History of BLK2

The History of BLK2: Origins, Milestones, and Challenges

Early Development and Launch

BLK2 was conceived as a response to limitations observed in earlier blockchain networks, aiming to introduce enhanced scalability and a more efficient consensus mechanism. The project was initially developed by a team of cryptographers and blockchain engineers who sought to merge elements of both security-focused and high-throughput ecosystems. The early development phase focused on refining its protocol to address transaction speed concerns without compromising decentralization.

Upon launch, BLK2 secured support from a mix of independent developers and early adopters drawn to its unique economic model. The release was accompanied by an ambitious roadmap, emphasizing interoperability with existing blockchain ecosystems and integration with decentralized finance (DeFi) applications.

Key Network Upgrades and Forks

Following its initial deployment, BLK2 underwent several critical upgrades, each targeting specific limitations within its original design. One of the most significant upgrades introduced an optimized consensus model that reduced energy consumption while maintaining robust security parameters. This improvement was crucial in differentiating BLK2 from traditional proof-of-work chains and aligning it with the broader industry shift towards sustainability.

However, not all network upgrades were without controversy. A hard fork, introduced to address governance inefficiencies, led to a temporary split within the community. Disagreements over protocol adjustments resulted in a faction of early supporters distancing themselves from the project. While the network ultimately stabilized, this period exposed governance challenges that persist in some form today.

Adoption and Ecosystem Growth

BLK2 saw gradual adoption within niche blockchain applications, particularly in DeFi and enterprise solutions where its protocol optimizations provided a competitive edge. The asset gained traction within smart contract platforms that required higher throughput than legacy Ethereum-based solutions could offer.

Despite technical advancements, broader market penetration faced hurdles. Adoption stagnated at certain points due to scalability bottlenecks, particularly during periods of high transaction volume. These limitations led developers to implement additional layer-2 solutions and sidechains to alleviate congestion, though effectiveness varied depending on network conditions.

Ongoing Challenges and Network Stability

Security concerns emerged at different points in BLK2’s history, with exploits targeting smart contracts running on its network. While core protocol vulnerabilities remained minimal, external dApp weaknesses highlighted the risks associated with integrating third-party solutions.

Additionally, governance centralization accusations surfaced as key development decisions were perceived to be controlled by a limited number of stakeholders. While efforts have been made to decentralize decision-making processes, the issue continues to be a point of debate among long-term supporters.

How BLK2 Works

How BLK2 Works: Mechanisms, Consensus, and Utility

BLK2 operates on a blockchain architecture designed to optimize transaction efficiency while maintaining network security and decentralization. It employs a unique consensus mechanism that combines elements of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with additional governance layers to enhance network stability and decision-making. Validators are required to stake a predefined amount of BLK2 tokens to participate in block validation and transaction approval. This staking mechanism helps secure the network while incentivizing honest participation.

Transaction Processing and Scalability

BLK2 utilizes a multi-tiered transaction processing system that categorizes transactions based on priority and complexity. High-priority transactions can be processed through an accelerated validation pipeline, while lower-priority transactions may experience slight delays depending on network congestion. Finality is achieved through a combination of cryptographic proofs and validator consensus, reducing the likelihood of chain reorganizations or rollbacks. However, network throughput may be affected during peak usage periods.

Smart Contracts and Utility

The platform supports smart contracts, offering developers a scripting environment with deterministic execution. Unlike some blockchain platforms that prioritize Turing-complete contract execution, BLK2 restricts certain computationally heavy operations to prevent excessive resource consumption. This trade-off enhances efficiency but may limit the complexity of decentralized applications (dApps) that can be built on the platform.

BLK2 tokens serve multiple utility functions within the ecosystem, including transaction fees, validator staking, and governance participation. The governance model allows token holders to propose and vote on protocol upgrades, though governance participation rates can fluctuate, sometimes leading to delays in decision-making.

Security and Network Integrity

BLK2 employs a combination of cryptographic integrity checks, slashing mechanisms for misbehaving validators, and periodic security audits to identify potential vulnerabilities. While these measures enhance the network’s security posture, attacks on validator nodes or coordinated exploit attempts could still pose risks. Additionally, the reliance on validator staking can lead to centralization concerns if too few entities control a significant share of staked tokens.

