Can I also point out that any price feed script should add noise to the price feed, both in when it updates (so that nobody can predict exactly when it updates) and in what price it reports (so that nobody can predict exactly what price it will report). If the bid/ask spread is 1%, a price feed script should report a random variable whose mean is the mean of the spread, but that could take any value within there.
If people don't get it I'll post a stronger justification later.
How can you validate if the delegate is trying to manipulate that?
I don't think random numbers will help. Care to elaborate ?
Yeah, good question about delegate manipulation. That's a tricky one, but it seems to me that manipulation by delegates is a separate issue. Since there are so many delegates, there should be many feeds close to the median, so it should be difficult in general for one evil delegate to simultaneously be the median and manipulate the price. If he changes his price too much, he'll cease to be the median.
My thought with randomness is about minimizing manipulation by whales on external exchanges, which is what these Chinese guys are saying is happening.
If 90% of delegates use Alt's feed script and it publishes prices deterministically, a bad actor can tell precisely what the median price feed will be at all times. If they can tell what the feed will be, they can manipulate external prices and predict their precise effects on the median feed and profit at the expense of the credibility of the internal market.
Here's where randomness helps: if delegates don't report prices deterministically, but rather allow their reports to be randomly distributed around the true price, the bad actors will never be able to precisely predict the changes in the feed price, and their profit opportunities will be decreased.
I doubt this would completely solve the problem, but it would certainly help. I encourage all price feed script publishers to add randomness.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2