centralized

The evolution of blockchain technology has been heralded as a revolutionary force in how society conducts transactions, governs systems, and ensures privacy. The primary ideals of blockchain revolve around decentralization, transparency, and democratizing access to technology and financial systems. However, as the landscape of blockchain applications expands, so does the emergence of permissioned blockchains like Hyperledger, which stand in contrast to the very principles that make blockchain a democratic tool in the first place. In this article, we explore how Hyperledger raises serious questions about democracy, ethics, and its alignment with decentralized ideals.

The Democratic Dilemma of Hyperledger

At its core, Hyperledger is a permissioned blockchain designed for use by trusted organizations and corporations in various enterprise applications. It aims to create secure, private networks where only authorized parties can access and validate information. While permissioned blockchains have their use cases—particularly in industries such as supply chain management or finance—they pose significant challenges to the principles of democracy that are central to decentralized blockchain technologies.

Centralized Control vs. Distributed Governance:In a democratic system, power is distributed among all participants, and decisions are made collectively, ensuring equality and fairness. Hyperledger significantly centralizes power in the hands of a few trusted entities that control the network and validate transactions.In a typical permissioned blockchain like Hyperledger, only approved organizations can participate in governance. This directly contrasts with public blockchains like Ethereum or Bitcoin, where any participant can engage in network activities, propose changes, or even validate transactions (depending on the consensus mechanism).Hyperledger restricts this participatory nature by limiting access to a select few, creating an oligarchic structure rather than a democratic one. This restriction on who gets to participate and influence the network makes it inherently undemocratic.Exclusion and Lack of Equal Opportunity:In true democratic systems, everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities, whether it’s voting rights or the ability to create wealth. Hyperledger’s permissioning model limits participation to only those entities that meet certain pre-approved criteria, thus excluding smaller players, individuals, or organizations that cannot meet these standards.By limiting access to a small group of participants, Hyperledger perpetuates inequality and fails to uphold the principle of inclusivity that is a hallmark of both democratic systems and blockchain technology. The elites—corporations or trusted entities—control the entire ecosystem, leaving others with little to no control over the network.Transparency and Accountability Concerns:Democracy thrives on transparency—the ability of the public to scrutinize the actions of those in power. In contrast, Hyperledger operates within a closed environment, where decision-making processes, network transactions, and data management are often not transparent to the public.In a decentralized network, transparency and auditability are key principles that ensure participants can trust the system and its actors. However, because Hyperledger is private and permissioned, it often operates under the radar, limiting the public’s ability to scrutinize actions. This reduces accountability and opens the door for unethical practices to take place, much like in centralized systems of power.The Threat to Democracy in Blockchain:The beauty of blockchain technology lies in its democratic potential—the idea that anyone, anywhere, can participate in and benefit from the network. Hyperledger's centralized nature undermines this ideal by granting the privilege of network control only to a few approved parties, effectively creating a system where participation is restricted, and influence is concentrated among a select few.This stands in stark contrast to DeFi (Decentralized Finance), where the idea is to create open, inclusive systems that are not controlled by any single entity. While Hyperledger may suit enterprise needs, it fails to serve the democratic ideals that are central to the blockchain and crypto world.

The Unethical Aspects of Hyperledger

While Hyperledger may provide security, privacy, and efficiency for certain enterprise-level applications, it raises several ethical concerns, especially when its potential is viewed through the lens of democracy and decentralization.

Exploitation of Centralized Control:In democratic systems, the abuse of power is considered unethical. Similarly, the centralized control within Hyperledger can lead to unethical practices, where a select few entities exploit the system to maintain power and control. The lack of external scrutiny allows these entities to operate with little to no accountability, making it easier for them to exploit the system for financial or strategic gain.If these entities manipulate the network for selfish purposes, it could lead to unfair advantages in the marketplace, perpetuating inequality and undermining the core values of transparency and fairness in blockchain technology.Restricting Innovation and Financial Inclusion:DeFi is based on the principle of open financial systems, where anyone can participate regardless of their economic or social standing. Hyperledger, with its closed environment, limits access to financial innovation. By restricting participation to a select group of players, it inadvertently contributes to the exclusion of individuals or smaller entities who could benefit from this transformative technology.In this sense, Hyperledger may not only stifle innovation but also hinder the financial inclusion that blockchain technology promises. Individuals who don’t meet the criteria to participate in these networks could miss out on the potential economic opportunities afforded by decentralized financial systems.Undermining the True Spirit of Blockchain:The essence of blockchain is to distribute power, eliminate intermediaries, and empower individuals. Hyperledger, by contrast, limits the access and participation of individuals and smaller organizations, instead granting control to a few centralized entities. This goes against the very spirit of what blockchain stands for.When used for enterprise applications, it may be a pragmatic solution. However, using it as a blockchain solution for systems that should ideally be open, transparent, and decentralized can be considered unethical, as it restricts the freedom and empowerment that blockchain technologies were meant to promote.