Interoperability and Limitations

The blockchain integrates with select external networks through bridging mechanisms, facilitating asset transfers between compatible chains. However, cross-chain transactions may introduce additional risk factors, including smart contract security concerns and potential liquidity fragmentation. Additionally, while BLK2’s consensus design prioritizes efficiency, it may require further optimizations to maintain competitive transaction speeds as blockchain adoption increases.

Use Cases

BLK2 Crypto Asset Use Cases

Smart Contract Execution

BLK2 is designed to facilitate smart contract interactions with a focus on efficiency and scalability. The asset is used to pay for computational costs within its ecosystem, ensuring that contract execution is not reliant on external gas fees. However, while this eliminates dependency on other networks, it also means that smart contract activity is strictly limited to BLK2’s infrastructure, which may pose interoperability challenges.

Network Governance

BLK2 holders participate in governance decisions, including protocol upgrades and parameter adjustments. Voting power is typically proportional to token holdings, raising concerns about centralization if large stakeholders dominate decisions. Additionally, the governance mechanisms, while decentralized in theory, require active participation, and low engagement from token holders can lead to governance stagnation.

Collateralization in DeFi

BLK2 is used as collateral in decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, enabling users to lock their assets in lending protocols and stablecoin generation. While this brings utility to token holders, volatility in BLK2’s value can lead to forced liquidations if collateral thresholds are breached. Since the asset operates within a specific ecosystem, its liquidity depth compared to more established assets may impact its reliability as collateral.

Transaction Settlement

BLK2 enables peer-to-peer value transfer with reduced reliance on third-party intermediaries. The network architecture is optimized for fast settlement times, but scalability challenges can emerge during periods of high network demand. Transaction fees, while generally lower than traditional networks, fluctuate based on network congestion, which can impact usability for microtransactions.

Staking and Reward Mechanisms

Staking BLK2 tokens secures the network and provides staking rewards to participants. While staking incentivizes long-term holding, rewards are subject to emission schedules, which could impact token supply dynamics. Additionally, staking lock-up periods may limit liquidity for users who need immediate access to their holdings.

Cross-Chain Functionality

While BLK2 offers some level of cross-chain integrations, interoperability remains a developing aspect of the ecosystem. Bridges to other networks improve accessibility, but security risks associated with cross-chain transactions exist. Users engaging in cross-chain transfers must consider risks related to smart contract vulnerabilities and liquidity availability on external chains.

Enterprise and Institutional Use

BLK2 is positioned as a viable asset for institutional use, particularly in on-chain data verification and secure transactions. However, mainstream enterprise adoption is contingent on regulatory clarity and compliance frameworks, which remain evolving topics within the broader crypto space.

BLK2 Tokenomics

BLK2 Tokenomics: Supply, Utility, and Distribution

Fixed Supply and Emission Model

BLK2 operates on a fixed supply model, with a predetermined maximum token issuance that cannot be altered. Unlike inflationary tokens, where new supply can be introduced indefinitely, BLK2’s emission follows a structured release schedule designed to ensure controlled distribution. However, early-stage allocations and vesting mechanisms have led to concerns about centralization risks, particularly regarding whale accumulation and potential sell pressure from large unlocks.

Allocation Breakdown and Distribution Dynamics

The initial allocation of BLK2 was apportioned among ecosystem development, team reserves, early investors, and liquidity provision. Airdrops and staking incentives also played a role in early dispersion. One of the notable factors influencing BLK2's liquidity is the lock-up structure for early adopters and team holdings. While this mechanism theoretically prevents abrupt dumps, it also means that future unlock events could introduce volatility.

The presence of private investor allocations at preferential terms raises questions about long-term alignment. If these investors decide to exit en masse upon unlocks, market depth could be tested. This makes on-chain tracking of vesting timelines a key factor for those analyzing BLK2’s token movements.

Staking Utility and APY Considerations

BLK2 provides staking incentives, offering rewards to participants who commit tokens to the network. However, the effective yield is directly impacted by the staking participation rate—if too many holders stake, the APY dilutes. Another aspect is whether staking rewards come from emissions (inflationary) or real yield derived from protocol fees. In BLK2’s case, rewards stem from protocol-generated fees rather than purely inflationary mechanics, which is a mitigating factor against unchecked supply growth.

