1 files changed, 120 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..59580dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+Considerations on decentralization tech
+
+Since 2019, I 've been witnessing a long lasting network of enthusiasts taking
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+A complex system of coin-transaction mechanism was the outcome and the previous
+move from SHA256 mining to bandwidth related mining was never explained in a
+way that would pursue a new comer unless they put effort into understanding it.
+
+To add up to the complexity, a system of a network fund was also implemented for
+gathering treasury from each block mined, for monetization of relevant to the
+project sub-ones. Said fund was one of these ideas that sound really good but
+don't last really in terms of sustainability. Such mechanism can't be designed
+solely by developers. They can be implemented by them but not designed. Lack of
+understanding can and did progressed the said fund into useless locked amount of
+coins after sometime. And what a developer could do to work around a problem? A
+problem that was caused on a blockchain project, which by nature is hard to make
+changes and continue it? Of course, introduce more complexity by implementing a
+voting system to decide how the fund is going to be spend.
+
+The voting system seemed okay, but none of the participants really knew what are
+they going to vote for, other than an address of someone who they would mark as
+a trusted person. After that, complexity comes in, the thread is completely lost
+but somehow, decisions get through.
+
+As one could think, the said blockchain was structured in the proof-of-work type
+of building. But, the just mentioned voting system was implementing a subsystem
+for proof-of-stake. So, yeah, even more complexity.
+
+My opinion on the proof-of-stake methods is that it does exactly the opposite of
+what proof-of-work does. Think of it like this: a worker proves their work in
+order to get paid, a staker proves they have the amount of wealth they have to
+gain interest. Bringing the second part to the "crypto space" is, in my opinion,
+a wrong move. Decentralized economy in coordination to the bitcoin's take of
+doing things is not compatible to the fractional system of the banks. You can't
+gain interest just because you own money. That's a long term solution for rich
+people, to remain rich, get richer and also at many times, in the expense of the
+workers.
+
+Furthermore, other than proof-of-stake shenanigans, voting systems and the whole
+dumpster the project has ended up being, more implications were brought up to
+the project as the main developer and its first 3 investors (which we will
+return to later) had a weird understanding of what a cryptocurrency network
+means and control issues were raised. Let's say that decentralization is
+bringing down the people of power which in the case of the said project,
+"founders" couldn't leave control to the people that consisted the community of
+the project. Said "founders" slowly turned to dictators with latest move an
+insisting attempt to hijack the project from the community, deciding not only in
+secrecy, a thing that one could expect from private companies, but also who
+would be able to follow them in the future.
+
+Apparently, they decided to take a snapshot of the proof-of-work chain to issue
+a new token on a different cryptocurrency network. To add up to that, they
+provided a helper program by which you would send them your private keys via a
+telegram channel in order to compensate you for the amount of coins you had on
+the PoW (proof-of-work) chain. The amount of questions raised by only this
+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.
+
+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
+were failing to claim the airdrop due to the centralized nature of the system
+the team leaned forward to execute all these.
+
+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
+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
+control over the workers.
+
+The cherry on top, is that they are the ones left the initial project for
+something new but still have the audacity to carry on with the original name and
+logo, possibly scamming more people on their way. Not only that, but they
+continuously try to put a new name to the original project dragging exchanges
+into these and furthermore the broader community. To fill better the context,
+the one developer and the three investors had breached ALL the rules they had
+put on discord and in a "trademark" page under their control. They got so low
+that they turned to racism, name calling, bans for raising questions asking them
+to explain more or the logic of their actions etc. They are the ones who made up
+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
+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
+questions and even their weekly podcast is them talking to themselves about how
+awesome the dashboard is and how you are missing out on a great tool for staking
+your tokens to gain enormous yields up to 4x.
+
+Oh, one last thing. The 3 investors were repeating that they "threw" millions on
+wallet development. Yet, no one really fixed a tiny issue where you would launch
+the daemon of the cryptocurrency with --help flag and it would crash the daemon
+and return the help/usage text twice.