blocks|key|3516591|text|让我们考虑一下闪存贷款攻击者试图通过将令牌沉积到池中来操纵totalSupply的情况。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|3516592|新的LP令牌totalSupply是：|3516593|📷|atomic|3516594|根据Uniswap+V2白皮书中的等式(12)，LP令牌供应的变化描述如下：|3516595|3516596|这导致：|3516597|3516598|新的常量产品(k)是：|3516599|3516600|通过在公平储备公式中的替代，我们得到：|3516601|3516602|这意味着，当创建新的LP令牌时，LP令牌的价格不会改变。当流动性令牌从池中烧毁时，也可以得到类似的证据，但唯一的区别是名称和分母的术语被删除。|entityMap|0|IMAGE|mutability|IMMUTABLE|imageUrl|https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vrp6L.png|imageAlt|1|https://i.stack.imgur.com/F8SYp.png|2|https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTd7q.png|3|https://i.stack.imgur.com/fyuNa.png|4|https://i.stack.imgur.com/jzhCV.png^0|T|B|0|6|B|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|2|0|7|1|0|0|1|3|0|0|0|1|4|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|1E|8|@$9|1F|A|1G|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|1H|8|@$9|1I|A|1J|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|J|7|1K|8|@]|D|@$9|1L|A|1M|1|1N]]|E|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|1O|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|M|3|I|5|J|7|1P|8|@]|D|@$9|1Q|A|1R|1|1S]]|E|$]]|$1|N|3|O|5|6|7|1T|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|P|3|I|5|J|7|1U|8|@]|D|@$9|1V|A|1W|1|1X]]|E|$]]|$1|Q|3|R|5|6|7|1Y|8|@$9|1Z|A|20|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|S|3|I|5|J|7|21|8|@]|D|@$9|22|A|23|1|24]]|E|$]]|$1|T|3|U|5|6|7|25|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|V|3|I|5|J|7|26|8|@]|D|@$9|27|A|28|1|29]]|E|$]]|$1|W|3|X|5|6|7|2A|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|Y|$Z|$5|10|11|12|E|$13|14|15|-4]]|16|$5|10|11|12|E|$13|17|15|-4]]|18|$5|10|11|12|E|$13|19|15|-4]]|1A|$5|10|11|12|E|$13|1B|15|-4]]|1C|$5|10|11|12|E|$13|1D|15|-4]]]]

Let's consider the case where a flash loan attacker would try to manipulate the <code>totalSupply</code> by deposition tokens to the pool.
The new LP token <code>totalSupply</code> would be:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vrp6L.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vrp6L.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
From equation (12) in the Uniswap V2 whitepaper, the change in the LP token supply is described by:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/F8SYp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/F8SYp.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
Which leads to:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTd7q.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTd7q.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
The new constant product (<code>k</code>) would be:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/fyuNa.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/fyuNa.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
By substituting in the fair reserve formula, we get:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/jzhCV.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/jzhCV.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
Meaning, the price of the LP token does not change when new LP tokens are minted. A similar proof could be derived for when liquidity tokens are burned from the pool, but with the only difference being the term in nominator and denominator being eliminated.

Let's assume that I'm writing a UniswapV2 LP token price oracle. Would it be a bad idea to rely on the LP token totalSupply for my calculation? Would it be possible to manipulate its value through a flash loan attack?
I'm mainly asking this question as I'm currently researching Alpha Finance's code for their LP token price oracle. They introduce the concept of <a href="https://blog.alphaventuredao.io/fair-lp-token-pricing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">fair reserves</a> through the following formula:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/DfVir.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/DfVir.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
Which could be simplified as follows:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TguiM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/TguiM.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
<code>p0</code> and <code>p1</code> could be made flashloan-proof, as they could be pulled from Chainlink or Uniswap's TWAP price oracles. But I'm not sure if a flash loan attacker would be able to manipulate the total supply of the LP token (<code>L</code>), or even <code>k</code> for that matter. Or if it's simply the case that in case of a flash loan attack, both <code>L</code> and <code>k</code> would change and both changes would cancel out.

Manipulating Uniswap V2's pair totalSupply via flash loan

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

EdgeOne AI 安全实战专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

假设我正在编写一个UniswapV2 LP令牌价格甲骨文。依赖LP令牌totalSupply来计算会不会是个坏主意？是否有可能通过闪存贷款攻击来操纵其价值？我主要是问这个问题，因为我目前正在研究阿尔法金融的代码，为他们的LP令牌价格预言。他们通过以下公式介绍了合理储备的概念：📷可以简化如下：📷p0和p1可以成为闪存贷款，因为它们可以从Chainlink或Uniswap的TWAP价格预言中撤出。

问利用flash贷款操纵Uniswap V2's对totalSupply
EN

回答 1

Ethereum用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问利用flash贷款操纵Uniswap V2's对totalSupplyEN