That said, if user adoption stalls or protocol revenue slows, staking incentives could become unsustainable, affecting the attractiveness of locking up BLK2 for rewards.

Liquidity Constraints and Market Depth

One issue BLK2 faces is fragmented liquidity across multiple platforms. While it is listed on both centralized and decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools remain relatively concentrated. This creates potential slippage concerns for large trades. Market makers provide depth, but periods of low activity can lead to price inefficiencies.

Additionally, any reliance on external bridges for cross-chain liquidity brings smart contract risk. If a major liquidity provider exits or an exploit impacts the bridging mechanism, BLK2 holders could face withdrawal delays or fractured market access.

BLK2 Governance

Governance Structure of BLK2

BLK2 employs a decentralized governance model designed to give token holders direct influence over protocol decisions. Governance operates through a system of on-chain proposals and voting, where BLK2 token holders can submit improvement proposals and vote on changes related to protocol upgrades, parameter adjustments, and treasury allocations.

On-Chain Voting Mechanism

Governance proposals on BLK2 are executed through smart contracts, ensuring transparency and immutability. Token holders participate in governance by locking BLK2 tokens in a designated governance contract. Voting power is typically proportional to the amount of BLK2 staked, aligning decision-making influence with token holdings. The voting process follows a structured timeline, including proposal submission, deliberation, voting period, and execution if approved.

Governance Token Distribution and Centralization Risks

One concern within BLK2’s governance is token concentration. A small number of addresses holding a significant portion of the total supply could lead to governance centralization, effectively allowing a minority to control proposals and decisions. If governance remains concentrated, smaller token holders may have limited influence, raising concerns about the system’s decentralization claims.

Proposal Submission and Execution

Submitting proposals requires a minimum BLK2 stake, acting as an economic deterrent against spam proposals. If a proposal passes a quorum and receives sufficient affirmative votes, it is executed on-chain without intermediary interference. However, low voter turnout remains a challenge, as many token holders do not actively participate, leading to governance decisions being made by a fraction of the total supply rather than a broad consensus.

Treasury and Protocol Funding

BLK2 governance also oversees a treasury used for ecosystem funding, protocol development, and strategic grants. The community can propose budget allocations, but treasury management presents challenges in terms of transparency and efficiency. Without proper oversight mechanisms, misallocation or treasury drain could become governance risks.

Potential Governance Vulnerabilities

A major governance risk for BLK2 is the possibility of governance attacks, where malicious actors accumulate significant token quantities to manipulate proposals. Additionally, governance smart contracts require rigorous security audits to prevent exploitation. Any vulnerability in the governance mechanism could lead to protocol manipulation or treasury drainage.

Governance Evolution and Forking Risks

Disagreements within the community over governance decisions can lead to protocol forks, where factions diverge due to conflicting visions. If disputes over governance rules or treasury usage escalate, BLK2 could face network splits, fragmenting both developer and user communities.

Technical future of BLK2

BLK2 Technical Developments and Roadmap

Scalable Layer-2 Enhancements

BLK2's ongoing technical enhancements focus heavily on scaling solutions, particularly through optimized Layer-2 integrations. The project is working on improving rollup efficiency, reducing transaction costs, and increasing throughput. However, current bottlenecks in smart contract execution times and delays in finality remain challenges that developers are addressing through updated state management protocols.

Smart Contract Upgrades and Modular Functionality

A key development in BLK2’s roadmap is the transition toward a more modular smart contract framework. The goal is to enable more flexible interactions between decentralized applications (dApps) and BLK2’s core protocol. There is a planned introduction of contract upgradeability mechanisms, reducing the need for hard forks. While this provides flexibility, it also introduces risks related to governance control over upgrades, which are being mitigated through decentralized validator oversight.

Enhanced Interoperability and Cross-Chain Integration

BLK2 is expanding its cross-chain interoperability by integrating more bridges and implementing advanced state verification methods. This evolution is aimed at reducing dependency on centralized intermediaries while ensuring seamless asset transfer across multiple chains. However, concerns about bridge security and the increasing complexity of interoperability mechanisms pose risks that need further resolution.

