding a solution for the above issue. Can you help me to contact with the owner(s)?

[raghavrmadya]

@fil-quan has violated the Fil+ code of conduct and threatening is unacceptable in this community The GitHub account is flagged and is requested to stop engaging.

Hey @herrehesse 哮天犬(please google the meaning) Did you wipe your butt clean? We are collecting information related to your organization, you just wait and see!!!

[raghavrmadya]

https://medium.com/filecoin-plus/fil-code-of-conduct-9cd044e7bcaf?source=collection_home---4------2-----------------------

[NDLABS-Leo]

Customer，Self-transaction statistics，Number of signatures，Reason for signature

f02006894 6 1，The report is highly compliant. f02006103 6 1，The report is highly compliant. f01972306 6 1，RG asked without further doubts and passed rkh after the question, first round of signatures. f01972309 6 1，"rg and sum is coming" asked and passed, first round of signatures. f01837711 3 1，The question and response indicate an error issue with the HOLON API. f01987325 6 0 f01980990 6 1，The information is complete. f01999116 6 0 f01973010 6 0 f01941690 6 0 f01973609 6 1，No violations found. f01968227 6 1，No violations found. f01948527 6 1，No violations found. f01952539 6 1，No violations found. f01769561 6 0

“No violations found.” -- The signatures for these items did not have comments because it was too early, indicating that there was either no bot at the time or no explicit requirement to leave comments after the review.

Following the community's explicit regulations, ND has consistently adhered to the community standards for signatures, and we have disclosed our signature guidelines. Please review the signature records for ND by tracing back along the timeline.

[herrehesse]

@NDLABS-OFFICE, it's fantastic to see that you are providing statistics and conducting thorough assessments. It is highly appreciated. Could you please address my previously mentioned concerns directly? Specifically, I am referring to the issues of self-dealing, non-retrievability, and abuse of VPNs. I look forward to your response.

The justification of neglecting basic notary tasks, such as verifying retrievability, due to the absence of a bot at the time is not a valid argument. However, I do acknowledge that during that period, nobody was conducting such checks.

I am pleased to transition into the present quality phase, where ensuring retrievability becomes the standard practice.

[NDLABS-Leo]

@herrehesse ，Thank you for your neutral and candid response. The circumstances back then were indeed different compared to the present. At that time, there was no bot tracking retrieval rates, and the issue of VPN usage had not undergone extensive scrutiny by notaries. If there were instances of VPN violations in LDN agreements we previously signed, it indicates a lapse in our review process. I recall that the signature standards for ND had already been raised in proposals from a long time ago. Currently, retrieval and data sharing are our key areas of focus. We believe that only when data can be effectively retrieved, preferably through HTTP retrieval, can FIL become a complete project that facilitates the development of higher-level applications.

[herrehesse]

@raghavrmadya @kevzak @dkkapur @galen-mcandrew

Any progress on this?

[herrehesse]

@Tom-OriginStorage Can you let me know if you know any of the above minerID's?

[herrehesse]

[herrehesse]

@dkkapur @galen-mcandrew @jbenet When are we acting on this? Quality phase won't come if the top 20 miners storing deals are fully unreachable. This has been on dispute since 7 months now and nothing happens.

[raghavrmadya]

We cannot remove an SP. You are welcome to open disputes against clients who have worked with the SP if you believe the client violated CID checker bot or retrievals