ProgPoW: Does the origin of open-source code matter?

[Disclaimer: We work on Ethash ASICs and would benefit from ETH remaining with Ethash longer]
Continuing a conversation with Daft-Wullie from gitter, about whether the origin of the ProgPoW sources matters or not:

Anonymous and pseudo-nymous contributions in open-source used to be exceedingly rare, and were never discussed to any serious degree. Open-source principles relied on responsibility, pride, transparency. Linux kernel contributions without disclosure of employment status would have been mostly unthinkable.

That was until Satoshi had the mercurial idea of releasing code into the world that was not tracable back to anyone, from day 1. Satoshi gifted us with this, but he also caused new problems. What if Satoshi had a secret deal with the US Federal Reserve who is today in possession of his 1 million BTC?

If you read over these stories, you notice they all run for many years, a lifetime even. Crypto has created many get-rich-quick millionaires. Why would you think crypto couldn't also create swindlers that made it into this list?

Anyone is free to believe Kristy's stories about ifdefelse, in the same way that we have to believe Satoshi had no secret deal with the US Fed.

Some of us like to say code is law, or code is money. We like to think of ourselves as "better" than the traditional banks and state institutions. So "code is law" means that criminals can write the laws? Code is money means swindlers can directly mess with the creation of money now?

When you want to become board member of a traditional bank, you will be background checked. We laugh about this because we are better?

Kristy-Leigh Minehan would not stand the chance of being considered, given all suspicious evidence out there.

Let's start somewhere. She says about herself

– "has been writing optimized cryptocurrency miners since 2010"

Would like to see proof. github? sources?

– "In 2013, founded a company that became the leading provider of hardware optimizations for GPUs and ASICs".

Leading provider of hardware optimizations for GPUs? Sorry I may be old fashioned but that leads to dozens of questions in my mind, if that is the same person who then comes forward saying ProgPOW is an attempt to bring mining back to GPUs and make it fair again.

– "founded Mineority Group, achieved over 100M annual recurring revenue"

That was the company that went bankrupt? KLM herself yesterday said "a host of people think she embezzled money" but "they don't understand business". hmm.

– Why is an ex-employee of her saying he or she "got a rare insight into the evolution of ICO and cloud mining scams" ?,24.htm

There is so much more, some publicly available to the open-minded, and a lot more known and shared privately. "NO ONE CARES" anyway, right?
If the coin price recovers there will be so much money coming out of Kristy's deals that it will be impossible to hide.
Nvidia shareholder lawsuits will come, her friends at Nvidia will loose their jobs, Core Scientific can scrap their IPO plans. Ethereum will be impaired for good.

What is the identity of Mr Def and Mr Else? Another two Satoshis… We do have the voices of two of them in the dev call recordings, a starting point.

If it turns out ProgPoW was written by Craig Wright, would you care?
If it was written by Linzhi, a Shenzhen ASIC maker, would that be OK too?

Any ideas how to back out of this mess?

Kristy could resign from Core Scientific, come clean to the Ethereum Foundation, and the EF could get a written guarantee from Nvidia to not favor selected miners with secret optimizations or special chip deals, and only sell to all miners on an egalitarian basis through distributors.
The EF might be able to get such Nvidia assurance because of the danger of shareholder lawsuits.

Someone will want to take some responsibility BEFORE it's a big story.

[Disclaimer: We work on Ethash ASICs and would benefit from ETH remaining with Ethash longer]

Submitted February 13, 2019 at 03:50AM }
via reddit