Another pay day time to buy ICP

[Anonymous No.57629457]

Good thing I'm not a fucking retard and understand the important of DCA with legitimate longterm investment strategies instead of fomo buying the local tops then spamming the board for months praying everyone else sells so the coin dumps because I already sold for a loss. Anyone else relate?

[Anonymous No.57629985]

>>57629457
I'm a developer, I've thoroughly reviewed the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) white paper and documentation, along with various blog posts, including those from notable tech companies. Here are a few reasons why I would hesitate to use ICP for my applications:

The current state of the "mainnet" lacks true decentralization. There's no effective decentralized method to evaluate the performance or reliability of a node provider.

The development progress has been slow, taking them years to essentially create centralized nodes, which is not particularly innovative since such systems already exist. This casts doubt on the future prospects and the capabilities of their engineering team.

The white paper fails to clearly outline a viable transition from a centralized framework to a decentralized one. They touch on "decentralized" reputation systems in a superficial manner, as though the challenge of creating a Sybil-resistant decentralized reputation system is a secondary concern, despite it being a significant, unresolved issue in computer science. With years of development time and substantial funding, the lack of detailed technical specifications for this aspect is concerning. It reminds me of promises from other projects that claim they will solve centralization issues in the future, which often remain unfulfilled.

There's a lot of media buzz about partnerships with major tech firms, but a closer examination reveals that these are often overstated. For example, a tech giant's blog post might be misconstrued as a partnership when it's merely a demonstration of how ICP could potentially integrate with their services. There's no evidence of these companies committing to use ICP themselves. Moreover, if such companies decided to enter the node service market, they could likely replicate ICP's functionalities without much difficulty.

[Anonymous No.57630026]

>>57629985
What kind of curry are you having for dinner?

[Anonymous No.57631476]

>>57629985
I'm also a developer, I've thoroughly reviewed the Avalanche Network (AVAX) white paper and documentation, along with various blog posts, including those from notable tech companies. Here are a few reasons why I would hesitate to use AVAX for my applications:

The current state of the "mainnet" lacks true decentralization. There's no effective decentralized method to evaluate the performance or reliability of a node provider.

The development progress has been slow, taking them years to essentially create centralized nodes, which is not particularly innovative since such systems already exist. This casts doubt on the future prospects and the capabilities of their engineering team.

The white paper fails to clearly outline a viable transition from a centralized framework to a decentralized one. They touch on "decentralized" reputation systems in a superficial manner, as though the challenge of creating a Sybil-resistant decentralized reputation system is a secondary concern, despite it being a significant, unresolved issue in computer science. With years of development time and substantial funding, the lack of detailed technical specifications for this aspect is concerning. It reminds me of promises from other projects that claim they will solve centralization issues in the future, which often remain unfulfilled.

There's a lot of media buzz about partnerships with major tech firms, but a closer examination reveals that these are often overstated. For example, a tech giant's blog post might be misconstrued as a partnership when it's merely a demonstration of how AVAX could potentially integrate with their services. There's no evidence of these companies committing to use AVAX themselves. Moreover, if such companies decided to enter the node service market, they could likely replicate AVAX's functionalities without much difficulty.

[Anonymous No.57632735]

>>57629457
when i can get inj, pushd and btcdragon instead.