Join 98,826 users already on read.cash

The current BCH drama for outsiders

88 2236 exc
Avatar for Cain
Written by   715
2 years ago

Friday, September 11th, 2020

Recently people have been asking what the newest drama in the Bitcoin Cash community is all about, so here's a brief synopsis for those who haven't been paying attention.

On November 15th, BCH is set to undergo its regularly scheduled semi-annual upgrade. But what makes this hardfork not so regular is that it's expected to be a contentious one due to a disagreement within the community regarding the new coinbase rule known as the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP).

The team behind the IFP is Bitcoin ABC, the original implementation that created BCH on August 1, 2017. The IFP requires any new blocks mined using the ABC client to redirect 8% of the coinbase reward to an address controlled by Bitcoin ABC to fund infrastructure development. Any blocks mined that don't redirect 8% of the coinbase reward to ABC's address will be orphaned by ABC miners.

Earlier this year, those who opposed the IFP forked the ABC code and created a new node client known as BCH Node (BCHN). This new client is designed to follow the chain with the most accumulated proof of work, but does not include the coinbase rule, and anyone mining with BCHN will not redirect 8% of the coinbase reward to ABC's wallet address.

What this means is that miners using ABC will not consider BCHN blocks as valid and won't mine on top of blocks without the IFP. On the other hand, BCHN miners will mine on top of whatever chain has the most accumulated proof of work, whether the chain-tip is an ABC block or a BCHN block. So for example, let's say that the first block after the upgrade is mined by a BCHN miner (let's call this block 101BCHN). That block will not be seen as valid to an ABC miner so an ABC miner will continue looking for block 101ABC. Once an ABC miner finds block 101ABC, we now have two chains. If an ABC miner happens to find block 102ABC before a BCHN miner finds block 102BCHN, BCHN miners will orphan block 101BCHN as well and start mining on top of the 102ABC block.

Basically, miners using BCHN are at risk of wasting their money by throwing hash at a chain that could constantly be orphaned. Any coinbase rewards that are earned through mining BCHN blocks are at risk because the moment that block gets orphaned, those coins effectively disappear. ABC miners don't have that same concern since blocks mined using ABC code will not be orphaned by other ABC miners, even if they have the minority hash. On the other hand, for a BCHN chain to exist, they must always have the chain with the most accumulated proof of work. If at any point the ABC chain becomes the longer chain, BCHN nodes will consider the ABC chain as valid and orphan the BCHN branch, wiping out all transactions made on that chain including all the coinbase rewards earned by miners.

However the situation is further complicated by the 10 block rolling checkpoint that exists in both clients. This feature locks in all blocks that are more than ten blocks from the chain tip. As a minority sha256 chain, the checkpoint was put in place to prevent massive reorg attacks like the ones that have been recently happening to Ethereum Classic.

The 10 block rolling checkpoint is important because if BCHN miners are ever able to get 10 blocks ahead at any point, the BCHN chain will be locked in and a permanent chain split will occur. The only problem is if the ABC chain should ever catch up at some point afterward and become the longest chain, any new BCHN nodes that get spun up will end up on the ABC branch of the network instead of the BCHN branch.

I know it's confusing, but what it all comes down to is the miners. As of today, more than 50% of BCH blocks being mined are signaling they are using BCHN as their client, while the rest aren't signaling for any particular node implementation. This has given the BCHN faction confidence that they are indeed going to have the chain with the most proof of work after November 15. But we must keep in mind that signaling by changing the coinbase text doesn't necessarily mean a miner is actually using BCHN. They could still be using ABC because you can change the coinbase text to say anything you want regardless of what code you are using.

As I said, the situation is complicated. There are many different factors at play. For example, as a miner it would be to your advantage if a competitor were to waste resources mining BCHN blocks that constantly get orphaned. At the same time, if you are mining ABC blocks, while you don't run the same risk of wipeout as you would mining with BCHN, you still have no idea what the market will value the ABC coins if it happens to be the minority chain, though obviously the same concerns would apply to the BCHN chain as well.

The bottom line is nobody knows exactly how this is going to play out. Even the miners themselves can't possibly know what the outcome will be unless they can read the minds of their competitors, which is what makes this entire scenario so fascinating.

But there's a lot more to what's going on. The reason this is all happening is perhaps even more important than the different technical ramifications I've just described.

To give you a little background, as I've already mentioned, Bitcoin ABC is the team that effectively created Bitcoin Cash. Not only that, but they are the team who came up with a clear roadmap on how BCH should scale and have been working towards that goal for the past three years. Unfortunately, progress has been slow due to a lack of funding, which has limited ABC's ability to hire additional people who can insure the future of the network. Despite what some may believe, the network doesn't just magically continue working all on its own, and it certainly isn't going to magically scale all on its own, which is why more resources are needed to find talented developers to help move the chain forward.

There are essentially three ways to fund protocol development: 1) Donations 2) Venture Capital (i.e. Blockstream) 3) Diverting a % of the coinbase reward

For the past three years, Bitcoin ABC has tried to rely on donations alone to survive, but it has become evident that the donations they've received have not been enough. This could be due to a variety of factors such as the long bear market, a tragedy of the commons type situation, or as some ABC opponents suggest, due to ABC's own inability to prove their value to the community.

While the bear market certainly hasn't helped, I would argue the lack of infrastructure funding can't be blamed on market conditions alone. This is supported by the fact that the Bitcoin Core team has also suffered from the same funding problems despite the huge financial gains BTC investors have enjoyed since it's earliest days. Ultimately, BTC developers ended up being funded by companies like Blockstream and Chain Code Labs that chose to take the protocol in a direction that benefited their own purposes rather than the currency as a whole.

