Access to Github fails Bitcoin Cash as it failed Bitcoin, Alternative Idea
As old men told us, Bitcoin was a dream coming true a digital money for the world till somehow the key to Github repository was lost to Blockstream.
Amaury sechet was smart and faster than others just enough to create an alternative repo with his own key and now he wants millions of dollars or their would be reorgs and a lot of troubles for Bitcoin Cash . Many exchanges and miners will get the version that well be released on that repository and he will get what he wants by default.
Multisig as an alternative to Github
Multisig is not something new to the Bitcoin world. Wouldn't be possible to release the next version by having the link to it singed by multiple parties (known respected developers) instead of just one.
Example, we well have four developers that are agreed to work on **Bitcoin** **CBA**. Those are Amaury, FreeTrader Tommy and Mark. They package this under **github.com/Mark/BitcoinCBA** this time and the four of them sign it and publish the link to the release on the chain and update their own repos
No Default repository for the project
Exchanges and miners will know that as the four of them have singed it then it's the legitimate version. If those four didn't agree then Miners and Exchanges don't go by default to use **/amuary/BitcoinCBA** or **/Tommy/BitcoinCBA**
There would be community debate and discussion about it and maybe another group of 4 or more developers would be created and exchanges and miners will have to do the hard work to see which one does represent the community instead of following one repo blindly.
History is repeating it self
4 years ago cipher_gnome said about Gavin Github access: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zplz6/does_gavin_still_have_any_control_of_the_bitcoin/cyo07i3/
He should revoke all access and retire the project. The current dev team could then fork with a different name. There should be no mining software called bitcoin-core.
kostialevin said in a following comment: https://www.reddit.com/user/kostialevin/
Yes, this could be the only way to reset bitcoin development. No more reference implementation, everyone must choose its own preferred client: BU, XT, BTCD or Blockstream.
more interesting stuff in the original thread. Hope this idea could offer an alternative solution to one man control.
1400 years ago:
*"and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves"*
success requires consultation and agreement between parties. Not just one man rule.
Miner Funds and Mr Dev: Part 1
I support the Miner Fund because it's a survivor plan that it can save us not just from funding issues but from bad actors. Nothing more frustrating than seeing the project you love and you thought that it can help save the world struggling. Not easy to see the project you kept talking to your friend about being in internal fight over funding, color, leadership and many other things.
I can't hide that I think this have been mostly caused by one member of the society that it sets now on the top of the ABC project. Do you know this man, I've got to know him a bit so let me tells you about him.
Amaury sechet, his biggest supporters are Jonald Fyookball*,* Antony Zegers "Mengerian", *Marco Costa #977 , Cain#106 and Wecx*
His enemies are: Bitcoin BU his competitors, Roger Ver and any one who disagree with him.
Stroing data on the block chain issue
First time I noticed his hostile personality when he started attacking Roger because he heard that Roger is going to allow to store files on the block chain by removing the soft cap, that was picked by BSV people and was presented as a split in BCH community. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/d1c4ic/amaury_sechet_falls_out_with_roger_ver_over_block/
The Development Fund issue
Somehow there was something called Bitcoin Cash development fund that was created by David R. Allen and others, Amuary explain the issue like this:
The original plan was to do a combiend campaign with antiwar.com . People could donate to antiwar and part of the donation would fund bch infra and part wculd go to antiwar. It was a good way to promote communities that have a lot of commonalities to each others, plus antiwar has all the setup required for compliance. http://antiwar.com
Roger changed everything last minute to create the whole competition between implementation.
This caused compliance problem because nobody was ready to recieve fund in that form. There are many laws regarding this, in addition, there are good practices that banks and lawyers expect you to comply with, even if not strictly required (grey area).
I'm not sure what rule David R. Allen plays in antiwar.com but seems like he share the ideology at least. https://youtu.be/vc5IgAphAGg?t=130
The Australia Meeting
Amaury was prasing the BCH city conference in Australia and he seems to have enjoyed it so much.
One person asked why a lot of people have changed their attitude toward other community members after the conference, Amuray answered:
People figured out that all the noise came from a handful of doofus who don't even build anything.
Semyon Germanovich said later:
There was bit of BU bashing there but it was pretty subtle
Later Jonald said:
Funny all the builders were there mostly. All the trouble makers stayed home
Amaury agreed and said:
Yes, this is what happened in Townsville. Add on top of that, the bitter realization from the builder of how much shit they are putting up with, which naturaly comes with decreased willingness to do so.
When Amaury was asked if their attitude change was because of his effort to convince them Jonald responded:
yes, good leaders make unclear things more clear for the community. i try to do that in my articles.
Which Amuray seems to have agreed to.
End of Part 1
@BitcoinWinter
