Monero lost more than 50% of its network hash rate

This is old news to many but I’ve been watching it, the hash rate on Monero was just over 1000 MH/s prior to the algorithm update as a way to combat ASIC mining by companies like Bitmain.  It plunged to as a little as 157MH/s initially but as of now (2018-08-08) 461 MH/s.

Monero-Hash-Rate-460Mhs-2018-08-09

This is significant and the move wasn’t without controversy but I think it was the right way to go.  Monero wanted to stop giant mining farms like you see for Bitcoin and Litecoin.

I think it worked, initially and clearly a lot of mining was disrupted because all the mining software had to be updated such as xmr-stak or xmrig etc.. Today if you use a pre April 2018 miner you will get “invalid results” or “share not accepted” from the pool because the algorithm has changed.  This effectively bricked Bitmain’s Monero miners but all was not lost for them as it is believed they were probably mining with them for several months if not more before releasing them publicly.  For any critics at least Monero clearly communicated almost immediately after Bitmain’s announcement that they would update the algorithm and would be sure to brick them.  And in all fairness at least Bitmain warned of this on their own sales page so it is nice to see an issue like this handled well by the main parties involved (of course those who still bought a Monero miner are out of their money).

Considering that months later the old hash rate of 1+ GH/s is now only about 460MH/s I think it is fair to say there were ASIC mining farms controlling over half of Monero!  This very well could have been Bitmain and other manufacturers themselves.  But going back to the whole mining thing, most know I am against it.  One inherent vulnerability of any mineable coin is that whoever has the most hashing power wins or controls the network allowing them to steal from others essentially.  As illustrated in my picture earlier one pool supportxmr.com has 80 MH/s, Nanopool 95MH/s, minexmr 94 MH/s so essentially 3 pools control about 60% of the hashing rate or about 20% each on average.  If you check out the list of Monero pools essentially the hash rate is concentrated among numerous pools which puts it in a similar situation as Bitcoin in a sense.

The current situation is better but nothing stops people from spending millions on GPUs and CPUs in order to dominate the network. With Monero only worth around $100 USD at the moment there is little incentive to do so unless an organization simply wanted to kill Monero.  I would imagine criminal organizations like the ones who targeted Bitcoin Gold and other coins will be ready and waiting to do the same though.

What do you think?

Cheers,
A. Yasir

VMWare 6.7 A Blast From The Past

Or A Blast To Their Market?

I’ve used VMWare on and off over the years but mainly during the pre-opensource days before the days of Virtualbox, KVM, Xen, OpenVZ etc…  and have dabbled and helped maintain some VMWare clusters over the years.

Anyone familiar with VMWare or who Google’s it will see lots of dire warnings about upgrading to the next version since the upgrades often break existing servers.  This is mainly not because of the Linux Kernel but VMWare seems to have a policy of blacklisting and hardcoding what network adapters, ILOs and CPUs are supported in each release.

Indeed the majority of blogs you will find deal exclusively with warnings of what is not supported and how to get around various restrictions.

But 6.7 seems like a marked departure from the standard.  It has dropped support for the majority of CPUs previously supported even up to 6.5.

I’ve also found it be fairly buggy especially getting vSphere working nicely on 6.7 ESXi hosts.

So this brings me to the next point, VMWare has literally shrank their market share but making it so their existing customers or a lot of people who may have used VMWare literally cannot use it (at least not with the latest 6.7 version).  Since there is not a lot of hardware that supports 6.7 the logical solution for many, even existing users is to simply migrate their VMWare VMs to something opensource based on KVM whether that would be Proxmox, oVirt, OpenStack etc…

Now, I do understand VMWare wants to prevent their marketshare and they’ve likely worked out agreements with hardware manufacturers on what gets obsoleted since a lot of large corporate customers will simply just buy brand new hardware that is supported.

But to me it’s just not a green solution when the same “obsolete” hardware is more than capable of supporting large scale computing infrastructure for a long time to come.  Computing power is so affordable and up there today the problem for hardware manufacturers is that so many organizations even with old hardware don’t need to upgrade (of course save for VMWare mandatory hardware obsoletion).

