Hardforks Are Scams Says Charlie Lee LTC Creator

Charlie has been saying exactly what I’ve been.  Hardforks are essentially scams that devalue the original coin and cause confusion.  At the same time, I’m sure he meant well but it never helped that he announced he sold all of his LTC.  It’s akin to a CEO selling all of their stock and saying “I still believe in the company”.  Granted this happened well before this scam hardfork so the hardfork is surely what caused the latest drop.

CharlieLee-LTC-Litecoin-Founder-Says-Forks-Scam-Confusing

As we can see after Litecoin Cash, the real and original Litecoin went down in value.

Charlie also correctly warns not to give your private keys to these scammers.  Whether Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Litcoin Cash and the many scam coins they require you to give your private keys to their wallets (if they even create one).  The risk there is that the developers or wallet creator will steal your original coins and this has happened already with the Bitcoin Gold Scam.

LitecoinSlide

I think exchanges should outright refuse to deal with these scam coins.

The underlying issue is simply that why are hardforks possible at all?  Counterfeiting is so easy with these opensource, public and permssionless blockchains.  To me it is a complete security and privacy flaw that was well-intentioned but simply doesn’t work.

Going forward, community maintained coins that cannot be forked, that are secure, private and are real time will be the long-term ones to invest in and the long-term winners.

Ethereum Developers Consider Bricking Bitmain’s Antminer ETHash Based ASIC

ETHash has always been considered “ASIC resistant” which is that the made algorithm so it wouldn’t be easy to make an ASIC for it like SHA-256 for Bitcoin, Scrypt for Litecoin and others.  This has been a very controversial issue especially since Bitmain announced they have Cryptonight miners for Monero and ETHash miners for Ethereum to be released soon.

At first I thought the developers had a plan to inject some malicious code that would literally brick the miners firmware or something similar, but the idea of hardforking is much more tame and harmless to everyone but Bitmain and their clients.  There’s also a lot at stake for Bitmain who could be in serious trouble from its buyers if they ship miners that are completely useless.  It remains unseen to know if they could update their firmware to compensate or if completely new ASIC hardware would be required for the update in algorithms.  Either way if Bitmain cannot deliver, it could push them to the brink or at least serious financial damage.  It does cost a lot to R&D and manufacture these ASICs and I could see this pushing them out of business or close to it.

Monero is hardforking in less than 5 days to combat this issue but the Ethereum team is still debating what to do.

Monero-Hardforks-Response-To-Bitmain-ASIC

This is a very interesting situation with competing interests and warring camps involved.  But to me this really outlines serious security flaws with Monero, Ethereum and all other Public, Permissionless Blockchain cryptocurrencies (the vast majority including Bitcoin, Litecoin etc..).

Hardforks are usually done for bad reasons, to counterfeit and copy an existing coin as an easy cashgrab (eg. Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash etc.. Litecoin Cash).  That is one serious integrity and security issue there.  Why is it even possible to literally copy, counterfeit almost any coin?  It devalues the original coin and is essentially stealing from the original coin holders and developers.

But in this case Monero and Ethereum would be doing hardforks for a “good reason” but it’s still a pain.   Would you accept it if your bank did a hardfork and your account stopped working or by not upgrading on time your currency could be lost or converted to another?  I understand why they want to stop ASICs but to me Bitmain is not the problem itself, they are simply exploiting, for profit the weakness that all cryptocurrencies have.  This weakness of PoW or mining is supposed to secure the network but in its absurdity it just makes things slow, insecure and ensures “whoever has the most money to buy more hashing power will control the currency”.  Making it even worse, mining pools and large farms could wreak havoc by broadcasting false transactions, causing others to lose money where they think they’ve received money they haven’t.

Going back to the purpose of mining, in reality today it guarantees two things.  0 security, slow transactions and centralization.  It creates a virtual arms race of whoever can buy enough hashing power is the winner and owner.  This was never the intention of Satoshi or cryptocurrencies.  There’s no way a small, average person will ever be an equal stakeholder in cryptocurrency.  Whether everyone uses an ASIC, CPU or GPU the issue remains the same.  It is a flaw and weakeness in how cryptocurrencies work.

The solution in my view is to make a community-based coin that works off PoS (Proof of State).  Typically these kinds of currencies will be faster and they can be more secure if they are not permissionless (a nice way of saying no security at all and EVERYONE can access the network and broadcast any transaction whether valid or fraudulent).  The whole world shouldn’t be involved in processing my payment for a coffee and they definitely shouldn’t know about it!

So to me when I see people say “mining secures the network”, that was the intention but in practice it’s not the case.

Some serious rewrites in the architecture of all currencies need to be rewritten and the permissionless design and PoW must come to an end for cryptocurrencies to be actually be usable, functional and sustainable for both personal and business use.

The fact that hardforks are even possible or even worse, necessary to stop others from obtaining too much hashing power is proof of concept that mining just doesn’t work.

 

 

Pablo Escobar’s Brother Trafficks an ICO and new Bitcoin Fork!

Pablo Esobar’s brother makes some very bold claims surrounding his new cryptocurrency launch.

https://www.ccn.com/pablo-escobar-brother-diet-bitcoin/

One of those claims is that Bitcoin was created by the CIA, however this may be contradicted by the fact he also claims he met a Satoshi Nakamoto of Japan.  As proof he shows a Passport bearing the same name:

satoshi-passport

Of course it is possible someone from Japan could be working for the CIA, most people don’t believe a single person created Bitcoin.  So I do think there is credence to believing a large organization such as the CIA or other resourceful and skilled group created Bitcoin (so I call this one plausible).

Some critics have said his website for his coin Diet Bitcoin was nearly copied from the original bitcoin.org and that so are the specs.  I’m going to be fair in that I don’t see how Diet Bitcoin is any worse than other Bitcoin forks such as Bitcoin Gold.  As many know I am against hardforks as I see them as counterfeiting, being confusing and just simply wrong but it also illustrates weaknesses in any currency which can be copied in such a manner (where I believe forks should be impossible to keep the network secure and ensure integrity).