Join 79,118 users and earn money for participation

BCC#8: To those against the IFP + ABC

33 268 boost
Avatar for Cain
Written by   691
1 year ago

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Don’t worry, I come in peace. I'm not here to stir the pot, but rather to ask a question. I understand why many of you are against the IFP, and the way it was handled. I don't share your opinion, but I respect it, and I see the reasoning behind it. I also don't think you're stupid for believing what you do, and I'm certainly not laughing at anyone. But I do have a question for you: What do you see as your roadmap for Bitcoin Cash?

Let's imagine that Amaury and ABC suddenly bailed on BCH, and it's now BCH Node's turn to lead protocol development, what is the plan for the next year, or three, or five? I'm not saying you don't have one. I'm just saying I don't know what it is.

Despite how many of you seem to feel about Amaury and ABC, at least I have an idea of what their plan is. Perhaps they haven't been perfect, but I don't think you can deny they have been good stewards of the protocol. Ignore the price, or the ratio, because honestly, I don't think they're to blame. In my opinion, that has more to do with marketing and all the bad publicity BCH has faced since its inception, as well as the lack of funding.

I know some of you will accuse me of being in the Amaury cult. You are free to think whatever you want, but I promise I'm my own man. I believe in those who give me a reason to believe in them, and not because I'm trying to get anyone to like me, or because I want to be their friend. I'm here because I want to see this technology change the world. I joined this movement because I see the huge potential, and I want to be able to say that I was a part of it.

To be honest, for the last week or so I've been struggling to come up with what to write next in this column. I also found I had little to say on Twitter, or Telegram, so I took a few days to take a breath. It was refreshing to not be consumed by BCH for a brief moment. But at the same time it allowed me to realize that for the small team at ABC, taking a breath isn't really something they can do. They can't just step away like I can. I could disappear from the scene tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference, but not them. More than just about anybody, I believe they feel a responsibility to all of us in the community, and to the network they created. You might deny this, but I am confident that their role in all this has been greatly taken for granted.

But like I said in the beginning, I'm not here trying to stir the pot. I'm here to ask a question. Because what I want more than anything is for BCH to succeed, to offer the world a better option, and I put that above any one person or team. So if the team behind BCH Node is promising to deliver that and make me rich in the process, I'm all ears. What is the plan going forward? Will this simply be a competing implementation? Or do you want to kill ABC and take over development completely? Who will be the lead engineer, or the new benevolent dictator, or will this be done by committee?

I ask because I don’t want to just blindly follow anyone. I want to be confident in whom I’m putting my trust

I know nobody can claim to see the future, or into the hearts of men, but I would love to see what ABC could do if they were properly funded for once. I want to see them build out their team and have the necessary resources to do that which they've wanted to do. If they don't deliver, then a lesson is learned, but I think they've earned the chance to give it a shot.

There's nothing wrong with a competing client, but I ask that we not kill the team that got us here with politics but by outcompeting them with better technology.

And if your reaction to this is that I'm an ABC shill or sock puppet, I know I have no way to prove anything or convince you otherwise, but I promise, I'm not here to worship anyone, I just see what I see, and then I write about it.

Thanks for reading.

1
$ 7.96
$ 2.00 from @Nicknameul
$ 1.00 from @cryptopanda15
$ 1.00 from @nyusternie
+ 10
Avatar for Cain
Written by   691
1 year ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

There are actually a lot of things that can be done, both to offer a better future (no, a technical roadmap is not a vision for the future), and to prevent a dictatorship from ever leading to the situation we got again. It's been just a week, we've been busy pulling things together for a release, stay tuned for more.

$ 0.80
1 year ago

Worst-case scenario: minimal maintenance.

I prefer stagnation to the IFP, because I know the situation can evolve later in the future, on a sound basis. Activating the IFP is like opening Pandora's box: everyone will want to get funded by it and it will lead to perpetual dissension in the community.

I see BCH Node as a leverage to prevent IFP activation, and therefore to prevent a split between Bitcoin ABC and BU. As I said before, I like ABC and what they are doing, but I would like us to try to fund them with donations before even thinking about diverting the block reward to do so.

$ 1.00
1 year ago

I don't share your opinion, but I respect it, and I see the reasoning behind it.

Certainly respect your opinion as well .. it's very refreshing to have a perspective from the other side; as it really helps to bring a "complete" perspective on a situation.