Aside from all of this VMWare is a fairly good system but I feel it is starting to quickly become attractive after reviewing a lot of community feedback and talking to colleagues in the industry.  There’s a huge push to migrate to KVM based virtualization and I feel the latest VMWare 6.7 will hasten this move.

Google Chrome now marking non-SSL sites as insecure

Another Google Unnecessity?

Previously Google’s Chrome was just marking sensitive sites where you would input things like credit card details as insecure (and rightfully so) but what’s happened in July of 2018 here is a different ball game.  They are now marking any sites that are not using SSL (including mine) as being insecure- a blog site that does nothing more than provide information…

Another strange thing is that Google is claiming that there are “performance benefits” to switch to SSL.  I am not aware of any performance benefits as the SSL handshake and encryption overhead itself only decreases performance.  Now I am not saying it is always significant and noticeable but it definitely silly to claim a negative performance feature as something that increases performance.  It’s like saying “we’ve added way more stairs to your daily walk” but “this results in improved stair climbing time”.

The one thing I and many others take issue with is that Google wields enormous power and has been known to abuse it for their benefit and the benefit of other large businesses, to the detriment of small business.  Google is perhaps the most powerful on the internet overall since they control Search, Youtube and they are a non-regulated for-profit business that is essentially going to be cutting off access and traffic to non-SSL sites.

While it is good for everything to use some sort of encryption it’s important to remember that not every site on the internet has the resources to setup their own SSL certificate. I am not talking only financially (although it is not very expensive to do) but on a technical level I can imagine a lot of people and organizations will not have the ability to do so.  In addition there are other technical steps required in some hosting environments such as often requiring a separate IP which requires a DNS update or migration (which is no simple feat for the non-technical).

I’ve always kept what I’ve thought of as “public domain” sites where I am publicly sharing the information on purpose as not needing SSL.  I am neither concerned for example with this site and articles who is reading or who can see what is being read.

I think part of the motivation here may be an SEO benefit or to weed out a lot of websites and owners which will happen to be smaller and less sophisticated.  This means that the average or smaller guy or company will be at a huge disadvantage on the web in Google Chrome where their users are scared off that viewing this article here without SSL is dangerous.

I think encouraging more sites to use SSL is a good idea but I also think it is a form of penalizing and reducing the views, traffic and audience of smaller organizations and businesses.

I’d also like to point out that the average key size is very small on average from 128bit to 256bit and I believe this is well within the ability of large supercomputing facilities to crack.  SSL and TLS has suffered from security flaws in recent years and if anything I think it is time to switch to something GPG based if we are serious about security.  I believe the current SSL implementations give us a false sense of security.

There are a lot of cheap solutions to do this but it all depends on how and where you are hosted and your level of expertise.

It’s also important to keep in mind that Google may give more weight to SSL sites in the search results than before if they are implementing this in Chrome (yes I am aware that supposedly SSL sites have ranked higher for awhile but I think the algorithm will be tweaked shortly if it hasn’t already to give much less weight to non-SSL sites).

Cheers!
A.Yasir

 

Bitcoin Anonymity at what cost?

Wasabi Wallet

We’ve already heard of “tumblers” which make it very difficult to trace the true sender or receiver of a Bitcoin transaction.  Now we have the “Wasabi” wallet project, which does something a bit differently.  It actually uses the Tor network to anonymize you on the Bitcoin network.  However, I think this is a risky move because malicious actors on the Tor network (especially exit nodes) have been setup by malicious groups including government agencies for surveillance and other use.

The problem with depending on the Tor network and a third party client is what if someone injects malicious code such as the Bitcoin Gold client scam?  Even if that’s not the case what if some malicious Tor node runners get together and target Bitcoin users and use it to successfully trick the Wasabi client into thinking you’ve received money you don’t have?  It would certainly be an effort and tricky but with enough time, money and resources it is a likely possibility based on the reward value alone.