Conclusion: The Ethical Dilemma of Hyperledger

In conclusion, Hyperledger Fabric raises serious ethical and democratic concerns when compared to the open, decentralized models of blockchain. While permissioned blockchains like Hyperledger have their place in certain enterprise applications, they fundamentally clash with the democratic ideals that blockchain technology was designed to promote. By concentrating power in the hands of a few participants and restricting access to the broader public, Hyperledger limits the open access, transparency, and inclusivity that are essential to a truly democratic system.

While Hyperledger may be seen as an efficient tool for enterprise use, its centralized nature and lack of transparency mean that it risks undermining the ethical foundation of blockchain—leaving the door open for practices that contradict the principles of equality, accountability, and fairness. As we continue to build on blockchain's democratic potential, it is essential to critically evaluate how permissioned systems like Hyperledger may shape the future of decentralization, ethics, and governance in the blockchain world.
#centralized #hyperledger #blockchain #democracy #decentralization

The demand for the implementation of Blockchain technology to enhance the security of online transactions and critical business operations has experienced a significant surge. Blockchain has emerged as the most secure application for critical business infrastructure, particularly in sectors such as finance, transportation, and medical industries. However, as the adoption of this technology has increased, it has also brought to light various potential security threats and vulnerabilities. These security threats can be categorized as deliberate and accidental. Deliberate threats are those planned by a dedicated team with specific objectives and target victims, often referred to as attacks. On the other hand, accidental threats, also known as unplanned threats, can be caused by natural disasters or any actions that may result in damage to a system. It is widely acknowledged by experts that Blockchain is susceptible to vulnerabilities stemming from software design flaws, hardware requirements, and protocol-related issues, which can lead to various types of threats within the technology and its applications

The vulnerability of asymmetric cryptography within blockchain technology, specifically the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) for transaction authentication, has been recognized in the context of quantum attacks. ECDSA serves as a widely utilized signature algorithm in Bitcoin, a prominent technology within the blockchain domain. Unlike #centralized networks, blockchain operates as a decentralized network, providing enhanced resistance to tampering. Researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) have revealed that Quantum Cryptography minimizes entropy within the system, thereby reducing noise. However, the implementation of quantum cryptography exposes weaknesses in the asymmetric cryptography utilized for digital signatures. In response to this vulnerability, a new signature authentication scheme for blockchain has been suggested, incorporating the lattice-based bonsai tree signature as a protective measure (Hasan et al., 2020). The loss of private keys during a cyber-attack is a common threat in the realm of cybersecurity. To address this, the authors have proposed a private key safety model that involves securely storing the sub-elements of the private key across various operational profiles and incorporating multiple character salts as a shared subsequence within each profile. Additionally, the authors have implemented syntactic, semantic, and cognitive safety controls to establish interdependence among these profiles. Another emerging threat is cryptojacking, also known as drive-by mining, which covertly utilizes individuals' devices to mine #Cryptocurrencies without their consent or awareness. In response to this threat, a detection approach called MineSweeper has been proposed, relying on the cryptographic functions of #Cryptojacking codes through static analysis and real-time monitoring of CPU cache. Furthermore, selfish mining poses a significant threat to the integrity of the Bitcoin network, where a group of miners deliberately withhold a valid solution from the rest of the network to undermine the efforts of honest miners. To mitigate this, a modification to the Bitcoin protocol has been suggested to prevent profitable engagement in selfish mining by mining pools smaller than ¼ of the total mining power. Additionally, vulnerabilities in the peer-to-peer (P2P) layer of cryptocurrency networking have been identified, allowing transactions to be linked to users' IP addresses with over 30% accuracy. To address this, Dandelion++, a lightweight and scalable solution, has been proposed to enhance anonymity using a 4-regular anonymity graph. The presence of Bitcoin nodes exhibiting anomalous behaviour patterns associated with illegal interests has led to the development of a behaviour pattern clustering algorithm to tackle this issue. Furthermore, specific transaction patterns have been employed to cluster nodes owned by the same entity, with the objective of efficiently extracting data from the extensive Bitcoin network.
Routing attacks, which entail partitioning and slowing down the Bitcoin network, present additional challenges. To mitigate these threats, short-term countermeasures such as increasing the diversity of node connections and measuring round-trip time, as well as long-term measures like encrypting Bitcoin communication and utilizing #UDPN connections, have been recommended.

