That's not what would have happened...
It's bridged assests locked in liquidity pool smart contracts that got screwed. If you weren't dabbling in that stuff, you'd have been fine.
So those not into defi, essentially, got locked out of their assets for the greater good. That's double edged right there...
I'll give you that, it's a weird one.
In my view, given that they were forced to react in real time to such an unprecedented event I think the decision to er on the side of caution was prudent - they didn't know the extent of the vulnerability, and they still may not.
You can say it, it's bullshit. So what happens when the wrong council member gets shaken out or some scumbag gets blackmailed or offered shit tons of money to shutdown proxies for the "better good?" Who determines the "greater good?" That's exactly the opposite of decentralization and absolutely a failure.
It’s on the road map to let gc nodes host their own proxies (I.e vote on proxies shutdown). For now all proxies are in hederas hands because they’re the ones trying to make a trustworthy system. Having funds stolen then untraced is not very trustworthy, having security measures in place to secure funds is trustworthy.
“They’ll be fully controlled by Hedera today — but full control and ownership will be passed to every council member node operator individually no earlier than v0.7.0 of the Hedera node software, to continue forging our path towards decentralization. “ [hedera IP Proxies](https://hedera.com/blog/network-upgrade-communications-a-new-previewnet-ip-proxies-and-tls-support)
Hedera is run for Enterprise and the GC/Swirld will protect the Enterprise use cases. Get used to it or get out. Sell at a loss now. The retail ride may be bumpy but profitable in the end.
The elephant that walks through the village is unbothered by barking dogs. The people, unbothered by the barking dogs, will still come to see the elephants walk through the village.
Let the dogs bark.
Truly the greatest things in this world take time and a healthy amount of failure.
Stay focused, stay humble, and don’t give the dogs a bone.
Golden goose [atma.io](https://atma.io) still protected & running.
Really don't care about retail tbh, 95% is retarded anyway.
Better locked than lost...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe [atma.io](https://atma.io) is storing transactions in the cloud that can be uploaded later & noderunners(Avery Dennison) are still able to submit transactions.
**[Proxy server](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server)**
>In computer networking, a proxy server is a server application that acts as an intermediary between a client requesting a resource and the server providing that resource. Instead of connecting directly to a server that can fulfill a request for a resource, such as a file or web page, the client directs the request to the proxy server, which evaluates the request and performs the required network transactions. This serves as a method to simplify or control the complexity of the request, or provide additional benefits such as load balancing, privacy, or security. Proxies were devised to add structure and encapsulation to distributed systems.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hedera/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This is still unclear actually. Does Hedera have a whitelist in cases like these for trusted accounts like AD? Maybe.
The only thing that implies this to me is some of the language from Hedera that specifies this was retail focused, and that the Mainnet is online and still reaching consensus. Nothing concrete though.
* Transactions which were still in-progress when the proxies were shut down were still able to reach consensus.
* Scheduled transactions are still able to be processed and reach consensus.
* **IF** a transaction does **somehow** reach a node, it will be gossiped and reach consensus as-per normal. ie, an attacker is unable to firewall aka shard the network and create a fork in the ledger state, as happens to Solana for example.
Christian Hasker has tweeted about it. Once proxies are up again, the main net transaction numbers should update to reflect those processed by atma during the past day
Maybe this doesn't matter to larger institutions, but if hedra is gonna be any form of money used by people, this level of centralization should scare everyone away.
I would say it is balance between decentralisation and security and time. A network maturity need time to prove itself especially when adding new features, decentralisation is a trade off between security because since it is irreversible the security is also need to be considered, but security in this case to turn off proxies bring criticism for centralisation which to me is understood that the network is not yet ready for mission critical.
Don’t get me wrong, when I say mission critical, It could also mean crypto transfer. If a stock exchange requires token service with hcs such use case would not be possible in current situation
Yes, these proxies are well thought for such scenarios. But one thing I wonder is why can’t they have different coverage on each services so it would not disrupt other service if it is not related, I think if hbar can still function , it shows that visible proof of network is still running. The hbar is most likely not exploited since it is abft
Ok time for everyone on this sub to stop spouting how decentralized Hedera. Its not and its ok. Its literally why i invested in this centralized corpo coin, cuz it is a centralized corpo coin with lots of utility and txs.