So, well the idea is well-intentioned I think trying to solve it any other way  is risky and it should be the Bitcoin code base that is modified to support these features.

Another personal alternative is that you can use your own personal proxy or server to hide your real IP as this is already a supported feature of the Bitcoin client itself.

What do you think?

Cheers!
A.Yasir

RAID in 2018

Still Not Quite Obsolete

I’ve talked to a lot of professionals in the IT industry and some surprisingly don’t even know what RAID is!  Others think it is unnecessary, while some think RAID is a replacement for backups still (something admins and hardware techs have been harping about for decades now).  First, I’ll give a quick introduction into what RAID is, what it isn’t and its applications in the real world.

RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks.  I think the term is a little bit unnecessary in todays’ world but let’s break it down.

First of all we are talking about an array of connected, separate hard disk drives.  These could be 2.5″, 3.5″, SAS, SATA or SSD as far as our implementation and OS they are all essentially the same to the computer that they are connected to.

There are 5 levels or versions of RAID as follows:

  1. RAID 0 AKA striping (two drives required).  This takes two identical hard drives and combines their performance and capacities to make what appears to be a single drive.  Performance with 0 is excellent but the disadvantage is that a failure of any single disk will result in dataloss and the array going offline.  There is no recovery except for backups.   I never recommend RAID 0.
  2. RAID 1 AKA mirroring (two drives required).  It is called mirroring because both drives contain an identical copy of the data. Performance is enhanced on reads because data can be read twice as fast but simultaneously reading from the 2 separate hard drives at once.  There is a performance penalty in terms of writing since the data must be written to both drives at once (however this is usually not an issue for most servers since the majority are read intensive on average).
  3. RAID 5 (3 + drives required).  RAID 5 has in the distant past been one of the most common RAIDs as it provides enhanced performance and some redundancy but it is very prone to faults, failures and slow rebuild times.  It uses a parity drive that is essentially spread between the others but this parity often results in performance degradation unless a hardware RAID card is used.    It can withstand a single drive failure but NOT 2 drives.  Performance of reads is good but the parity calculations slow down performance.
  4. RAID 6 (4+ drives required).  Similar to RAID 6 but two drives are used for parity so it could survive 2 drives failing and is more fault tolerant.  It takes even longer to rebuild on RAID 6 than RAID 5. Performance of reads is good but the parity calculations slow down performance.
  5. RAID 10 AKA 1+0 (requires 4 or more drives).  It is a combination of the sum of two RAID 1 arrays, striped together as a RAID 0.  It delivers excellent performance and is fault tolerant (a drive of each RAID 1 could die without any ill effect aside from some performance reduction).  Rebuild times are similar to RAID 1 and are much faster than RAID 5 or 6.

Rather than over complicating this issue I will try to give a practical take in 2018 of what RAID means.  Some have said RAID is obsolete but usually they are referring to the nearly impossible resync or rebuild times on large multi-terabyte RAID 5/6 arrays.  I would agree there as I’ve never liked RAID 5 or 6 and whether you like it or not it is very impractical to use.

So what is the best way to go?

RAID 1 If you only have 2 drives then I think RAID 1 is an excellent trade off.  It is quick and easy to resync/rebuild, a single drive can die and you will still not have any data loss, yet when both are active you have a performance boost in

RAID 10 If you have 4 drives you gain extra performance in a RAID 10 configuration with fault tolerance that a single drive on each RAID 1 could die without dataloss.

The main disadvantage is that with RAID 1 and RAID 10 you are essentially losing 50% of your storage space but since storage/drives are relatively cheap I think it’s been a worthy tradeoff.

There are some people who spout that “drives are more reliable today” and “you don’t need RAID anymore” but I hardly find this true.  I’d actually argue that SSD drives may be more unreliable or unpredictable than mechanical hard drives.  One thing we can all agree on is that the most likely component to fail in a server is a hard disk and that’s not likely to change any time soon as much as we like to believe flash based storage is more reliable.  I’d also ask anyone who thinks running on a single drive (even with backups) that isn’t the performance benefit and redundancy worth running RAID?  I’m sure most datacenter techs and server admins would agree that it is much better to hotswap/replace a disk than it is to deal with downtime and restoring from backups right?