Centralized Exchanges (CEXs)
Centralized exchanges are traditional exchanges that operate like a middleman between buyers and sellers. Here are some key characteristics:
1. Centralized control: CEXs are owned and operated by a single entity, which has control over the platform and its operations.
2. Custodial: CEXs hold users' funds in their wallets, which can make them vulnerable to hacking and theft.
3. Regulatory compliance: CEXs must comply with regulatory requirements, such as Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws.
4. Fees: CEXs charge fees for trading, depositing, and withdrawing funds.
Examples of CEXs include Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken.
Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs)
Decentralized exchanges, on the other hand, operate without a central authority. Here are some key characteristics:
1. Decentralized control: DEXs are operated by a network of nodes, rather than a single entity.
2. Non-custodial: DEXs do not hold users' funds, which reduces the risk of hacking and theft.
3. Autonomous: DEXs operate autonomously, without the need for intermediaries.
4. Low fees: DEXs often have lower fees compared to CEXs.
Examples of DEXs include Uniswap, SushiSwap, and Curve.
Key differences
Here are the main differences between CEXs and DEXs:
1. Control: CEXs are controlled by a single entity, while DEXs are decentralized and autonomous.
2. Custodianship: CEXs hold users' funds, while DEXs do not.
3. Regulation: CEXs must comply with regulatory requirements, while DEXs often operate outside of traditional regulatory frameworks.
4. Fees: DEXs often have lower fees compared to CEXs.
Advantages and disadvantages
Here are the advantages and disadvantages of CEXs and DEXs:
CEXs:
Advantages:
- Easy to use
- High liquidity
- Wide range of trading pairs
Disadvantages:
- Centralized control
- Custodial risks
- Higher fees
DEXs:
Advantages:
- Decentralized control
- Non-custodial
- Lower fees
Disadvantages:
- Complex to use
- Lower liquidity
- Limited trading pairs

Follow for more.

#LearnCryptocurrency #centralized #CryptoUsersHit18M #Decentalized #LearnTogether

The community of Bitrue, an XRP-friendly centralized exchange, has shared their opinions on the target price of the XRP cryptocurrency. While most commenters posted outrageously super bullish predictions, there were some bearish voices as well.

Target price of #XRP by community: the fun starts at $BTC $100 is the most popular target for XRP, the seventh largest #cryptocurrency . That's the opinion of cryptocurrency holders in a public poll launched on X major #centralized exchange #Bitrue .
a major exchange particularly popular with members of the XRP army asked X followers about potential targets for the price of XRP.
the most popular are one hundred dollars ($100) and $BTC 'Bullish'
a target for XRP fans. Some of them even see the XRP cryptocurrency soaring into the five digits.
the fun starts at $100, but I think $1,000 is the goal.
Many speakers also predict that XRP will reach the $10-$30 zone. Most cautious speakers believe XRP will reach the $1-$3 level in the upcoming bull cycle.
In most cases, these statements should be taken with a grain of salt: if XRP reaches $100, the supply would be equivalent to about $5.7 trillion, which is more than 143% of the current cryptocurrency market capitalization and more than 4.5 times the current market capitalization of bitcoin (BTC).
At the same time, some proponents are pessimistic about the future potential of this asset. Many say that even at current prices, XRP seems overbought and the worst is yet to come.
In the past few hours, XRP has squandered all the gains made over the weekend, dropping from $0.66 to $0.627 on major spot exchanges in less than an hour.
As U. S. Today previously reported, XRP reached its highest price in months.
XRP reached its highest weekly close since 2024 - will the SEC ruin this rally?
Read us at: Compass Investments

Binance, the world's largest centralized exchange, has announced a collaborative community management structure that will allow Binance users to vote on the listing and delisting of tokens on the platform.