Consensus Algorithm Refinements

Efforts are being made to optimize BLK2’s consensus mechanism for greater efficiency and decentralization. Proposed refinements include a blend of proof-of-stake enhancements and improved validator selection algorithms to ensure fairer distribution of network power. However, fine-tuning these mechanisms without sacrificing security or decentralization remains a work in progress.

ZK-Rollup Integration for Enhanced Privacy

A significant technical milestone in BLK2’s future development is the integration of zero-knowledge rollups (ZK-Rollups). This implementation aims to improve transaction efficiency and privacy while maintaining verifiable security. The primary challenge here is ensuring seamless compatibility with existing smart contracts and preventing centralization risks associated with ZK-Prover nodes.

Ongoing Network Optimizations and Bug Fixes

With network performance improvements in focus, BLK2 developers are actively addressing latency issues and optimizing node synchronization processes. There are also efforts to improve the execution speed of complex computational tasks within the ecosystem. However, previously identified network congestion issues still require more refined solutions, including adaptive block size adjustments and further protocol optimizations.

Comparing BLK2 to it’s rivals

BLK2 vs. BTC: Key Differences in Architecture and Utility

Consensus Mechanism and Network Security

BLK2 employs a next-generation consensus model that diverges significantly from BTC's Proof of Work (PoW). Bitcoin’s energy-intensive PoW relies on miners solving cryptographic puzzles to validate transactions, securing the network but also contributing to scalability constraints and high electricity consumption. BLK2, in contrast, utilizes a more efficient consensus mechanism designed to reduce computational overhead while maintaining network security. However, this alternative approach comes with trade-offs—such as potential risks of centralization if control consolidates among a limited number of validators.

Transaction Speed and Scalability

BTC’s block size and block time inherently limit its transaction throughput, leading to congestion during periods of high demand. Bitcoin's Layer 2 solutions, such as the Lightning Network, attempt to mitigate these issues, but on-chain transaction finality remains slow compared to more modern architectures. BLK2 addresses this through an enhanced block generation method, which results in significantly faster finality and higher transactions per second (TPS). While this improves usability for applications requiring speed, questions remain regarding how the network will handle sustained long-term scaling without compromising security or decentralization.

Smart Contract Functionality

Bitcoin lacks native smart contract capabilities beyond its basic scripting language, which restricts its programmability. While Bitcoin’s Taproot upgrade introduced more flexible scripting, it is not designed for complex decentralized applications (dApps). BLK2, on the other hand, integrates built-in smart contract functionality, making it a more adaptable ecosystem for developers creating dApps and automated financial tools. The trade-off, however, is that greater flexibility in execution introduces an expanded attack surface, increasing the need for rigorous audits and continuous security improvements.

Supply Model and Economic Incentives

The BTC supply model is firmly established, with a 21 million token cap and a halving mechanism that reduces mining rewards approximately every four years. These characteristics contribute to Bitcoin’s scarcity-driven value proposition. BLK2, in contrast, employs a different issuance model that impacts token availability and long-term economics. Depending on its inflation structure or token distribution methodology, BLK2’s model may offer distinct advantages or unintended inflationary pressures that could impact market perception over time.

Network Decentralization Considerations

Bitcoin's decentralization stems from its widely distributed mining ecosystem, which—while resource-intensive—prevents concentrated control. BLK2’s consensus model allows for a different validator structure that enhances efficiency but may create concerns around validator influence. If a significant portion of network validation becomes concentrated among a small group, questions of censorship resistance and governance centralization arise.

BLK2 vs ETH: A Technical and Functional Comparison

Smart Contract Functionality and Ecosystem Differences

BLK2 and Ethereum (ETH) both support smart contracts, but their implementation and execution efficiency differ significantly. ETH relies on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which has established itself as the dominant standard for decentralized applications (dApps). However, congestion on Ethereum's network often leads to high gas fees, making microtransactions and frequent contract interactions costly.

BLK2 introduces an alternative execution environment, aiming for lower transaction costs and optimized processing times. While this could make BLK2 a compelling choice for developers prioritizing efficiency, ETH maintains a strong advantage due to its widespread adoption and deep integration across the blockchain industry. The extensive tooling, audited code libraries, and developer familiarity with Solidity give ETH continued dominance in smart contract development.