Or do you want to kill ABC and take over development completely?

absolutely, no one is claiming that .. if Amaury rage quits, that's his business, but I don't see that happening either (at least based on his Twitter comments) .. i think everyone agrees that infrastructure needs funding; just NOT the way its currently being proposed

I want to see them build out their team and have the necessary resources to do that which they've wanted to do. If they don't deliver, then a lesson is learned, but I think they've earned the chance to give it a shot.

all for giving people/teams "a shot at success", but certainly NOT at the expense of what would almost certainly be an "irreversible" protocol change (in the coinbase), that's worked perfectly for over a decade now .. find another way .. TRY HARDER! THINK SMARTER!

(fyi, now that v0.21.0 has been released; and everyone has had an opportunity to "properly" review the code changes; I think it's now "perfectly safe" to say just how terrible a plan ABC had for this IFP)

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Appreciate your comments nyusternie. I'm glad many in the community can still be civil. I get your concerns about v0.21.0 but my understanding is they will be releasing a new version of the ABC code that will set it so it defaults to a no vote regarding the IFP.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I'm against the ifp, not against abc per se.

there is usually more than one path to reach a given goal. abc could be more transparent and detailed about their funding needs.

$ 0.60
1 year ago

abc could be more transparent and detailed about their funding needs.

i've been absolutely flabbergasted how you can claim to want $6M; and NOT detail "how" you plan to spend that money .. from day ONE, it's always seemed to me that ABC has been looking for "back pay" .. and that's fine!

but why would you make an "irreversible" change to the coinbase (that's been working fine for over a decade now) to "TRY" and make that $$$??

$ 0.00
1 year ago

abc could be more transparent and detailed about their funding needs.

I agree and see no reason we can't ask for and expect that if ABC is going to get the funding.

$ 0.10
1 year ago

see no reason we can't ask for and expect that if ABC is going to get the funding.

what incentive do they have with the IFP in action to be transparent? None.

I'd like to turn the table and say: if they were more transparent and specific about their needs, they might get way more voluntary contributions.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

To be honest I do not want the devs working on scaling to waste time jumping through hoops (even though I agree they are important hoops) I want them to keep dev'ing. I am happy someone claims they are going to be helping them with fundraising (which may be that same thing).

As for incentives, to keep from splitting the community, of course. That threat is real now that the anti-BCH forces have recruited real community members to their cause. I hope to see a negotiated settlement of this big mess that makes everyone happier. This issue could easily be added to that deal. I think most if not all the real complaints about the IFP can be solved to make both sides (of the real community) happy. My concern is how well the anti-BCH side has been able to keep their real BCH community members from being interested in a solution (fixing the bad IFP and it's bad implementation strategy) by using personal attacks/grudges and false assumptions.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

That threat is real now that the anti-BCH forces have recruited real community members to their cause.

I'm not sure what you're implying and you keep saying things like that.

I'm a real community member and I haven't been "recruited" by anyone. I'm also not anti-BCH.

You made a good comment a while back and I still owe you an answer on that, but the kind of accusations make it hard to keep interacting...

by using personal attacks/grudges and false assumptions.

let's clear it up then?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I believe you know that before this IFP controversy erupted there was an active anti-BCH "army" working to harm BCH. When the pool operators offered to set up an automated way to let miners donate to BCH development that would avoid the free-rider problem so all the miners that donated would not feel like they had to do it alone, the anti-BCH army went into overdrive building true and false arguments to split the community. They mixed all the old grudges and disagreements from the past into their carefully crafted social engineering efforts to divide the community. Their efforts have been effective at recruiting pro-BCH people like you into supporting a fork of the code and willing to split the community to stop miners from donating to developers. They have warped minds into thinking it is something different. I bet you think I am mistaken about what you are opposed to.

Anyway, I do try to "clear up" the false assumptions everyday. They use so many of them and they repeat them so often, it is hard to stand up to the wave of false information. When the lies are things people would rather believe than the truth or are connected to the deep-seated grudges or real issues like Amaury's attitude, convincing people they are fooled is quite challenging. The "army" of professional social engineers look for those weak spots and tirelessly use them to divide us. I believe they have found very powerful allies in the anti-BCH and pure-greed-based miners that do not want this to push some mining hash onto the BTC-Chain.

Of course this IFP is flawed and that makes the social engineering so much easier. I don't blame people for believing many of the arguments that it is bad. That said, most real pro-BCH community members with an understanding of the BCH history would not support dividing the community to stop miners from donating to our developers like this. That is the part that the army is working for.

I called it out weeks ago when I saw their plan. I whined over and over about them ramping up their attacks and how they were using this disagreement to divide the community. It seems it has worked so far. Those who want to split the community are now on the same side as the known trolls and the many new agents that have joined the discussions. Some of them very very well written and calling for division at all costs. Some even go so far as to say things like 'let's kill ABC before we consider how to make things better'. I know ABC has issues, but, they are a big part of BCH and that is why they are under attack by outside forces.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

You should check Jonald's article about ABC and BCHN working together.