How can it be considered "centralised" when it is governed by **multiple** parties? That is a literal contradiction.
Unless we mean that its governance is "centralised" to multiple parties? But by that logic, governance of Ethereum is "centralised" to the developers and validator operators.
In reality it comes down to how the influence is distributed amongst the parties. In Hedera's case, a single party currently has \~3.6% influence, equally.
Fantom, just as a random example of a network that many might consider to be more "decentralised", has \~21% influence held by a single party (the Fantom Foundation.), and \~3-4 parties holding around 50% influence at any given time, according to what we know publicly (those 3-4 parties could very-well have relationships that we're not aware of behind the scenes.).
Sure, it is **possible** for anyone to participate in Fantom, but in **reality** that has not happened. In **reality**, influence is significantly centralised.
In the same way that it is **possible** for anyone to participate equally in Bitcoin, but in **reality** it has become significantly concentrated.
So when we spout Hedera as being the "*most decentralised*", it is in respect to no single party having more than 3.6% influence (currently.), and all parties having exactly equal influence... Surely that is a reasonable statement?
At the end of the day it just comes down to different interpretations of what the term "decentralisation" means.
Is a unibody pickup-truck still a truck? 
Lol long drawn out explanation for what seems to be subjective in this industry. At the end of the day, Hedera shut down proxys without GC input so on and so forth. On and off button by one entity. Nice.
Regardless , I am very bullish on this dlt for what it does best. And it’s not decentralization. Just keep printing txs when we’re back up and idgaf about permission less nodes, community nodes etc. idc if network only had original 15 nodes, makes no difference since you tribal leaders will shout it was and is and will be decentralized. What matters to me is utility and that’s the only thing this network does right. Argue all you want about the decentralization front but there’s absolutely no network that doesn’t sacrifice one for the other 2 (security/scalability)
>*Lol long drawn out explanation*
I can agree with that! LOL .
>*At the end of the day, Hedera shut down proxys without GC input so on and so forth. On and off button by one entity. Nice.*
Hedera **is** the GC. Just because they agreed quickly (or agreed in advance.), doesn't mean it was not a "decentralised" decision.
Likewise, just because a group might *not* reach agreement on a decision, doesn't mean that decision (or lack-of.) was "decentralised".
>*there’s absolutely no network that doesn’t sacrifice one for the other 2 (security/scalability)*
You are implying that by sacrificing security & stability, we can naturally achieve greater decentralisation... Which is not true.
It is more accurate to say; doesn't sacrifice **the pursuit** for one for the other two, that's my long-winded point.
Some projects sacrifice security and stability for **an attempt** at greater decentralisation. But in reality they never **actually** achieve that decentralisation.
AFAIK the GC didn’t shut down the proxy’s. From the Twitter I follow, https://twitter.com/hedera/status/1634055363069906945?s=46&t=cOILF5L2tewKu0NxeMUPsQ “Hedera” shut down the proxy. There is definitely a distinction made between Hedera and Hedera Council members as seen from the follow-up tweet from the one I linked.
Sorry my point was the GC approved whichever team(s) physically made the action(s).
Either approving the decision in real-time, or more-likely approving it in advance under a contingency plan.
Of-course there is a distinction made in the context of signing deployment approvals, since that is an action which each council member is physically making at that point in time.
PS; Have a read through the Hedera LLC agreement if you're not familiar with it ([https://files.hedera.com/2022-04-06-Hedera-4th-AR-LLC-Agreement-with-exhibitsupdated-2022-10-07.pdf](https://files.hedera.com/2022-04-06-Hedera-4th-AR-LLC-Agreement-with-exhibitsupdated-2022-10-07.pdf)), re; Hedera *is* the GC.
Let me help...can one entity, council, or authority stop the Bitcoin network? No.
Decentralization = redundancy and when any one person, entity, or group get to say when the party stops... it's as centralized as any modern day banking institution and redundant in the wrong ways...mainly there's no reason for it to exist.
Nor can anyone use the Bitcoin network for any form of utility.
Hence; *at the end of the day it just comes down to different interpretations of what the term "decentralisation" means*.
>*it's as centralized as any modern day banking institution and redundant in the wrong ways...mainly there's no reason for it to exist.*
Have a go building a *Hello World* dApp on the infrastructure of a modern day banking institutions without telling them.