Consensus Mechanism: Scalability vs. Security Trade-offs

Ethereum transitioned from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS), improving energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impact. The PoS model enhances ETH’s scalability in comparison to its earlier framework, especially as subsequent Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) refine network performance.

BLK2 employs a different consensus approach, aiming for improved block finality and reduced network congestion. While this can enhance transaction throughput, it introduces questions about relative decentralization levels. Ethereum’s PoS validator set is heavily staked and distributed across many participants, securing the network through economic incentives. Any novel consensus mechanism adopted by BLK2 must balance transaction speed with the risk of lower decentralization if validator participation is restricted or concentrated.

Network Liquidity and DeFi Integration

Ethereum dominates the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, housing the majority of liquidity across decentralized exchanges (DEXs), lending protocols, and stablecoin settlements. The deep liquidity and interconnectivity of ETH’s DeFi ecosystem create substantial network effects, making it difficult for newer chains like BLK2 to compete on sheer volume and adoption.

While BLK2 may offer lower transaction fees and reduced congestion, its DeFi infrastructure must attract sufficient liquidity providers and integrations with major protocols. Without significant Total Value Locked (TVL) and broad compatibility with established ERC-20 assets, adoption hurdles remain. Bridging solutions can help, but cross-chain interoperability often comes with security risks, as demonstrated by past exploits in the bridge space.

Developer Experience and Ecosystem Sustainability

Ethereum’s extensive developer community, battle-tested frameworks, and established grant programs make it a more mature environment for long-term blockchain innovation. Projects building on ETH benefit from Layer 2 scaling solutions, reducing the need to migrate to alternative ecosystems.

For BLK2 to compete effectively, it must provide not only a technically superior development environment but also sustainable incentives for builders. Without a large developer base and robust tooling, its ecosystem growth may face long-term challenges despite shorter-term efficiency advantages.

BLK2 vs. SOL: Key Differences and Competitive Analysis

Network Performance and Scalability

BLK2 and Solana (SOL) both prioritize high transaction throughput but take distinct approaches to achieve scalability. Solana employs a Proof-of-History (PoH) mechanism integrated with Proof-of-Stake (PoS), allowing it to process thousands of transactions per second with low latency. BLK2, on the other hand, adopts a different consensus model that claims to offer comparable speed while addressing certain centralization concerns present in Solana’s validator set.

However, Solana’s network has faced multiple instances of downtime due to heavy congestion and bugs in consensus mechanisms, something that BLK2 aims to mitigate through its more resilient node architecture. While BLK2 markets itself as an alternative with improved uptime, its actual network performance remains dependent on the adoption of its validator system.

Smart Contract Capabilities and Development Ecosystem

Solana's ecosystem benefits from a strong developer community and extensive tooling, with Rust and C-based smart contracts offering high efficiency. However, its unique programming model creates a steep learning curve for developers transitioning from EVM-based chains. BLK2 aims to bridge this gap by providing a more interoperable environment that supports multiple virtual machines, potentially lowering barriers for developers moving from Ethereum-compatible chains.

One of the challenges for BLK2 is gaining developer adoption at scale. While Solana already has an established DeFi, NFT, and gaming infrastructure, BLK2 is still expanding its toolkit and documentation. Without significant incentives or seamless migration options, attracting experienced developers away from Solana’s mature architecture could be a hurdle.

Decentralization and Validator Network

Solana’s decentralization has been a topic of debate due to the high hardware requirements for running a validator, which limits participation to well-resourced entities. BLK2 positions itself as a more decentralized alternative by offering a lower barrier to entry for validators, which could foster broader participation.

However, BLK2’s validator network remains in growth mode. While Solana has faced criticism over validator concentration, it still maintains a sizable active set. BLK2 will need to prove that its model can prevent similar centralization risks over the long term.

Liquidity and Ecosystem Adoption

Solana’s deep liquidity across exchanges and DeFi platforms makes it a dominant player in terms of asset accessibility. BLK2, despite positioning itself as a competitor, still has to establish a comparable level of market penetration. Exchange support, DeFi integrations, and institutional adoption remain key factors influencing BLK2’s challenge to Solana’s dominance.

