diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech | 14 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech index 59580dd..f799cc3 100644 --- a/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech +++ b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech @@ -5,18 +5,18 @@ a step forward into utilizing the said network in a blockchain project that its initial claim was to furtherly bring the network to people to counter censorship that is imposed by governments and ISPs. -Let me critisize, right away, that the development of said blockchain project -was too slow, incompatible and having weird inconcistences on its inner tools. +Let me criticize, right away, that the development of said blockchain project +was too slow, incompatible and having weird inconsistencies on its inner tools. In a course of 5 years, the btc-suite, a go lang source code was updated to meet the symbols (ticker if you may) of said project, change the top amount of coins that could ever existed in it, change the algorithm for mining the SHA256 space -to mining for announcing bandwidth availablily. +to mining for announcing bandwidth availability. There were several, in my opinion, useless wallet implementations, which also brought a year-lasting confusion to the project. Particularly, segwit wallets, mining wallets and a form of lightweight wallets. To cast some light into the -abovementioned incompatibility, you couldn't mine coins on a "lightweight" one. +above mentioned incompatibility, you couldn't mine coins on a "lightweight" one. To further confusion, documentation was never in sync with what is going on and what a new comer would need to learn about the project in order to participate. @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ paragraph is huge. But the most laughable part, is that after you send your keys to them, "you can still use them" as they mentioned. Did I mention that the tool was closed source? Yes! And the answer of the developer was "because". Note that private keys being sent to them is not confirmed and it is an assumption solely -based on the fact that the developer repeatdly denied access to the source code. +based on the fact that the developer repeatedly denied access to the source code. About the selective airdrop, it was proven by several members of the community that their keys weren't redeemable on the new token. To add more into that, keys @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ To get back to the 3 investors, that it seems that they did launch a couple of rug-pull projects in the past, it is all about money. They seem to understand very well what money can buy and how one can appear as a good samaritan to help an interesting project while the main goal is to see return on their -investements. They, as well as the main developer, were and still are thirsty +investments. They, as well as the main developer, were and still are thirsty for financial gains and control. Not only they were trying to take control of a decentralized blockchain project but when they saw that this couldn't happen, they tried every possible scenario that a company would do in order to maintain @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ the rules, they are the ones that broke them continuously. In the end, the whole effort on this article is to cause an alert in other communities that are also under a same type of structure, authoritarian-types. -The project I am refering to, will remain unnamed for the time being and +The project I am referring to, will remain unnamed for the time being and possibly it will be revealed when the time is right. I wouldn't like to give them attention, since the only thing that matters to them is liquidity. And it's true, later from the announcement, their channels only accept airdrop claim |