Poloniex under DDOS attack. This can't happen on the safenetwork

The need for the SafeNetwork is far greater than the possible downsides that some trumpet. Those with evil intentions will use the best tool at their disposal. Lets not consider making an inferior tool to pacify those who live in fear.


How would we do an exchange like Poloniex on the SAFE network?

Dozens of updates per second distributed among several thousand concurrent users, and that in real time, because it’s a race.

Thats a question for @dallyshalla who is working on SAFEx (the safe exchange).
I personally use it to change from one crypto to another without too much regard for a couple of percentage points one way or the other ( that is to say I am not personally in a race to squeeze every bit out of a trade) I would be happy trading on an hourly average or even a daily average.


Under DDOS attack? So… what are people expecting from this?

I just logged on and they are back up. What are people expecting from the DDOS attack? As I understand it there is information that can be gleaned from the host when under these attacks that may be used against the host or the users of the site. And it is simply inconvenient. Also I think it is good to focus on how the SafeNetwork is going to improve society instead of how it might be used nefariously.

1 Like

I think we forget that exchanges used to be done with a bunch of people in a room. I don’t think they have to allow HFT robots, and a case can be made that high frequency trading is not only not necessary, but not desirable.

But that still leaves us with most of the problems you mention.

I think we focus too much on the serverless aspect of safenet. There’s nothing in safenet that disallows use of a server. My thought is that I will create servers just like I do now, and use the peer to peer message api to collect input from users, and send data back to them. So safenet will allow the equivalent of a Tor hidden service. I won’t know my users IP’s, and they won’t know mine, but with a combination of static pages and peer to peer messages, I can have a traditional server, doing traditional server things, hiding behind the safenet.

1 Like

Correct. However, latency will always be both much higher and also more unpredictable than on the plain internet, because of routing overhead. “Something for something” I guess?

1 Like

@Tom_Carlson Is this a plan of yours? I hope so… This is one of the “Killer Apps” that will take MAID to the world stage.

Another attack today:

Wasn’t able to access the exchange earlier today but all seems fine right now.


I disagree. Using a server behind SAFE messaging will be relatively easy because we are used to thinking in terms of the client-server model, but it doesn’t always provide better service. If we don’t focus on the serverless aspect then we end up with a lot of centralised services and middle-men, just because decentralised serverless alternatives weren’t seriously considered.


With which I agree. The SAFE network will make it possible to do things in new ways that could not even be considered as viable alternatives before.

Whenever that will happen, it will be almost always superior to the server based approach exactly because it avoids those centralized points of failure that servers and the network paths towards them are.

1 Like

It will be better ! Where there is competition, there is an attack.

Just tried going to Poloniex and got this:

I understand why it was done.

thıs ıs the cause why ı want securıty of my money

sıte down reportıng error 522

1 Like

And this is newsworthy because…

Seriously, what is scary about DDoS?
Can your coins burn up if the CPUs get too hot or something?

The site is up and running just fine, barely 8 mins after your unnecessary post.

It is more annoying where you can not withdraw your coins because of the DDoS… no CPU at polo means can’t get your coins out. Even if they are safe behind a cold storage, I’d rather it on my personal cold storage than someone else’s.

1 Like

Yeah but all we know that drill and logic, right?

A 7 minute outage is not news except on a forum dedicated to that particular exchange.

If the OP had any content or analysis it may have been worth the click. But it didn’t.

And who knows if the outage lasted even 7 minutes. Maybe it was only for a handful of users and lasted 1 minute.
In fact it may have been a case of CloudFlare proactively limiting access to Polo.

Good to know. Very relevant @Lisam11 and dont even think twice about posting again if you feel the need. The issues relating to accessibly of sites trading safecoin is of interest to almost everyone here and your concerns about security of your money is equally of interest to almost everyone here. Dont be shy and dont be intimidated.


looks like the site is still having problems…and being as this is one of the primary US exchanges for alternative coins, a DDOS can freeze out investors and cause crazy fluctuations in price/liquidity/etc…don’t want to sound to conspiracy theory-ish but if you wanted to slow down buyers or mess with the price, this would be a fairly effective way to do so…FUD…

1 Like

There are some heavyweights playing with that ether on polo. It is unlikely polo can adequately support those volumes and velocity.