Primary criticisms of BLK2

Primary Criticism of BLK2: Security, Centralization, and Adoption Challenges

Security Concerns and Smart Contract Risks

One of the most persistent criticisms of BLK2 revolves around its security framework, particularly in regard to smart contract vulnerabilities. Despite claims of rigorous audits, the protocol has faced scrutiny for potential exploits within its contract architecture. Given the increasing sophistication of attack vectors in decentralized finance (DeFi), even minor weaknesses in BLK2's contract logic could be exploited, leading to significant asset losses. The reliance on complex cross-chain interoperability further expands the attack surface, raising concerns about the robustness of its security measures against coordinated assaults and flash loan exploits.

Centralization in Governance and Validator Control

BLK2's governance model has also been a source of criticism, especially regarding the level of centralization in validator selection and decision-making. While the project positions itself as a decentralized network, a substantial portion of governance control remains concentrated among early stakeholders and core developers. This has led to accusations of power consolidation, where network upgrades and major protocol changes often reflect the interests of a select group rather than the broader community.
Additionally, concerns persist over the validator distribution model, as a relatively small number of node operators control a disproportionate share of network validation. This raises questions about BLK2’s decentralization claims and the risk of collusion among validators, which could undermine network integrity and security.

Adoption and Liquidity Limitations

Despite technical advancements, BLK2 has struggled with ecosystem adoption, particularly concerning liquidity depth and integration with major decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and centralized exchanges (CEXs). Traders and liquidity providers have voiced concerns about low trading volumes and slippage issues when executing substantial transactions.
Another challenge affecting adoption is the fragmented developer support. While BLK2 offers a unique set of features, its developer tooling and documentation have lagged behind competitors, making it less attractive for new projects building within its ecosystem. This lack of standardized developer resources hampers sustainable growth, reinforcing a cycle where limited adoption further discourages new participants from entering the ecosystem.

Scalability Trade-Offs and Network Congestion

BLK2’s approach to scalability has also drawn criticism, particularly regarding its network architecture’s ability to handle increasing transaction loads. While the project touts high transaction throughput, actual network performance has shown signs of congestion during peak usage periods. These bottlenecks often result in increased transaction settlement times and elevated fees, contradicting BLK2’s promise of a low-cost, high-speed blockchain.
Additionally, the reliance on layer-2 scaling solutions has led to further concerns about fragmentation within the ecosystem. Users and developers navigating multiple layers for transactions and contract execution face added complexity, reducing overall user-friendliness.

Founders

BLK2 Founding Team: Key Figures, Backgrounds, and Challenges

Core Team Behind BLK2

The BLK2 project was launched by a team of developers, cryptographers, and blockchain entrepreneurs with prior experience in decentralized systems and financial technologies. The founding team remains semi-anonymous, with only a few key members publicly revealing their identities. This has led to speculation regarding internal decision-making processes and accountability.

Despite the partial anonymity, the team includes individuals with backgrounds in smart contract engineering, distributed networks, and cryptographic security. Some of the core developers have been involved in early-stage blockchain projects, which has contributed to BLK2’s technical foundations. The presence of ex-developers from established blockchain initiatives has given credibility to the project but has also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to previous affiliations.

Technical Leadership and Development Focus

One of the founding members is a lead cryptographer who played a role in designing BLK2’s consensus mechanism. The approach they implemented attempts to improve scalability while maintaining security. However, critics point out that some of these optimizations introduce complexity, making it harder for independent developers to contribute without deep technical knowledge.

Another crucial figure in BLK2’s team is a former architect of multiple decentralized finance (DeFi) systems. Their focus has been on integrating interoperability features within BLK2’s ecosystem. While these advancements have driven innovation, some analysts argue that the project’s roadmap has been vague on long-term security audits, raising concerns about smart contract vulnerabilities.

Governance and Transparency Issues

One of the recurring discussions within the BLK2 community is the lack of fully transparent decision-making from the founding team. While developers occasionally engage in public discussions, many strategic decisions appear to be made behind closed doors. This has led to debates regarding the project’s governance structure and the extent to which the community can influence major protocol upgrades.

Additionally, early token allocations to the founding team and initial investors have been a point of contention. While standard in many blockchain projects, some community members have voiced concerns over the potential centralization risk posed by concentrated holdings.

The BLK2 founding team’s technical expertise is evident, but questions remain regarding governance, transparency, and accessibility for external contributors.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources