Despite being roundly rejected by a vocal majority of the Bitcoin Cash community, a controversial miner’s tax is still causing rifts among the coin’s adherents.
In January, a conglomerate of Bitcoin Cash mining companies suggested an enforced 12.5% tax on BCH miners as a way of funding community development. After weeks of debate ,the main signatories of the tax plan (comprising a majority of Bitcoin Cash mining power) reversed their decision, and the infrastructure Funding Plan, or IFP, was dropped.
Merely a month away from the next Bitcoin Cash technical update, the IFP protocol remains embedded in the Bitcoin ABC code. This has triggered another round of debate within BCH ranks, with many pondering the wisdom of leaving an apparently unnecessary attack vector in place.
With a majority of BCH users opposed to the IFP, its presence in the code leaves open the possibility of a malicious miner deciding to activate the protocol. If enough hash power was pledged in favor of activating the funding plan, it would effectively veto the wishes of the Bitcoin Cash community at large.
One commenter on the Bitcoin Cash subreddit demanded to know why the IFP code was still in place, and what it meant for the future of Bitcoin Cash development.
Another asked for clear answers from Bitcoin ABC team (the development group which drives much of Bitcoin Cash development), asking:
Bitcoin ABC recently launched a voluntary donation drive to raise 14,500BCH or 3.3 million USD, in order to help “realize the vision censorship-resistant P2P electronic cash for the world.” Currently, 43% of that target has been raised, with the donation drive set to last until April 30.
That’s just two weeks before the scheduled BCH update on May 15. This has left some wondering whether the IFP has remained place as a fail safe in case Bitcoin ABC’s funding goals aren’t met by the end of the month.
Indeed, the Bitcoin ABC business plan for the coming year states clearly why the code for the infrastructure Funding Plan remains in place:
Electron Cash wallet developer, Jonald Fyookball, expressed his displeasure with the above reasoning, noting:
“Well, at least it is some kind of response. Not a very satisfying one though, and it doesn’t change the reckless/hostile behavior of actually leaving it in. Reading between the lines, it looks like ABC is using IFP as a bargaining chip.”
What can you say about this hot issue?