Ethereum Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Ethereum, the decentralized application platform and smart contract enabled blockchain. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
As stated in the SWC116 (https://swcregistry.io/docs/SWC-116/) using block.timestamp and block.number in Smart Contracts under Proof of Work was problematic.
Block.timestamp could be influenced by the miners up to 15sblock.number as proxy for time is inaccurate since the time between block depended on the difficulty i.e. was not fixed.Do those two issues still exists under Proof of Stake? If not, are there any other/new concerns about using block values as a proxy for time?
Yes, generally using block values as a proxy for time is not a good idea.
The main reason is that while slots are currently every 12 seconds, it is not guaranteed that it won't decrease or change in the future.
Also, remember that slots can be empty. Proof of Stake does not guarantee a block every 12 seconds.
Here is an example of 1 empty slot, and while rarer, it is possible for consecutive slots to be empty.
block.timestamp. Otherwise you're right ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/135445/… (In PoW block.timestamp just had to be greater than its parent ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/5927/…)