This ERC proposes a standardized framework for identifying, monitoring, and regulating high-risk transactions on the Ethereum network. The framework includes a set of criteria and a procedural approach for classifying transactions as high-risk based on factors such as transaction amount, frequency, associated addresses, and patterns indicative of fraudulent or illicit activities. The aim is to enhance network security and integrity, prevent illegal activities, and maintain compliance with global regulatory standards.
This has to be a joke or spam, but I am going to respond in good faith. Not only does this not have a specification or even establish a standard, the outlined methods make no logical sense.
Writing a huge list of addresses is not feasible for anyone regardless the precise mechanism. Addresses can be spun up in an instant and there’s no identity vector behind them. This approach does not account for the dynamic and decentralized nature of a blockchain.
Rolling with your proposal, it mentions “ High-risk address pools are created by governments marking accounts involved in existing cryptocurrency crime cases” which will stop effectively nothing as accounts are rarely used more than once or twice when having done something nefarious. Further, there are completely valid reasons as well to not reuse a wallet repeatedly.
Secondly, you mention “ Build a transaction network with a depth of ten layers based on the marked accounts” using relational suspicion mechanisms that will condemn and implicate many users that have no relevance beyond some shared locale. This is similar to marking anyone that drives down the same street as a criminal, as suspicious. In doing this, you’d effectively create several attack vectors that remove the ability to offer routers, to drive AA, etc. You are attempting to design a hot bed of false positives.
Once again, in step three the analysis mechanisms makes no logical sense and are just words put together in an incoherent sentence and lack any practical application. Further, you attempt to classify some heuristics that you’ve deemed high-risk while not providing any real example and absconding completely normal usage of a blockchain while failing to illustrate how and why normal use and limitation of high velocity mechanisms should be deemed suspicious.
To illustrate your lack of understanding we can look at a specific point that one should simply watch the volume of transactions and repeated amount use. But, you can just inline everything into one transaction as many of the exploits do already. You can simply route things properly and not lazily. This is an entirely ineffective proposal.
You propose management of this list through an aggregate of the proposed mechanisms above resulting in an entirely ineffective approach.
This proposal has all these issues before you note that Ethereum is a global network and does not fall under the jurisdiction of any single individual. Further, laws are constantly evolving and there are already better mechanisms that provide individual control to protocols enabling the ability of relative jurisdiction compliance as well as proper response to the issues that may arise.
Finally, you’ve proposed this with nothing to support it and noted that it will improve over coming versions which I strongly doubt. However, based on your fundamental lack of understanding of how things work I am viewing this as spam and likely written by AI. In no world or even country is this an effective solution.
Strongly of the opinion that this should not have been allowed to be posted and should be removed from all supporting places. The open system of ERCs is failing here. You did not even follow the basic expected practices of a proposal, much less write a proposal that is anything more than incoherent thoughts.
3 Likes