1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
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 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 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
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.
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 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
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
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
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 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
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.
|