Now for the warnings.  RAID “protection” is NOT a replacement for backups even if nothing ever dies.  The reason for this is to understand the misleading term of RAID “protection” that some in the industry use.  It is true in sense that you are protected from dataloss if a single drive fails (or possibly 2 in some RAID levels).  However this doesn’t take into account natural disasters, theft, accidental or willful deletion or destruction of data.

I’d say as it stands in 2018 and beyond that everyone should be using at least RAID1 or RAID10 if possible in nearly every use case.  There are a few possible exceptions to this rule but they are rare and even then you should aim for as much redundancy as possible.

In conclusion, if you can use RAID 1, preferably RAID 10. If you can’t use RAID, learn and use it anyway.

Cheers!
A.Yasir

Crypto Internet Trolls MasterCard

Step Back Fiat, We Got This.

So Mastercard had an outage, so the CryptoVerse beat it down with tweets to make sure it knew what’s up.

MC4-728x258

After reading so many bash pieces on Elon Musk, it was a welcomed break to read something fun.

Mastercard had a severe outage last week, that piled up to many people being unable to use their cards. Visa had a draw back not long ago, and crypto-internet wouldn’t let the world forget it.

Screen-Shot-2018-07-16-at-4.33.03-PM-728x395

The Financial Times reported that it had a ‘global impact’, creating outrage and frustration from around the globe over this glitch. Customers took to twitter to complain to the credit card giant, which did eventually resolve the issue and service resumed for their customers.

End of story.

Well, not for Crypto Twitter, which took this time and pleasure to give Mastercard and their press team the social media headache of the decade. :)

 100’s of comments poured in with some of the most delightful and hilarious tweets.

MC1-728x484

Oh crypto twitter.

But this public bashing did bring the very nature of blockchain technology and finance into light. If Mastercard adopts with their own private blockchain without the pressmissionless public blockchain, they could very well make a system similar to cryptocurrency. But without the insecurity.

I’m excited to see how the financial world changes alongside cryptocurrency.

The future is near?

A.Yasir

Sherman’s Head

Hating On Cryptocurrency To Save Fiat

Well I expected some crazy stuff going down during the Cryptocurrency hearings in front of Congress, and I wasn’t disappointed. My instinct was to follow the crowd, and just blame Congressman Brad Sherman for being old and too wrinkly to understand this technology. But this man isn’t old and stupid. No these people are actually pretty damn smart, that’s how they make that $$$ and that’s why it shouldn’t have been a surprise to know Sherman wanted a flat out ban on all cryptocurrency and mining.

While the internet went psycho in calling this old timer congressman for not understanding the technology nor listening to the experts, I was thinking “How clever this old snake”.  He spent most of the time interrupting the experts just to say how much he hated cryptocurrency and how it was used for only illegal stuff.

There’s two parts to this.

  1. Sherman’s Not Dumb
    As much as I want to fall back on the fact Sherman’s old, out of touch and just can’t get his old man brain around cryptocurrency, this isn’t the case. He’s very smart, in fact, he knows what cryptocurrency is and how it could completely change the face of money. He’s connected to other Congressmen, Bankers, Politicians, and the Elite, heck even gunrunners are Congressmen, he’s connected to money. Fiat money to be exact. A monetary system that his friends own, and he’s going to protect it.

    Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-3.38.13-PM-728x360

    Imagine a coin the Federal Reserve couldn’t make, control and manipulate. Instead, it’s a system where people can make, control and manipulate. Well, thats not to say it’s better, but it’s better than what we have. The unbankable would be bankable simply because they could mine, buy and exchange or trade coins for other coins or goods/services. Where poverty stricken places could make their own family or community economies. Imagine the endless possibilities of this level of adoption?

    Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-3.35.57-PM-728x708

    But this possibility is why Mr. Sherman wouldn’t even let Cryptocurrency Experts finish a sentence before rudely interrupting. Accusing cryptocurrency of being mainly used by criminals and the dark web- where illicit activities take place. He declared he wanted a blanket ban on all mining and cryptocurrencies. Creating the uproar amongst the cryptoverse.

  2. Sherman’s Criminal Link
    With all the talk about cryptocurrency only being used for criminal activities, Mr. Sherman forgot to consider his own criminal links. One of the largest donors to his campaign was by a California based company Allied Wallet, who was involved in illegal gambling. Allied Wallet was forced to pay $13million to the US after investigation. Mr. Sherman probably forgot but the internet didn’t.

    Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-3.42.19-PM-728x925

    Not to say that a proper discussion on the topic of security and safety of Cryptocurrency isn’t something we should engage in. However, flat out slamming Cryptocurrency to secure the Fiat system, isn’t a good method nor is it right.In the end, the #CryptoCongress hashtag trended and hopefully, the American people will make their voices clear with their vote next election.

    In the meantime, click here to contact him and other Congress people on how you feel.

    What do you think? Is Mr. Sherman in conflict of interest here?

    Cheers,
    A.Yasir

“The Future Of Money”

US House Of Representatives

The United States will begin official hearings on cryptocurrency on July 18 2018, on a live stream for the general public to listen on the hearings. The title of this hearing is “The Future of Money: Digital Currency’, somewhat acknowledging that bitcoin and cryptocurrency at least has the potential of being the ‘new cash’ if not the only ‘cash’ of the future. As technology develops, having digital cash is the next natural course.

The exact list of people attending hasn’t been released, but it’s expected to be presided over by the legislators and cyprtocurreny experts. When I hear cryptocurrency experts though, there’s a few worries that come to mind.
The first is that ‘most’ if not all cryptocurrency ‘experts’ tend to completely negate the security portion of digital currency, upselling completely unsafe technology. Which is a legitimate concern surround cyprtocurrency. It’s not fully anonymous like people think, Bitcoin is traceable for example. Public ledgers, permissionless public blockchain, and no central authority within the community to protect the currency itself, are all concerns. Ripple does this fairly well, but still lacks considering their bank affiliations and their motivation to dump XRP (which is unlikely but still worrying).

This hearing will look into the security concerns related to cryptocurrency and curbing issues like money laundering, but experts would have to present a solid case, to show that it’s not different than laundering fiat or gold bars for that matter.

The US congress had released an economic report in March of this year that highlighted the benefits of cryptocurrency and why using it would be good for the economy. Which is a surprising change of mood considering how the Federal Reserve has been on behaving towards it. Perhaps fear that the debt system that they created for over a century is going to break down.

What do you think? Will this hearing  finally give Bitcoin and cryptocurrency the boost it needs after 6 months of FUD?

Cheers!
A.Yasir

I got TRON’d: The TRX Fiasco

TRX & Investors

I don’t normally get this upset. The last time I was this upset, was with FINOM (which I still don’t have my tokens for and may never, and no help from their support or the creator).  I’ve also reached out to the TRON Team and it doesn’t look like there will be a response.

TRX is moving, to Binance.  On April 15th they made an announcement that they would be moving to their own blockchain. They told their Tron investors to move their now useless tokens to Binance, or risk losing their investment.

Migration will occur on June 21st-June 25th.

“you must deposit your TRX to an exchange before June 24, 2018 to avoid any losses”.

This is a quote I pulled from  tron.network and it’s not on the homepage, you have to click on TRX to learn this.

That is extremely dire and stressful when you’ve come upon this after the fact.  I was frustrated to see this, and I’m not alone. There is apparently a lot of frustrated investors venting at Justin Sun on Social Media that demonstrated a lack of respect and care for us investors.  The announcement back in April made no mention of the exact process or even which Exchanges would support this process. To add insult to injury they are causing a direct loss since we all have to pay fees to the Ethereum Network and Exchanger to get our real TRX and if you have get a TRX wallet, pay to take TRX out again.  Whether you have 1 TRX or 120,000 it is yours and they should be protecting your investment and you as an investor and they’ve clearly failed.

