Centralization, Censorship Worries Grow As EOS Election Approaches

Blockhain Tech
-
0

The EOS crypto community is getting ready to cast their ballot for the inaugural 21 block producers who will be responsible for running the network. However, the process has been marred by mounting concerns and confusion. Initially the plan was to have the election overseen by 21 appointees who would then hand over control to the elected block producers (BP) after the vote. This plan has since been abandoned leading to concerns of censorship and centralization. Now only one block producer will be responsible for running the election and community members are saying that trust could be undermined by the move.

Voting portals

Additionally there is a problem regarding the voting process. Several voting portals have come up and the problem is that the holders of the token have no mechanism for verifying trustworthiness. This is important because the voting process requires that holders of tokens provide their private keys. Also a graphical user interface app for voting has yet to be made available and the firm behind EOS, Block.one, has provided no information when one will be released.

While there could be legitimate reasons for charging one block producer with the responsibility of administering the vote, this has led to the breakdown of trust in the community. One of the reasons that has been given as to why the idea of having multiple Appointed Block Producers is the fact that they cannot be replaced and in the event that seven of them drop off, the chain dies forever.

Software bugs

Another problem that EOS has faced in the recent past is bugs in the software. Earlier in May a bug was discovered in the code of EOS by a cybersecurity firm based in China. If exploited the bug could have been used to generate tokens from thin air. Another bug was found late last month and this one was even more dangerous since it could have been exploited with a view of taking control of the entire system. The chief technology officer of EOS, Dan Larimer, attributed the bugs to poor coding as opposed to poor system design and thus they could be easily fixed.