Blockchain protocol EOS found itself surrounded after a new proof emerged on social media showing a moderator reversing transactions that had already been confirmed.
According to Reddit user u/auti9003, a dispute allegedly involving a phished EOS account was brought up to one of the platform’s named ‘arbitrators’ who decided to reverse transactions that occurred without the owner’s consent.
The Reddit user noted, under-gone transactions that had already received network confirmations.
Summarizing, the arbiter, Ben Gates, also referred as the EOS constitution as a basis for the decision. He wrote:
“Under the powers afforded to me as an arbiter below article 6 of the rules of Dispute Resolution, I, Ben Gates, rule that the EOS account under disputes ought to be returned to the claimant’s with immediate effect and that the freeze over the assets within the aforesaid account is removed.”
EOS has oftenly garnered criticism from cryptocurrency sources as for its alleged lack of decentralization, a characteristic that CTO Daniel Larimer himself confirmed in a previous interview last month.
“Decentralization isn’t what we’re desiring,” Adding further, he told YouTube series Colin Talks Crypto that:
“What we’re after is anti-censorship and strength against being finished off.”
Earlier in June, EOS “froze” seven accounts that were suspected of getting been compromised through phishing scams, with EOS Block Producers [BP] shortly when reportedly receiving a separate emergency order to prevent the process of transactions for twenty seven accounts with reasoning to follow.
On Reddit, responses to the alleged dealing reversal targeted around the concept that without decentralization, EOS had failed to prove its use case versus several other a lot more traditional centralized structures. The project’s $4 Bln year-long ICO was conjointly highlighted.
“Why would anyone use this over a bank account and ancient legal system?” the foremost well-liked comment reads, adding:
“These guys raised around $4 Bln to recreate the legal system employing a token that’s neither censorship resistant, nor inflexible.”