1/31) ICP is centralized & insecure; ICP is dangerous!
You can bring down ICP by only attacking 40 nodes in known & fixed data centers!
ICP promises the moon but offers nothing unique
Scalability without decentralization is meaningless; ICP's modular design is the problem: 🧵
You can bring down ICP by only attacking 40 nodes in known & fixed data centers!
ICP promises the moon but offers nothing unique
Scalability without decentralization is meaningless; ICP's modular design is the problem: 🧵
2/31) ICP is made up of independent subnets, as opposed to being a single chain (monolithic)
However, unlike DOT & AVAX, there is no "shared security"
Subnets are responsible for their own security!
This inevitably results in extremely low validator counts, endangering users:
However, unlike DOT & AVAX, there is no "shared security"
Subnets are responsible for their own security!
This inevitably results in extremely low validator counts, endangering users:
3/31) At most there are less than 40 nodes protecting the user at any one time!
At worst, security depends upon a mere 13 nodes, this is not decentralized by any stretch of the imagination...
As the security of using ICP is entirely dependent upon whatever subnet you are using!
At worst, security depends upon a mere 13 nodes, this is not decentralized by any stretch of the imagination...
As the security of using ICP is entirely dependent upon whatever subnet you are using!
4/31) In practice, this translates into extremely low-security guarantees for the user
This also applies to all features!
From HTTPS Outcalls (oracles), canisters (smart contracts), chain-key cryptography & BTC integration
All are vulnerable to ICP's weak security guarantees!
This also applies to all features!
From HTTPS Outcalls (oracles), canisters (smart contracts), chain-key cryptography & BTC integration
All are vulnerable to ICP's weak security guarantees!
5/31) ICP is not a direct PoS system & is even more delegated than DPoS
Because stake is not required for block production
Instead, stakeholders verify & vote on specific validators!
Publicly specifying the data centers these nodes are hosted on; allowing for targeted attacks!
Because stake is not required for block production
Instead, stakeholders verify & vote on specific validators!
Publicly specifying the data centers these nodes are hosted on; allowing for targeted attacks!
6/31) An attacker would only have to take over/regulate 2/3rds of a handful of known nodes in these data centers!
This makes ICP far more vulnerable to attack compared to conventional PoS systems
As it has, in part, effectively disconnected stake from the "Cost to Attack"!
This makes ICP far more vulnerable to attack compared to conventional PoS systems
As it has, in part, effectively disconnected stake from the "Cost to Attack"!
7/31) PoS generally uses crypto-economic-incentives to prevent attack
Literally putting billions of dollars at stake, in the case of ICP, there is nothing at stake!
Except for reputation, ICP, in other words, relies more on trust
Going against the very ethos of cryptocurrency!
Literally putting billions of dollars at stake, in the case of ICP, there is nothing at stake!
Except for reputation, ICP, in other words, relies more on trust
Going against the very ethos of cryptocurrency!
8/31) ICP also makes the outlandish claim of infinite scalability (its namesake)
ICP's subnet design absolutely does have a scaling limit; unlike what ICP claims;
As all subnets communicate directly with each other & DKG is computationally expensive!
Proofing this to be a lie:
ICP's subnet design absolutely does have a scaling limit; unlike what ICP claims;
As all subnets communicate directly with each other & DKG is computationally expensive!
Proofing this to be a lie:
9/31) Even though DOT & AVAX take a "similar" approach to scaling, neither claim "infinite scalability"
As that would be a deeply misleading form of marketing in a finite universe
As without shared security; subnets are islands of consensus that fragment the rule & security set
As that would be a deeply misleading form of marketing in a finite universe
As without shared security; subnets are islands of consensus that fragment the rule & security set
10/31) Furthermore, as subnet replication is increased, the block rate goes down!
With higher replication factors, more replicas (nodes) are needed to send messages for the block to be agreed upon
Which causes message latency to go up, slowing down the network! (not infinite!)
With higher replication factors, more replicas (nodes) are needed to send messages for the block to be agreed upon
Which causes message latency to go up, slowing down the network! (not infinite!)
11/31) The same is also true when increasing the number of subnets!
