From 67c8ee7c47ffff1d8c51ed40c7e1b49af7e7467b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: kaotisk Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 14:24:09 +0300 Subject: Added 1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech with Considerations on decentralization tech --- ...5266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+) create mode 100644 news/1725266053-considerations_on_decentralization_tech (limited to 'news') 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. -- cgit v1.2.3