Very well George, but we need the information for the present.
What is this plan ?
Does it mean that you give up with the IFP ?
How will the collected funds be managed ?
On what criteria will they be distributed ?
Fund-raising is necessary, but people need to know what will happen with their money to be motivated to participate...
Francis
Food for thought: In talking to developers who are against the IFP, the most common theme I have heard is 'lack of transparency'. Many developers do not want money doing to a group unless the income and use of that money is published transparently.
Lack of transparency is the number one complaint I've heard, and the biggest impediment to donations.
Of course, that is one thing I liked about the IFP proposal. It would have made it impossible to hide the amount of money, by putting all transactions on-chain in a highly-visible location.
I also think that publishing the plan would be a goodwill gesture.
In fact, I think it's time to make some goodwill gestures.
Updating bitcoincash.org with more honest information is a must.
> I'm just a user and I don't need a presentation.
I really want laugh .. but this shit has just gotten so pathetic!
all I can say is, “thank fuckin' God for @freetrader and the whole BCHN team” .. I’ve been in their slack channel since it started, and it’s truly impressive what’s been __ACCOMPLISHED__ in such a short period of time .. they will have my __FULL__ support until they show otherwise
So far they have not claimed any such thing.
I would think that they are simply seeking to maintain a presence and divert attention so that BCH Node does not continue to gain traction. Also, if IFP is not activated (which is likely), this would be a Plan B. Pretend nothing happened and ask for funding.
It's virtually dead, although we can't assume there won't be a plot twist. Until there's zero chance of its activation, it's not dead. On the other hand, the truth is that ABC has not made any statements about ceasing to support IFP by May 15, so it would be more natural to assume that they are acting in accordance with their latest decisions: to continue to promote IFP.
I appreciate you making it clear in comments that "cancelling" IFP doesn't really mean anything from a risk management perspective. ABC 0.21.0 was released and is enough to cause an IFP split at this point in May for pools who naively upgrade (as we saw with poolin). Maybe you want to write an article that explains it?
I think ABC could do something to mitigate the risk.
They could launch ABC 0.22.0 without IFP support (which would bring versions 0.21.0 and 0.21.1 closer to a concept of obsolence). That would reduce the chances of split of the newer ABC nodes. However, that is not the case yet; They have not announced discarding the IFP; that's a fact.
Anyway, the fact that they don't announce leaving the IFP also have their good side. As long as they do not rectify, they give more relevance to those who propose a responsible alternative ([BCHN](https://bitcoincashnode.org)), and whose participation can bring interesting things to the ecosystem.
I think that as a result of this conflict, it is likely that in the coming months we will see a dynamic competition between implementations that could do much good to BCH. As for the danger posed by ABC 0.21.0 and 0.21.1, keep in mind that it is only relevant as long as these versions are mostly used between miners and exchanges.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. We can't depend on ABC to do X or Y, but if they wanted to reconcile themselves with that part of the community that rejects them, there are a couple of things they could do for their own credibility. Among those things is also a more honest management of bitcoincash.org. I'd say that would be one of the most important steps they could take right now if they wanted to make peace. It's their decision whether to do it or not.
I hope that, consequently, Bitcoin ABC in its attitude and in its adventure with the IFP.
A good initial gesture would be a more honest handling of bitcoincash.org. Everyone in the community knows that Bitcoin ABC is not the only client that supports the HARD FORK. The soft fork is done in parallel to the other changes, but IN AN ADDITIONAL WAY. Honest developers would be consistent in admitting that and listing the compatible clients with the upgrade.
Until now it seems that ABC choose convenience over transparency. That's why I think [Bitcoin Cash Node](https://bitcoincashnode.org/) deserves that support more. Time will tell if ABC decides to continue with a confrontational attitude or if it is willing to listen to the community's concerns.
Well, I think that a transparent management of bitcoincash.org about the update would be a good start. Excluding compatible clients arbitrarily is not a good sign.
Why not post the plan publically? IMHO Any project that solicits public funds should post said plan publically , especially after the IFP fiasco.
