As requested, Data Innovation, a cryptocurrency analyst, has published a Twitter thread delving into the Binance chains. The analysts claim that Binance’s chains are in chaos and that there is enough convincing public proof that things are not operating as they should. According to the company’s study, apols is a little too technical. However, it still could not be claimed that the Binance chains do not resemble actual blockchains and fail fundamental token history examinations without sufficient justification.
The investigation reveals two chains: a geth fork with smart contracts and the other a substantially modified Cosmos fork with a built-in dex and other goodies. According to the analyst, the geth fork has hardcoded “genesis contracts” that secretly communicate with the Cosmos Chain, an act that the analysts contend should not be part of the blockchain.
Analyst: Some transactions don’t add up
The analyst discloses a transaction that never made it to the geth side but was approved on the cosmos side. The analyst claims this is 814 days old and has the status “success” but has no txhash for the opposite side, which merely demonstrates the method’s ineffectiveness. This leaves users seeing balances without transfers which causes uncertainty even if they may be operating okay.
Binance dubiously suggests that one runs nodes from big snapshots according to this new revelation. However, Using the photos needs the ancient run option, which is undoubtedly absent in standard geth. Running this technique may only pull 90k blocks behind the head through API, and once running, one cannot unset the flag, which is contrary to the premise of blockchains.
The system contracts, which implement at least part of the problematic bridging and are included in this other report, are what the geth “fork” also contains. The implementation of sending and receiving across chains is different, as is immediately apparent per the report thread. This explains the explorers’ non-symmetrical nature. Even worse, they note, the code versions referred to in the hard-coded, pre-compiled byte code frequently appear to be in error. The test and main nets of the most recent “Gibbs” update employ distinct code.
Byte code commits are strange enough. However, they claim that utilizing distinct versions for test and prod creates even more uncertainty. This new development poses another significant question on Binance amid recent activities surrounding the firm. The firm’s audits have been causing a massive rise in FUD, which CZ, the firm’s CEO, refuted, as reports suggested a lack of transparency in these audits.