Because subnets communicate directly with each other & Distributed Key Generation (DKG) is computationally expensive:
That is what creates a hard scaling limit far removed from ICP's initial lofty claim!
Because subnets communicate directly with each other & Distributed Key Generation (DKG) is computationally expensive:
That is what creates a hard scaling limit far removed from ICP's initial lofty claim!
12/31) ICP also outlandishly claims to have solved several major problems in blockchain tech
These are lies or at least should be considered extreme forms of dishonest marketing;
From solving the Oracle problem to bringing smart contracts to BTC & more misleading terminology:
These are lies or at least should be considered extreme forms of dishonest marketing;
From solving the Oracle problem to bringing smart contracts to BTC & more misleading terminology:
13/31) Starting with "bringing native smart contracts to BTC"
As these contracts are only as secure as the subnet & "canisters" (smart contracts) they are built on!
As this is where the BTC private keys are actually stored!
Allowing the "canister" to directly interact with BTC
As these contracts are only as secure as the subnet & "canisters" (smart contracts) they are built on!
As this is where the BTC private keys are actually stored!
Allowing the "canister" to directly interact with BTC
14/31) This is made possible due to the chain-key ECDSA signing built into ICP
This is in no way unique or innovative, as it exists in multiple ETH contracts now
While not being anywhere near as secure as native BTC!
On the contrary, it is dangerous & is putting users at risk!
This is in no way unique or innovative, as it exists in multiple ETH contracts now
While not being anywhere near as secure as native BTC!
On the contrary, it is dangerous & is putting users at risk!
15/31) As if the subnet is compromised, so are the private keys
As subnets only have a subset of ICP's security, some with different security trade-offs!
While the "canister" could even have admin keys, which could steal the BTC!
Calling this native BTC is a massive red flag!
As subnets only have a subset of ICP's security, some with different security trade-offs!
While the "canister" could even have admin keys, which could steal the BTC!
Calling this native BTC is a massive red flag!
16/31) This is where it starts to get even more ridiculous;
ICP claims that it has solved the oracle problem through what they refer to as HTTPS outcalls
Which allows smart contracts to get data directly from Web2 APIs
This misses the point of what the oracle problem even is!
ICP claims that it has solved the oracle problem through what they refer to as HTTPS outcalls
Which allows smart contracts to get data directly from Web2 APIs
This misses the point of what the oracle problem even is!
17/31) Relying on centralized APIs is not a solution to the oracle problem at all
It is, instead, the very definition of the oracle problem!
As the oracle problem is defined by the inability of a blockchain to know facts outside of itself without relying on centralized oracles!
It is, instead, the very definition of the oracle problem!
As the oracle problem is defined by the inability of a blockchain to know facts outside of itself without relying on centralized oracles!
18/31) ICP is full of this sort of misdirection & technobabble
Making it far more difficult to assess through comparative analysis
For instance, their choice to call DAO's nervous systems & smart contracts canisters
Might seem innovative & complex but to me screams obfuscation
Making it far more difficult to assess through comparative analysis
For instance, their choice to call DAO's nervous systems & smart contracts canisters
Might seem innovative & complex but to me screams obfuscation
19/31) Tricking new users into thinking that ICP has a revolutionary innovative design
When that could not be further from the truth, requiring us to "translate" the terminology:
Cannisters = Smart Contracts
Replicas = Nodes
Service Nervous System = DAO
Neurons = Staked ICP
When that could not be further from the truth, requiring us to "translate" the terminology:
Cannisters = Smart Contracts
Replicas = Nodes
Service Nervous System = DAO
Neurons = Staked ICP
20/31) Credit where credit is due; ICP has set up a robust system of on-chain governance
Including a formalized proposal system with voting weight based on time-locked
Both features I have extensively advocated for & are often not included in chains I do currently still support
Including a formalized proposal system with voting weight based on time-locked
Both features I have extensively advocated for & are often not included in chains I do currently still support
21/31) It was the case that running a validator required permission
This has changed as this vetting role has been moved over to the main DAO
This is an excellent way to decentralize a formally centralized system
Reminding me of the challenge ALGO faces with its relay nodes!