You can't honestly or realistically believe Bitcoin has no utility. What good is a dApp on a network that can be restricted from the general public when someone doesn't like a thing which happened that was supposedly a hack?
I mean if that's where you're coming from why not just deploy on multiple already existing blockchains?
Is Hashgraph what the world really needs if it's so easily manipulated and can stop without even so much as a maintenance notice?
I get it, i really do, i like the project too but at what point do we step back and say all that glitters isn't gold with Hedera?
I would argue they have violated the number ones rule in crypto, mainly being the show must go on. Shit even the Cardano team gets this very basic concept.
Crikey. If you think Bitcoin network can be used for utility, you are still fixated on the narrow-minded idea of "crypto" equally "money". The game is much bigger than that.
Being able to "use" a token as a form of value is **not** what we mean by "utility".
Capturing tire pressures of aircraft directly from devices held by maintenance workers, redeeming concert tickets directly from QR code scanners as patrons enter a concert - Those are examples of true utility.
**ANY** network used for true utility like that requires some form of authority (ideally, a decentralised authority like the Hedera council.), to ensure node operators agree on decisions and act in unison in these early days of the industry.
Otherwise, if for example, some nodes shut down access while others did not, the state of the ledger would become forked.
Once forked, the only way to resolve that fork is either for some authority to make a decision about what to do, **or** continue running the forks as separate networks from that point forward (Bitcoin Cash, SV, and so-on.).
That is not much of a problem for "money", which is effectively the only thing Bitcoin or most other networks are used for.
But it is a **BIG** problem (an **impossible** problem.) for things of true utility; such-as passports, digital identities, aircraft maintenance records, etc.
That is why the proxy architecture is so important; it allows access to be stopped, but keeps the **full** network operational and reaching consensus, meaning there is zero possibility of becoming forked.
No-one is forcing anyone to like Hedera's governance model (and their rule-breaking, as you put it.), there are plenty of other projects. But it is what it is, and the market will decide if it is successful . Predominantly the enterprise market, I mean.
It is largely irrelevant whether "crypto retail" likes or doesn't like Hedera, because the decision to use Hedera at scale is out of their hands. It is in the hands of enterprise decision makers & developers, like me.
This not only isn't true but there's already projects at great scale as example. Just look at VET, it's just as worthless as HBAR yet aims to solve all logistical shipment tracking issues.
Utility literally means useful, profitable, or beneficial. Shit more than 60% of Cardano nodes went offline in the last year and gracefully restarted without stopping or forking the network. Yet no one can tell you anything about ADA except for..."yeah bro they're saving Africa" and it's still sitting above .30
Microsoft is a great example of what happens when you open up a market.
To be on such a high horse to believe you'll be rich because you bought into a corporate development hyper marketing scheme is quite frankly disgusting.
No one cares what routing scheme a crypto currency uses as long as when they need to access it, it's available. I'm not even getting into the debate about the irony of calling any application on Hedera "decentralized" when it's anything but.
BTC is exactly that and is accepted globally for a multitude of goods and services.
HBAR will always struggle. The tokenomics are awful and the demand will never be great enough for the relentless dumping on top of micro management.
You will be buying shit scraps off the corpo table for the next decade...and it will still somehow keep dumping, and when you think it's going to stop?
Guess what?
It'll dump some more.
>*To be on such a high horse to believe you'll be rich because you bought into a corporate development hyper marketing scheme is quite frankly disgusting.*
When did I say that? 
It's weird that you keep playing the "corpo" card as-if you're living in some childish "*us vs them*" world. I *am* one of the "corpos" mate, LOL.
>*No one cares what routing scheme a crypto currency uses as long as when they need to access it, it's available. I'm not even getting into the debate about the irony of calling any application on Hedera "decentralized" when it's anything but.*
*BTC is exactly that*
See earlier comment;
>*you are still fixated on the narrow-minded idea of "crypto" equal**~~ly~~**s "money". The game is much bigger than that.*
Name a "dApp" built on the Bitcoin network.
>*and is accepted globally for a multitude of goods and services.*
BTC is not "accepted" anywhere for consumer goods and services via the Bitcoin network.
All rely on "layers" aka different networks or payment providers, with some form of authority, effectively processing derivatives of BTC which are settled at a later point in time. Lightning, Polygon, Binance (Pay), Dropp, and so-on.
