Two Great Reads

This post is to flag two great posts by authors always worth reading, both related to the sad state of the venture capital industry upon which I have pontificated several times:

• Molly White's The venture capitalist's dilemma.
• Fais Khan's Zero Knowledge Influencer: Are ZKPs Worth the Hype?.

Each will reward your time. Below the fold I comment on both of them.

More Cryptocurrency Gaslighting

Ignacio de Gregorio is a "crypto expert" with 8.5K followers on Medium and he's worried. In The one word that can kill Crypto is back he discusses the New York Attorney General's suit agains KuCoin and, once again, demonstrates how gaslighting is central to the arguments supporting cryptocurrencies. Below the fold I point out the flaws in his argument.

C720 Linux Update

The three Acer C720 Chromebooks I wrote about in:

• 2014's A Note of Thanks,
• 2017's Travels with a Chromebook,
• and 2021's Chromebook Linux Update

are all still running Linux just fine despite the one I'm typing on being more than 8 years old. Below the fold I have some good news and some no-so-good news.

I was becoming a little concerned by the fact that the 5.0-series kernel I was stuck with was getting long in the tooth. So as an experiment I wiped C720 #3 and:

• Installed Mint 21.1 from scratch with LVM and full-disk encryption.
• Installed Mint 21.1 from scratch without full-disk encryption and with encrypted home directory, and updated to the current 5.15.0-67 kernel.

Below the fold, my notes on these experiments.

On Trusting Trustlessness

Nearly five years ago some bad guys used "administrative backdoors" in a "smart contract" to steal $23.5M from Bancor. In response I wrote DINO and IINO pointing out a fundamental problem with "smart contracts" built on blockchains. The technology was sold as "trustless":

A major misconception about blockchains is that they provide a basis of trust. A better perspective is that blockchains eliminate the need for trust.

But the "smart contracts" could either be:

• immutable, implying that you are trusting the developers to write perfect code, which frequently turns out to be a mistake,
• or upgradable, implying that you are trusting those with the keys to the contract, which frequently turns out to be a mistake.

The "smart contract" either is or is not mutable after deployment, there is no third possibility. Both cases require trust.

Now, in response to some good guys using an "unknown vulnerability" in a smart contract to recover $140M in coins looted in the Wormhole exploit, Molly White wrote The Oasis "counter-hack" and the centralization of defi on the same topic. Below the fold, I comment on her much better, much more detailed discussion of the implications of "smart contracts" that can be upgraded arbitrarily changed by their owners.