This place is awesome. You guys are great.
To be frank, I doubt about the decentralization of Nu in future.
In 2009, satoshi himself control the whole BTC net(centralized) and that was only temporary and in 2014 BTC is successful without reliable sotoshi(decentralized).
Nowadays, several big NSR holders/custodians control Nu system(centralized), but shall we trust those Nu custodians in 2019? Decentralized? This is a fatal question, IMHO.
The burning mechanism may encourage evil activity in future. An evil scenario:
In 2019, an anonymous custodian is granted for 2 million NBT and play LPC role for one month, suddenly he runs off with 1million USD and 1million NBT, then he pretends to be another person and spread the rumor that Nu can NOT support pegging any more, NSR price drops, buying wall becomes thinner. He attacks the buying wall with 0.5million NBT and threaten NSR holders that he will break buying wall and ask for burning his stolen remaining 0.5mllion NBT to get NSR.
In fact, every custodian has the incentive to run off and blackmail the whole Nu system. Yes, they have lots of NSR, but they can sell NSR first and commit crime.
You are right; unfortunately this is a scenario which is entirely possible.
On the one hand custodians need to be as anonymous as possible (at least to the āoutsideā of Nu) to prevent them from being attacked, blackmailed, their accounts frozen, their funds being confiscated.
On the other hand they need to be well-known (āinsideā of Nu) to assess their trustability and to be able to hold them accountable (if possibleā¦).
This is obviously a conflict of objective.
And it leaves a base for attack scenarios (what if one who knows the custodian decides to blackmail him/her?).
I can only encourage people to help thinking about, refine, develop what is discussed here: Decentralization to Minimize Custodial Risks
Teaser:
1 Like
I am also worried by the fact that some custodians could convince the shareholders to give them large amount of nubitsā¦but if we make sure that those custodians are also shareholders, with a granted amount of nubits in proportion to the owned shares, we should be able to prevent most of the potential frauds or manipulations unless the custodian wants to commit economic suicide; in this sense, it is similar to the conditioning that we can have with peercoin: it would be committing suicide to perform a 51% attack on peercoinās network since it would imply holding large amount of peercoins to get a large stake necessary for the attack.
tks.