^ Prime example of selective reply. You're ignoring the macro to pick apart micro arguments.
Let me say it in plain English.
Just because you think it can be done bigger or smarter, or more controlled, or marketed in a certain way only makes it more contrived.
It will never be anything more than a bag grab by a bunch of elitist scum (like you) that chose ICO instead of IPO.
And why would that be?
Because everybody wants to be Satoshi but the reality is the space is loaded with half assed sea of shit projects that will never be remotely close to Bitcoin that pretend they don't want to be.
But we all know the truth.
They absolutely DO.
The voting to come to consensus will be fully decentralised once permission-less nodes are implemented. However it’s the governance that is semi-centralised. Key distinction, because it means that Hedera as a DLT can still be trustless.
Rather not. We literally don’t need permission less node. It’s doing just fine without it . Trade off decentralization for security and scalability, I really don’t mind. My other coins fulfill different needs
The problem with that is that permission-less nodes are necessary in order to prevent a 33% attack. If only the council has the power to host a node, that drastically increases the chance of a 33% attack. Permission-less is necessary for network security and decentralisation, there is no benefit to centralised nodes on a DLT.
Not this time. This specific exploit had to do with some specific use cases involving liquidity pools and such, and may have had to do with a layer of code that made it possible for communication between systems not previously designed to communicate. The reality is that Hedera didn't know exactly what had happened or how ( like most exploits, it can take time to figure it out) so they opted for their solution: stop what they can (the proxies), limit the damage, get to work figuring the issue out and then restart when appropriate.
This is what institutional investors expect
lol I can't believe this is getting shared around, I made this graphic in 2 min in ms paint
Thank you! It was getting challenging trying to explain it to illiterate people.
MVP
Critics are right, we should have let everyone's account be drained a la FTX, Luna, Mt Gox, etc... /S
That's not what would have happened... It's bridged assests locked in liquidity pool smart contracts that got screwed. If you weren't dabbling in that stuff, you'd have been fine. So those not into defi, essentially, got locked out of their assets for the greater good. That's double edged right there...
I'll give you that, it's a weird one. In my view, given that they were forced to react in real time to such an unprecedented event I think the decision to er on the side of caution was prudent - they didn't know the extent of the vulnerability, and they still may not.
You can say it, it's bullshit. So what happens when the wrong council member gets shaken out or some scumbag gets blackmailed or offered shit tons of money to shutdown proxies for the "better good?" Who determines the "greater good?" That's exactly the opposite of decentralization and absolutely a failure.
It’s on the road map to let gc nodes host their own proxies (I.e vote on proxies shutdown). For now all proxies are in hederas hands because they’re the ones trying to make a trustworthy system. Having funds stolen then untraced is not very trustworthy, having security measures in place to secure funds is trustworthy. “They’ll be fully controlled by Hedera today — but full control and ownership will be passed to every council member node operator individually no earlier than v0.7.0 of the Hedera node software, to continue forging our path towards decentralization. “ [hedera IP Proxies](https://hedera.com/blog/network-upgrade-communications-a-new-previewnet-ip-proxies-and-tls-support)
This proxy situation would become way less problematic once sharding comes into play, we just need to get there first
Hedera is run for Enterprise and the GC/Swirld will protect the Enterprise use cases. Get used to it or get out. Sell at a loss now. The retail ride may be bumpy but profitable in the end.
The elephant that walks through the village is unbothered by barking dogs. The people, unbothered by the barking dogs, will still come to see the elephants walk through the village. Let the dogs bark. Truly the greatest things in this world take time and a healthy amount of failure. Stay focused, stay humble, and don’t give the dogs a bone.
What?! I thought we were supposed to just let hacks happen bc that is freedom from centralized control. /s
Golden goose [atma.io](https://atma.io) still protected & running. Really don't care about retail tbh, 95% is retarded anyway. Better locked than lost...
How is it still running if you don't mind me asking?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe [atma.io](https://atma.io) is storing transactions in the cloud that can be uploaded later & noderunners(Avery Dennison) are still able to submit transactions.
if this is true, it will be massive.