This has changed as this vetting role has been moved over to the main DAO
This is an excellent way to decentralize a formally centralized system
Reminding me of the challenge ALGO faces with its relay nodes!
22/31) Another aspect of ICP's design that deserves praise is its token economics
Adopting a similar design to ETH, where there is a small amount of inflation to pay for validator rewards
While all fees are burned in the form of "cycles", a native stablecoin that acts like gas
Adopting a similar design to ETH, where there is a small amount of inflation to pay for validator rewards
While all fees are burned in the form of "cycles", a native stablecoin that acts like gas
23/31) Most of my critique is based on how ICP presents itself
I have a problem with any blockchain making misleading & false statements
As these are investment assets available to retail
This demands higher standards from us, ICP falls way below that bar from my perspective
I have a problem with any blockchain making misleading & false statements
As these are investment assets available to retail
This demands higher standards from us, ICP falls way below that bar from my perspective
24/31) Special thanks to the CTO of ICP; @JanCamenisch, for reviewing the original critique
Of course, he disagrees with my conclusions; that is understandable
However, he was able to correct, deepen & nuance the critique more
The community also asked for this; I respect that
Of course, he disagrees with my conclusions; that is understandable
However, he was able to correct, deepen & nuance the critique more
The community also asked for this; I respect that
25/31) ICP can fix these problems;
I would advocate for a form of "shared security" which to their credit is being worked on
However, I would take this a step further & make the leap to full sharding;
By combining all validators into a single set & randomizing subnet selection
I would advocate for a form of "shared security" which to their credit is being worked on
However, I would take this a step further & make the leap to full sharding;
By combining all validators into a single set & randomizing subnet selection
26/31) This would put ICP security in a range to equivalent L1's
As the ICP's security would no longer be split across all of these subnets
In other words; the subnets would become shards solving the "shared security" problem!
ICP even has "cross-shard" communication built in!
As the ICP's security would no longer be split across all of these subnets
In other words; the subnets would become shards solving the "shared security" problem!
ICP even has "cross-shard" communication built in!
27/31) The language should also be brought in line with industry standards
Stop giving things new names!
We already have established terminology for everything in ICP
It sounds so "scammy"; as it sounds like they are claiming to have reinvented the wheel, a common deception...
Stop giving things new names!
We already have established terminology for everything in ICP
It sounds so "scammy"; as it sounds like they are claiming to have reinvented the wheel, a common deception...
28/31) Some time has passed since I first made this criticism
Unfortunately, ICP has not cleaned up its communication, only doubled down!
There is also the controversy of the initial supply, neither Arkham nor ICP have disclosed the addresses...
A severe lack of transparency!
Unfortunately, ICP has not cleaned up its communication, only doubled down!
There is also the controversy of the initial supply, neither Arkham nor ICP have disclosed the addresses...
A severe lack of transparency!
29/31) I have scheduled a Twitter Spaces to further discuss this ICP critique; everyone is welcome to join!
The ICP community has been a class act in the past when it comes to these debates, so I am looking forward to continuing those discussions:x.com/i/spaces/1vAxR…
The ICP community has been a class act in the past when it comes to these debates, so I am looking forward to continuing those discussions:x.com/i/spaces/1vAxR…
30/31) The marketing is dishonest, whether intentional or not
People are being sold the moon, as ICP claims to have solved all of crypto's problems
Yet, in reality, it is highly centralized & insecure!
There are some good parts to ICP, but that does not redeem all that is bad
People are being sold the moon, as ICP claims to have solved all of crypto's problems
Yet, in reality, it is highly centralized & insecure!
There are some good parts to ICP, but that does not redeem all that is bad
31/31) I wish the best for ICP & its supporters, as we are fighting for the same dream
I would even become a supporter if ICP switched to sharding!
The misleading marketing also has to be cleaned up
As I think everyone would be better off with just a little bit more honesty ❤️
I would even become a supporter if ICP switched to sharding!
The misleading marketing also has to be cleaned up
As I think everyone would be better off with just a little bit more honesty ❤️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