I suspect it is completely intentional as this will free up a huge amount of supply once they say “sorry you weren’t watching our social profiles 24/7 your TRX tokens are worthless it’s your fault” which is essentially the response of TRON shills at the moment or that “Binance is EOY”.  EOY (End of Year) is still not a lot of time, but the ‘kind shill’ who told me didn’t point me to where he found this information- just randomly saying that Binance announced it. Oh, so another place I have to go find information from just to figure out how to protect my TRX investment.

Then more assuringly they say “If your TRX is held in a wallet and you were not aware of the migration notice, or saw the migration notice after June 25th, please visit our permanent token-exchange counter to exchange your tokens for Mainnet TRX.

Great!. Where is the permanent exchange counter?  There is no link or information readily available.  I’m sure some shill will point out it is probably buried in some other URL but non-shills or 24/7 supporters like me, shouldn’t have to go through all of this.

Tron-TRX-Scam-Screenshot at 2018-07-09 10-33-34

The Shills & Supporters of Tron
When you go on social media to find information directly and vent your frustrations with the lack of care Tron team put into securing investors money, you’re automatically hammered by shills who think that Tron is God and they did no wrong.

Unsurprisingly, me and others who complained were berated:

Tron-Reddit-Shill

I don’t think they got the point that “normal” users and investors shouldn’t need to watch all of Tron’s myriad of social accounts and websites constantly to avoid a loss. Tron isn’t the only coin I have invested tons into, and cryptocurrencies aren’t my only investments. I shouldn’t have to worry that if I don’t pay attention for a couple of months, my investment might disappear because Justin Sun struck up a pump deal with Binance.

The shills and supporters completely devoid Tron of any wrong, and insist Justin Sun did what was mutually right for Tron and for Investors…How? By screwing investors, that’s how. By forcing us to move to Binance and lose money in doing so, where the potential for scams, fraud and hacks to happen, increase.  All the while Justin Sun’s team could have made a registered account system with the millions of ICO money he collected by Investors. The registered account process would have eliminated any risk of fraud, money spent, and saved time for both TRON and Investors. On top of this, there would be NO potential risk of losing your Tron Token.

The Tron dogs focus only on the sole responsibility of the investor to be watching all of Justin Sun’s and Tron’s multiple social media platforms and websites, instead of calling out Tron’s incompetence and lack of respect for the Investors. It’s this general acceptance of ‘disrespect’ is why cryptocurrency teams do not feel responsible to do the right thing for the Investors, but for themselves.

Conflicting And Incomplete Information
Every one of Tron’s sites has conflicting or incomplete information.  We shouldn’t have to go digging to learn that Binance supposedly honors this until the end of the year (2018, which I learned from a Reddit user, he couldn’t point me to where he got that information from though).

I think common sense says the communication was horrible on this one and they’ve made it a lot more stressful and difficult than it had to be.  This shakes investors like me very quickly since there are so many scams even with ‘good ICO projects’.  It doesn’t matter if it’s “Justin Sun” behind the project, in fact it makes it worse.  How is he managing any of this if this is the best he can do?

The Tron supporters who ignore these glaring responsibilities that Tron has to its Investors, reminds me of Bitconnect. Many people called it out for what it was, a scam and pyramid scheme, but Bitconnect shills and supporters ruthlessly defended it as a trustworthy project.  Bitconnect, unpredictably came to an end.  It was a coin that produced nothing and who’s sole value was derived from shills who pumped and dumped it as part of the pyramid scheme/scam. Making millions and screwing real investors in the process.