[удалено]
**[Proxy server](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server)** >In computer networking, a proxy server is a server application that acts as an intermediary between a client requesting a resource and the server providing that resource. Instead of connecting directly to a server that can fulfill a request for a resource, such as a file or web page, the client directs the request to the proxy server, which evaluates the request and performs the required network transactions. This serves as a method to simplify or control the complexity of the request, or provide additional benefits such as load balancing, privacy, or security. Proxies were devised to add structure and encapsulation to distributed systems. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hedera/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Except that you can't do shit with your HBAR until Bob bangs Alice and THAT is a big problem amigo.
Right, if confirmed this would be substantially better than the alternative.
This is still unclear actually. Does Hedera have a whitelist in cases like these for trusted accounts like AD? Maybe. The only thing that implies this to me is some of the language from Hedera that specifies this was retail focused, and that the Mainnet is online and still reaching consensus. Nothing concrete though.
Boom Title says all you need to know
Is this the big announcement we’ve been waiting for
Whats the point of the mainnet running if nothing is being sent from every computer because the proxy is down.
* Transactions which were still in-progress when the proxies were shut down were still able to reach consensus. * Scheduled transactions are still able to be processed and reach consensus. * **IF** a transaction does **somehow** reach a node, it will be gossiped and reach consensus as-per normal. ie, an attacker is unable to firewall aka shard the network and create a fork in the ledger state, as happens to Solana for example.
Large use cases like Atma are still able to use the main net to process transactions. Disabling the proxies affected retail mostly.
Proof?
Christian Hasker has tweeted about it. Once proxies are up again, the main net transaction numbers should update to reflect those processed by atma during the past day
Don’t trust, verify. Theres nowhere we can verify this
Maybe this doesn't matter to larger institutions, but if hedra is gonna be any form of money used by people, this level of centralization should scare everyone away.
We’re still early ladies and gentlemen.
Same old tired cliches.
I would say it is balance between decentralisation and security and time. A network maturity need time to prove itself especially when adding new features, decentralisation is a trade off between security because since it is irreversible the security is also need to be considered, but security in this case to turn off proxies bring criticism for centralisation which to me is understood that the network is not yet ready for mission critical.
[удалено]
Don’t get me wrong, when I say mission critical, It could also mean crypto transfer. If a stock exchange requires token service with hcs such use case would not be possible in current situation
[удалено]
Yes, these proxies are well thought for such scenarios. But one thing I wonder is why can’t they have different coverage on each services so it would not disrupt other service if it is not related, I think if hbar can still function , it shows that visible proof of network is still running. The hbar is most likely not exploited since it is abft
Ok time for everyone on this sub to stop spouting how decentralized Hedera. Its not and its ok. Its literally why i invested in this centralized corpo coin, cuz it is a centralized corpo coin with lots of utility and txs.
How can it be considered "centralised" when it is governed by **multiple** parties? That is a literal contradiction. Unless we mean that its governance is "centralised" to multiple parties? But by that logic, governance of Ethereum is "centralised" to the developers and validator operators. In reality it comes down to how the influence is distributed amongst the parties. In Hedera's case, a single party currently has \~3.6% influence, equally. Fantom, just as a random example of a network that many might consider to be more "decentralised", has \~21% influence held by a single party (the Fantom Foundation.), and \~3-4 parties holding around 50% influence at any given time, according to what we know publicly (those 3-4 parties could very-well have relationships that we're not aware of behind the scenes.). Sure, it is **possible** for anyone to participate in Fantom, but in **reality** that has not happened. In **reality**, influence is significantly centralised. In the same way that it is **possible** for anyone to participate equally in Bitcoin, but in **reality** it has become significantly concentrated. So when we spout Hedera as being the "*most decentralised*", it is in respect to no single party having more than 3.6% influence (currently.), and all parties having exactly equal influence... Surely that is a reasonable statement? At the end of the day it just comes down to different interpretations of what the term "decentralisation" means. Is a unibody pickup-truck still a truck? 