According to the announcement, #Binance will select projects for community voting. . The tokens that receive the most votes will be reviewed by a #centralized exchange company and listed on Binance.
Projects that fail to provide regular progress updates or necessary token information, projects with unscrupulous activities or inactive development teams or communities will be placed in the platform's monitoring zone.
Once a project is placed in the monitoring zone, Binance community members will be able to vote to delist those projects from the platform.
The announcement follows the release of the announcement by Binance. At the time of writing, the number of unique digital assets listed on the site has reached 12.4 million.
Some market analysts believe that the rapid growth of new tokens competing for limited capital and investor attention is having a dilutive effect on cryptocurrency prices, with the market
In a post dated January 24, X #Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said that Coinbase needs to rethink its token listing process. Mr. Armstrong wrote, "With (roughly) one million tokens currently being created per week and that number continuing to grow, Coinbase's listing process needs to be rethought.
The regulator is currently not required to approve all tokens for submission. "Currently, the regulator does not have to approve all tokens for application, and should also realize that it's completely impractical for
this, the CEO continued.
CEO Armstrong concluded that exchanges should move to a
"permission list"
to the blockchain.
The b-structure. He concluded that the exchanges should move
Read us at: Compass Investments
#CompassInvestments #CryptoTrends

#OKX , a leading cryptocurrency exchange, has decided to withdraw its Virtual Asset Service Provider (#VASPs ) license application in Hong Kong. This decision, announced on the OKX blog, is part of a strategic shift in the company's business approach, although the specific reasons for the withdrawal remain undisclosed.
As a result, will terminate its centralized crypto exchange services for Hong Kong residents starting May 31, in compliance with local regulatory requirements. The exchange reassured users that their funds remain secure, but deposits made after May 31 might not be automatically credited, and any open orders will be canceled. Withdrawals for Hong Kong residents will be supported until August 31, after which any remaining balances will be designated as “unclaimed property” according to the platform’s terms.
#OKX. #Withdrawl #centralized $PYTH $ADA $SOL

Flying Shiba Inu is a recently launched mimcoin with the potential to create a new wave of crypto billionaires.

Flying #Shiba Inu (FLYSHIB) quotes could rise 7,000% by Tuesday ahead of the announcement that this new mimcoin will be listed on the MEXC exchange.
This will be the first listing of Flying Shiba Inu on a #centralized exchange, it is currently only traded on decentralized solanium exchanges such as Raydium.
This announcement will be an important catalyst for FLYSHIB's price movement, as a listing on the CEX will give Flying Shiba Inu (FLYSHIB) access to tens of millions of new investors.
The #token is currently trading at $000000535 and the market value of Flying Shiba Inu (contract address: BEU7zWb6AC2SyKR1pAQU8aTj9AFuodxWSkScScStJtJSWDF) is around $BTC This means that the token has significant growth potential and could turn thousands of dollars into millions if a listing on MEXC or a centralized exchange is announced.
Therefore, it is not surprising that many early #SHIB (SHIB) investors (who made astronomical profits by buying the coins early on) also decided to invest in FLYSHIB, especially before the first listing on the CEX was officially announced.
Specifically, FLYSHIB's market value is expected to rise to $250,000 by the end of next week, which means a $500 investment would be worth more than $BTC FLYSHIB's market value is expected to reach US$ 5 million by mid-May.
Read us at: Compass Investments
#TrendingTopic

Several independent audits have pinpointed the cause of last week's historic $1.4 billion hack of the Bybit exchange - dubbed the largest cryptocurrency hack in history based on asset value - and it wasn't the crypto exchange's fault.

Two leading cybersecurity firms, Verichains and Sygnia Labs, have determined that North Korean hackers managed to pull off the largest hack in history by injecting malicious code into the infrastructure of Safe, a #cryptocurrency wallet provider used by Bybit and long advertised as impenetrable.
According to reports from both security companies, North Korean hackers injected malicious JavaScript code directly into Safe's online infrastructure, which was hosted on Amazon Web Services. It is still unclear how the hackers infiltrated Safe.
presumably the code was specifically designed to avoid detection. When Bybit did interact with Safe, the code was triggered two days later, and the cryptocurrency exchange 1.4 billion in #Ethereum and related tokens were leaked.
just two minutes after the hack, North Korean hackers updated Safe's infrastructure, removed the malicious lines of code and disappeared without a trace, according to a statement
Decrypt, Bybit emphasized that the exchange's infrastructure was not "compromised" by North Korean hackers, according to the initial forensics report.
Bybit, a #centralized exchange in Dubai, has been working to stop hackers who stole $1.4 billion worth of Ethereum and related tokens last week. The exchange wasted no time in stopping them, offering a weekend reward of up to $140 million to anyone who helps track and freeze the funds. On Tuesday, the exchange went a step further and launched a rewards panel and website where users can leave information about stolen funds and track what it considers 'good' and 'bad' participants in the process. 'В...
Bybit was and remains 100% secure,
the company said. The statement added that Bybit withdrew the majority of funds from its secure managed wallet within hours of Friday's attack.

Read us at: Compass Investments
#DigitalCurrency #CryptoNews