$ 0.10
1 year ago

a link would help, can't seem to find what you reference

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I think that this video is a great analysis of why the IFP is so bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch8gSbrIfh8

$ 0.00
1 year ago

This video is full of truths and false assumptions mixed up to make it seem like the conclusions are true. There is an army of anti-BCH attackers that have been using professional social engineering to fool real BCH fans into thinking the stuff in this video. Now even fans like Marc are part of the social engineering. It is sad the anti-BCH agents are working to cause a community split on BCH and that is currently working.

Hopefully we will get a compromise solution that fixes this mess in the next few months before this activates. The anti-BCH forces pushing this divisive attack on BCH will try to stop any compromise.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I believe it is useful to have a clear plan for where we're going, and even more so a motivation for that plan so we know why we are going there.

ABC has made a rought overview of a plan which also includes some degree of motivation when you read the end goal entries. They have also proven committed to it and piece-by-piece completed parts of it.

What might be worth taking notice of though, is that the opposition to the IFP is not an opposition to that roadmap, and the people forming up the BCHN node have not had the time necessary to sit down and formulate a strong long-term plan as they have been reactive, rather than proactive.

In fact, from what I've seen so far, the entire setup of the IFP has simply broken so many social expectations that productive talent have been forced to chose between abandoning the project as it would no longer be what they've been working on all along (same as many did due to segwit with the BCH split), or divert their time and energy to protect and uphold those social expectations.

For example, the company I work at have a very clear "give-back" policy and have from the get-go tried to contribute value to the ecosystem in many ways, but when the ecosystem you are trying to support suddenly changes form into something you're not interested in supporting, you end up in a rather problematic situation.

What good comes from building value for something you don't want?

Just like the protocol developers, the talent that is working on enriching the ecosystem with usecases and adoption have opportunity costs - so one should be really careful about changing the something so fundamental and integral to the system as the block reward.

Now, I don't want to say that this means that the people who are pro-IFP or put the IFP on the table are by necessity bad people - but I will say that in the quest more honestly and fairly distribute the costs for protocol development, you might have caused a value-loss larger than up-front cost-savings.

So with regards to the roadmap, for me it looks a bit like this:

  • Step 1: Get the fundamentals of Bitcoin Cash secured and make sure the network remains attractive.
  • Step 2: Provide alternatives to ensure that we're at least trying to solve the funding problem, to avoid a repeat of this situation in the future.
  • Step 3: Get back to building on the roadmap we had before, hopefully having lost none of the talent in the process.
$ 0.25
1 year ago

I understand this line of thinking, but my main questions regarding BCH Node is who on the team has significant protocol development experience. Will freetrader be the lead dev? How dedicated will he be to BCH protocol development and how long? Will he be hiring others to help him? That sort of thing. The worst case scenario for me would be if ABC abandoned the project as a result of all this and we end up with no one to replace them.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

That might be your worst case, but to a significant part of the community, that is less worse then breaking the social expectations when it comes to the block reward that underpins the PoW system.

I don't know how dedicated the protocol development team behind BCHN will be, and I dont' want ABC to throw in the towel and shutdown - but consider this:

Protocol development is not the only part of the ecosystem that has an opportunity cost and right now there's a significant amount of work being done because people want to do the work on BCH. Remove that desire, and those people will need financial incentives to stay with the ecosystem, and it might be significantly harder to raise those funds than to stop squabbling about the IFP and start trying to raise funds for protocol development.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f4qgry/lets_have_a_show_of_hands_who_supports_the_ifp/

$ 0.60
1 year ago

I agree. I would love it if we could raise funds for protocol development through donations, but I don’t know if it’s enough.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Given what we know, I don't see any issues. Right now, a set of miners if voluntarily donating to fund protocol development. Adding toolings, systems and information to expand the reach and get a more varied set of donors should be helpful - but it doesn't take away from the current model.

If the case is that the miners no longer want to donate as much though, then of course, it is uncertain if the efforts will be enough. We can't know until we've tried and exhausted the available options.

If the IFP goes through though, expect some part of the community to leave and that the potential pool of donors to shrink, significantly. This would mean that while the IFP-enabled parties might get the funding they need, the rest of the ecosystem that might get funded otherwise will be pointed to the IFP and requested to get funds from there instead.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Get back to building on the roadmap we had before, hopefully having lost none of the talent in the process.

yes, this!

$ 0.00
1 year ago