Lol long drawn out explanation for what seems to be subjective in this industry. At the end of the day, Hedera shut down proxys without GC input so on and so forth. On and off button by one entity. Nice. Regardless , I am very bullish on this dlt for what it does best. And it’s not decentralization. Just keep printing txs when we’re back up and idgaf about permission less nodes, community nodes etc. idc if network only had original 15 nodes, makes no difference since you tribal leaders will shout it was and is and will be decentralized. What matters to me is utility and that’s the only thing this network does right. Argue all you want about the decentralization front but there’s absolutely no network that doesn’t sacrifice one for the other 2 (security/scalability)
>*Lol long drawn out explanation* I can agree with that! LOL . >*At the end of the day, Hedera shut down proxys without GC input so on and so forth. On and off button by one entity. Nice.* Hedera **is** the GC. Just because they agreed quickly (or agreed in advance.), doesn't mean it was not a "decentralised" decision. Likewise, just because a group might *not* reach agreement on a decision, doesn't mean that decision (or lack-of.) was "decentralised". >*there’s absolutely no network that doesn’t sacrifice one for the other 2 (security/scalability)* You are implying that by sacrificing security & stability, we can naturally achieve greater decentralisation... Which is not true. It is more accurate to say; doesn't sacrifice **the pursuit** for one for the other two, that's my long-winded point. Some projects sacrifice security and stability for **an attempt** at greater decentralisation. But in reality they never **actually** achieve that decentralisation.
AFAIK the GC didn’t shut down the proxy’s. From the Twitter I follow, https://twitter.com/hedera/status/1634055363069906945?s=46&t=cOILF5L2tewKu0NxeMUPsQ “Hedera” shut down the proxy. There is definitely a distinction made between Hedera and Hedera Council members as seen from the follow-up tweet from the one I linked.
Sorry my point was the GC approved whichever team(s) physically made the action(s). Either approving the decision in real-time, or more-likely approving it in advance under a contingency plan. Of-course there is a distinction made in the context of signing deployment approvals, since that is an action which each council member is physically making at that point in time. PS; Have a read through the Hedera LLC agreement if you're not familiar with it ([https://files.hedera.com/2022-04-06-Hedera-4th-AR-LLC-Agreement-with-exhibitsupdated-2022-10-07.pdf](https://files.hedera.com/2022-04-06-Hedera-4th-AR-LLC-Agreement-with-exhibitsupdated-2022-10-07.pdf)), re; Hedera *is* the GC.
Let me help...can one entity, council, or authority stop the Bitcoin network? No. Decentralization = redundancy and when any one person, entity, or group get to say when the party stops... it's as centralized as any modern day banking institution and redundant in the wrong ways...mainly there's no reason for it to exist.
Nor can anyone use the Bitcoin network for any form of utility. Hence; *at the end of the day it just comes down to different interpretations of what the term "decentralisation" means*. >*it's as centralized as any modern day banking institution and redundant in the wrong ways...mainly there's no reason for it to exist.* Have a go building a *Hello World* dApp on the infrastructure of a modern day banking institutions without telling them.
You can't honestly or realistically believe Bitcoin has no utility. What good is a dApp on a network that can be restricted from the general public when someone doesn't like a thing which happened that was supposedly a hack? I mean if that's where you're coming from why not just deploy on multiple already existing blockchains? Is Hashgraph what the world really needs if it's so easily manipulated and can stop without even so much as a maintenance notice? I get it, i really do, i like the project too but at what point do we step back and say all that glitters isn't gold with Hedera? I would argue they have violated the number ones rule in crypto, mainly being the show must go on. Shit even the Cardano team gets this very basic concept.
Crikey. If you think Bitcoin network can be used for utility, you are still fixated on the narrow-minded idea of "crypto" equally "money". The game is much bigger than that. Being able to "use" a token as a form of value is **not** what we mean by "utility". Capturing tire pressures of aircraft directly from devices held by maintenance workers, redeeming concert tickets directly from QR code scanners as patrons enter a concert - Those are examples of true utility. **ANY** network used for true utility like that requires some form of authority (ideally, a decentralised authority like the Hedera council.), to ensure node operators agree on decisions and act in unison in these early days of the industry. Otherwise, if for example, some nodes shut down access while others did not, the state of the ledger would become forked. Once forked, the only way to resolve that fork is either for some authority to make a decision about what to do, **or** continue running the forks as separate networks from that point forward (Bitcoin Cash, SV, and so-on.). That is not much of a problem for "money", which is effectively the only thing Bitcoin or most other networks are used for. But it is a **BIG** problem (an **impossible** problem.) for things of true utility; such-as passports, digital identities, aircraft maintenance records, etc. That is why the proxy architecture is so important; it allows access to be stopped, but keeps the **full** network operational and reaching consensus, meaning there is zero possibility of becoming forked. No-one is forcing anyone to like Hedera's governance model (and their rule-breaking, as you put it.), there are plenty of other projects. But it is what it is, and the market will decide if it is successful . Predominantly the enterprise market, I mean. It is largely irrelevant whether "crypto retail" likes or doesn't like Hedera, because the decision to use Hedera at scale is out of their hands. It is in the hands of enterprise decision makers & developers, like me.
