Blockchain protocolEOS found itself surrounded after a newproofemerged on social mediashowinga moderator reversing transactionsthathad already been confirmed.
According to Reddit user u/auti9003, a dispute allegedly involving a phishedEOSaccount wasbrought upto one ofthe platform’snamed‘arbitrators’ who decidedto reverse transactions that occurredwithoutthe owner’s consent.
The Reddit user noted, under-gone transactionsthathad already received network confirmations.
Summarizing, thearbiter, Ben Gates,also referred astheEOSconstitution as a basis forthe decision. He wrote:
“Under the powers afforded tomeas an arbiterbelowarticle6ofthe rulesof Dispute Resolution, I, Ben Gates, rule that theEOSaccountunder disputesought tobereturnedto theclaimant’swith immediateeffect and thatthe freeze over the assetswithintheaforesaidaccount is removed.”
EOS hasoftenlygarnered criticism from cryptocurrency sourcesas forits alleged lack of decentralization, a characteristicthatCTO Daniel Larimer himself confirmed ina previousinterview last month.
“Decentralization isn’t what we’redesiring,” Adding further, he told YouTube series Colin Talks Crypto that:
“What we’reafteris anti-censorship andstrengthagainst beingfinished off.”
Earlier in June,EOS“froze” seven accounts that weresuspectedof gettingbeen compromised through phishing scams, withEOSBlock Producers [BP] shortlywhenreportedly receiving a separate emergency orderto preventtheprocessof transactions fortwenty sevenaccounts with reasoning to follow.
On Reddit, responses to the allegeddealingreversaltargetedaround theconceptthatwithout decentralization,EOShadfailedto prove its use case versusseveral othera lot more traditionalcentralized structures. The project’s $4 Bln year-long ICO wasconjointlyhighlighted.
“Why would anyone use this over abank accountandancientlegal system?”the foremostwell-liked comment reads, adding:
“These guys raised around $4 Bln to recreate the legalsystememploying atokenthat’sneither censorship resistant, norinflexible.”