The shills would have you think something is wrong with you for being upset or out of the loop for a few months but clearly there has been nothing but confusion and frustration since the start of the very unclear path forward:

Justin Sun Announces Tron Migration, Confusion Reigns

https://medium.com/tron-foundation/trx-migration-notice-34de281ebbbd

I’m not saying TRX or TRON is a complete scam but it operates in a very shady way in my opinion.  I’ve taken a blasting by their supporters (AKA shills who find it unreasonable that I am not on multiple social platforms every day glued to see if I can potentially lose my investment).  That’s ridiculous and I don’t think anyone should accept this.

On top of this, I and many Investors do not like keeping things on Exchanges where hacks are often. If you have never lost from a hack, then you don’t know what it feels like, so I’d like for you to sit back down. But Luckily there is a TRX wallet at least to move your real TRX to once you have moved it to Binance.

So Why Did Tron Do This?
Here’s what happened.  In April the Tron Team announced the move to MAINNET or essentially their own cryptocurrency blockchain separate from Ethereum tokens (the worthless ones they gave us in place of the real TRX).  I think it’s wrong to do it this way, since their website has a dire prediction that if you don’t move your tokens to an exchange like Binance, then you’ll lose your investment because they are literally burning and killing the Ethereum tokens they sold you.  What if you don’t have Binance or can’t get on? They didn’t take that into consideration or care.

This is completely wrong!

The Way It Should Have Been Done?
They should have registered all of their investors and token holders in their own system and simply e-mailed everyone or based it on the Ethereum blockchain token holders.

It’s like the bank telling you they closed your account, now you have to exchange all your money for real money at a cost to you, and you should have known because you should have been following their multiple social profiles and websites, all with differing and conflicting information.

Yes, Tron’s literally telling Investors ‘ you should have been able to piece it altogether after some detective work because we struck a deal with Binance and couldn’t be bothered to make a registration system, which would have been at no cost to you and at no risk to you….And yes Tron supporters are literally saying this with gusto, even hashtagging Justin Sun to garner attention for their undying and blind support.

The Good News Though?
It looks like you have until the end of the year with Binance to do this, but as mentioned their site says if you didn’t do it in June you’re done for. So if you haven’t done it already, do it now. Since I don’t like keeping stuff on Exchanges, I’ll be moving it into a wallet quickly.

It’s really simple, all TRON had to do was create a unified system that would just directly e-mail their users this information.  They surely collected enough of our coins to the tune of millions to have the resources to make that system. Besides that, I think a few months is completely inadequate notification. What if someone went overseas or on vacation?  I imagine there will be some in this category who come back in 2019 and ask how their TRON tokens disappeared and they didn’t get their TRX.

I think it could be argued it was ill-thought, ill-mannered and essentially negligent to force users to move their tokens with such short notice.  If they were going to do it this way, they at least should given an unlimited amount of time to exchange the worthless Ethereum tokens to the real TRX.

Justin Sun
This move is a a huge security issue.  How on earth do they go and ask people to move their tokens to an exchange where they could be hacked?  How about all of the typical phishing scams which I am sure we will see, that will be tricking people into sending their tokens and coins into the hands of hackers.  By encouraging people to only go on Social Media which is insecure and commonly hacked, it is simply inexcusable that Justin Sun’s team would do things this way.  The website doesn’t make things clear enough and it should be the main or primary source of easy to find information about these issues.

I think people look too much at “Justin Sun” is behind this and don’t actually look at how the project is being managed.  It’s definitely lost my confidence now.

I do think TRON is a good project and a good idea.  Will it last and succeed? Maybe and I hope my investment will succeed.  But it reeks of the typical issues that a lack of common sense is being used to handle the very basic aspects of this project. Not to mention of lack of respect for the Investors, and anyone who calls them out is automatically bashed, or accused of spreading FUD.

Cryptocurrency companies and teams have to start valuing the investor and do things in a simple and common sense way that protects us and makes us feel confident in our investment.  TRX has lost my trust over this and clearly a lot of others who are frustrated (at least the normal ones who don’t monitor the TRON social accounts 24/7).

The future is bleak for Tron if this kind of ‘care’ is given to investors. But I’m hopeful that this will be the last time something like this will be handled in such a poor way.