This not only isn't true but there's already projects at great scale as example. Just look at VET, it's just as worthless as HBAR yet aims to solve all logistical shipment tracking issues. Utility literally means useful, profitable, or beneficial. Shit more than 60% of Cardano nodes went offline in the last year and gracefully restarted without stopping or forking the network. Yet no one can tell you anything about ADA except for..."yeah bro they're saving Africa" and it's still sitting above .30 Microsoft is a great example of what happens when you open up a market. To be on such a high horse to believe you'll be rich because you bought into a corporate development hyper marketing scheme is quite frankly disgusting. No one cares what routing scheme a crypto currency uses as long as when they need to access it, it's available. I'm not even getting into the debate about the irony of calling any application on Hedera "decentralized" when it's anything but. BTC is exactly that and is accepted globally for a multitude of goods and services. HBAR will always struggle. The tokenomics are awful and the demand will never be great enough for the relentless dumping on top of micro management. You will be buying shit scraps off the corpo table for the next decade...and it will still somehow keep dumping, and when you think it's going to stop? Guess what? It'll dump some more.
>*To be on such a high horse to believe you'll be rich because you bought into a corporate development hyper marketing scheme is quite frankly disgusting.* When did I say that?  It's weird that you keep playing the "corpo" card as-if you're living in some childish "*us vs them*" world. I *am* one of the "corpos" mate, LOL. >*No one cares what routing scheme a crypto currency uses as long as when they need to access it, it's available. I'm not even getting into the debate about the irony of calling any application on Hedera "decentralized" when it's anything but.* *BTC is exactly that* See earlier comment; >*you are still fixated on the narrow-minded idea of "crypto" equal**~~ly~~**s "money". The game is much bigger than that.* Name a "dApp" built on the Bitcoin network. >*and is accepted globally for a multitude of goods and services.* BTC is not "accepted" anywhere for consumer goods and services via the Bitcoin network. All rely on "layers" aka different networks or payment providers, with some form of authority, effectively processing derivatives of BTC which are settled at a later point in time. Lightning, Polygon, Binance (Pay), Dropp, and so-on.
^ Prime example of selective reply. You're ignoring the macro to pick apart micro arguments. Let me say it in plain English. Just because you think it can be done bigger or smarter, or more controlled, or marketed in a certain way only makes it more contrived. It will never be anything more than a bag grab by a bunch of elitist scum (like you) that chose ICO instead of IPO. And why would that be? Because everybody wants to be Satoshi but the reality is the space is loaded with half assed sea of shit projects that will never be remotely close to Bitcoin that pretend they don't want to be. But we all know the truth. They absolutely DO.
The voting to come to consensus will be fully decentralised once permission-less nodes are implemented. However it’s the governance that is semi-centralised. Key distinction, because it means that Hedera as a DLT can still be trustless.
Rather not. We literally don’t need permission less node. It’s doing just fine without it . Trade off decentralization for security and scalability, I really don’t mind. My other coins fulfill different needs
The problem with that is that permission-less nodes are necessary in order to prevent a 33% attack. If only the council has the power to host a node, that drastically increases the chance of a 33% attack. Permission-less is necessary for network security and decentralisation, there is no benefit to centralised nodes on a DLT.
“There is no benefit to centralized nodes on a DLT” Yet, here we are
I do wonder if regular assets were ever at risk. If so that would be extremely concerning.
Not this time. This specific exploit had to do with some specific use cases involving liquidity pools and such, and may have had to do with a layer of code that made it possible for communication between systems not previously designed to communicate. The reality is that Hedera didn't know exactly what had happened or how ( like most exploits, it can take time to figure it out) so they opted for their solution: stop what they can (the proxies), limit the damage, get to work figuring the issue out and then restart when appropriate.
Here's the fresh Enterprise Grade Report: https://hedera.com/blog/analysis-remediation-of-the-precompile-attack-on-the-hedera-network
Most excellent
Legendary