Thanks for your feedback. We'll keep it in mind for the future. -George
Very well George, but we need the information for the present. What is this plan ? Does it mean that you give up with the IFP ? How will the collected funds be managed ? On what criteria will they be distributed ? Fund-raising is necessary, but people need to know what will happen with their money to be motivated to participate... Francis
Thanks for this feedback. At this time, the article describes where we are focusing our limited resources. -George
Food for thought: In talking to developers who are against the IFP, the most common theme I have heard is 'lack of transparency'. Many developers do not want money doing to a group unless the income and use of that money is published transparently. Lack of transparency is the number one complaint I've heard, and the biggest impediment to donations. Of course, that is one thing I liked about the IFP proposal. It would have made it impossible to hide the amount of money, by putting all transactions on-chain in a highly-visible location.
I appreciate this feedback, Chris. Will definitely keep it in mind. -George
I also think that publishing the plan would be a goodwill gesture. In fact, I think it's time to make some goodwill gestures. Updating bitcoincash.org with more honest information is a must.
I'm just a user and I don't need a presentation. a PDF file would be sufficient.
> I'm just a user and I don't need a presentation. I really want laugh .. but this shit has just gotten so pathetic! all I can say is, “thank fuckin' God for @freetrader and the whole BCHN team” .. I’ve been in their slack channel since it started, and it’s truly impressive what’s been __ACCOMPLISHED__ in such a short period of time .. they will have my __FULL__ support until they show otherwise
More donations needed now to pay George Donnelly salary
I am more confused than before. Is the IFP going to be canceled?
So far they have not claimed any such thing. I would think that they are simply seeking to maintain a presence and divert attention so that BCH Node does not continue to gain traction. Also, if IFP is not activated (which is likely), this would be a Plan B. Pretend nothing happened and ask for funding.
Yes the IFP is dead.
It's virtually dead, although we can't assume there won't be a plot twist. Until there's zero chance of its activation, it's not dead. On the other hand, the truth is that ABC has not made any statements about ceasing to support IFP by May 15, so it would be more natural to assume that they are acting in accordance with their latest decisions: to continue to promote IFP.
I appreciate you making it clear in comments that "cancelling" IFP doesn't really mean anything from a risk management perspective. ABC 0.21.0 was released and is enough to cause an IFP split at this point in May for pools who naively upgrade (as we saw with poolin). Maybe you want to write an article that explains it?
I think ABC could do something to mitigate the risk. They could launch ABC 0.22.0 without IFP support (which would bring versions 0.21.0 and 0.21.1 closer to a concept of obsolence). That would reduce the chances of split of the newer ABC nodes. However, that is not the case yet; They have not announced discarding the IFP; that's a fact. Anyway, the fact that they don't announce leaving the IFP also have their good side. As long as they do not rectify, they give more relevance to those who propose a responsible alternative ([BCHN](https://bitcoincashnode.org)), and whose participation can bring interesting things to the ecosystem. I think that as a result of this conflict, it is likely that in the coming months we will see a dynamic competition between implementations that could do much good to BCH. As for the danger posed by ABC 0.21.0 and 0.21.1, keep in mind that it is only relevant as long as these versions are mostly used between miners and exchanges.
I agree with all of that. At best ABC can take steps to mitigate the danger. We can't depend on that to happen so we keep moving forward.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. We can't depend on ABC to do X or Y, but if they wanted to reconcile themselves with that part of the community that rejects them, there are a couple of things they could do for their own credibility. Among those things is also a more honest management of bitcoincash.org. I'd say that would be one of the most important steps they could take right now if they wanted to make peace. It's their decision whether to do it or not.
I hope that, consequently, Bitcoin ABC in its attitude and in its adventure with the IFP. A good initial gesture would be a more honest handling of bitcoincash.org. Everyone in the community knows that Bitcoin ABC is not the only client that supports the HARD FORK. The soft fork is done in parallel to the other changes, but IN AN ADDITIONAL WAY. Honest developers would be consistent in admitting that and listing the compatible clients with the upgrade. Until now it seems that ABC choose convenience over transparency. That's why I think [Bitcoin Cash Node](https://bitcoincashnode.org/) deserves that support more. Time will tell if ABC decides to continue with a confrontational attitude or if it is willing to listen to the community's concerns.
Please feel free to send me specific requests and suggestions for improvement. I will see what I can do. -George
Well, I think that a transparent management of bitcoincash.org about the update would be a good start. Excluding compatible clients arbitrarily is not a good sign.