Sure you could argue that another team may have had the ability to raise sufficient funds through donations alone, but all the evidence thus far has shown otherwise. Bitcoin Core couldn't do it, Bitcoin ABC couldn't do it, and so far the money raised for all the other BCH node teams through flipstarter campaigns have been significantly less than what ABC raised on its own. The market has spoken, and a donation model doesn't appear to work.

Which leads us to Bitcoin ABC making the decision to move forward with the IFP this November. While some people in BCH argue the 8% is a tax, we must remember that miners are always free to mine using whatever software they choose, whether that's BTC, BSV, ABC. or BCHN.

The beauty of Bitcoin is that no one is forced to do anything in Bitcoin. It is a completely voluntary system that encourages everyone to act in their own self interest.

For Bitcoin ABC, this means charging miners to use their software to validate blocks. To me, this is an elegant solution to the funding problem that aligns the incentives of all parties involved. ABC gets additional funding and is incentivized to make BCH more valuable without having to seek out venture capital that may require them to take the network in a direction that might be damaging to its future. Miners who believe ABC can successfully scale the network are incentivized to mine with ABC software because if they don't, they will risk losing a valuable development team that can scale the network. Without scaling the network and enabling massive transaction volume, the future of BCH will look increasingly grim with each additional halving. The fact that miners using ABC code will in reality only be losing out on less than .2% of revenue rather than 8% makes the situation all the more attractive.

The argument being made by those who oppose the IFP is that it gives too much power to a single developer team. My counter to that would be by not doing the IFP you leave BCH vulnerable to capture the same way BTC was compromised by venture capital money wanting to stifle development to serve their own purposes. I'm also not afraid of the IFP giving ABC too much power because should ABC show themselves to be malicious or incompetent, it will be easy for a team to fork the ABC code as BCHN did, remove the IFP, and have miners use that code and fire ABC in the process. As Amaury has said himself, you can't fire someone you never hired. By effectively hiring ABC, you are incentivizing ABC to work hard to maintain job security.

I think the IFP is as capitalistic as it gets, and an organization seeking to profit from their work without intervention is the very definition of a free market system. Not allowing them to do so would be the exact opposite.

Finally, let's say you have no problem with ABC going the IFP route but you don't think they deserve to keep the BCH ticker. To this I ask on what grounds? Bitcoin ABC created BCH and has spent the last three years maintaining the network. In that time, others have voluntarily joined the community and contributed in different ways, but does that automatically entitle them to steal the BCH brand? Let's say I volunteered at my friend's sandwich shop for three years. Let's call this shop BCH Sandwiches. Just because I helped market the shop and grow its customer base, does that entitle me to take my friend's recipe, open a competing shop, and call it BCH Sandwiches while forcing my friend to change his shop to some other name? In what world does that make any sense?

Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. Do you support Bitcoin ABC's right to profit off their work and keep the BCH brand they built over the past three years? Or do you think it's right for another party to prevent Bitcoin ABC from changing their software as they see fit as well as take the BCH brand because they disagree with the direction ABC is taking?

Sponsors of Cain
empty
empty
empty

303
$ 54.33
$ 23.16 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 20.00 from @maff1989
$ 5.00 from @TobiasRuck
+ 11
Avatar for Cain
Written by   715
2 years ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

sir I'm inspired from you, you good parson and good written post, sir my wish online read.cash income! please sir help to me, I'm need to your support.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Sir, this is very useful, informative and important article. I am just translated in Bengali language. Here is my translated link :

https://read.cash/@Sujitdas1/the-current-bch-drama-for-outsidersbhiragtder-jnz-brtman-bisieic-natk-7994ff78

$ 0.00
2 years ago

To this I ask on what grounds? Bitcoin ABC created BCH and has spent the last three years maintaining the network.

The creation of Bitcoin Cash and its success thus far is a community effort for several aspects.

  • First, Bitcoin ABC is the culmination of several efforts to increase the blocksize (XT, Classic, BU, MVF). ABC itself consisted very much of MVF + Amaury while MVF had started a lot earlier on the very same effort.
  • Second, the Bitcoin ABC team at the time consisted of two developer and if you count sickpig even three. Of those three, two have moved on to BCHN. So likewise to claiming ABC is the contender you could say its 2/3 BCHN and 1/3 ABC.
  • Third, if it wouldn't have been a community effort Bitcoin Cash were dead on arrival without SPVs, Exchanges, Webservices, alternative nodes (aka bchd aso). But instead we saw a lot of drive from a community that just eagerly waited for it to come into existence. Not to forget you and me. It basically would neglect everyone who invested time, money, and passion.

To me it is a vast oversimplification to state Bitcoin ABC founded it. Let alone to use this oversimplification to argue that they automatically deserve the ticker. Even if we would agree they founded it then half of the appreciation would have to go to freetrader which is now BCHN.

Let's not try to play these games and understand were we come from instead

https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/an-incomplete-history-of-the-bitcoin-cashs-origin-and-the-minimum-viable-fork-project-7c060c52

$ 1.16
2 years ago

I want to respond to your points:

  • First, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. This comment is the culmination of millions of hours of other people's work. Is it fair that you get all the value of the tips? The rhetorical question is just meant to show that reusing past work, or continuing someone else's work does not given them any rights to what you produce.

  • Second, no one owns the network so being responsible for its creation grants merit and reputation but not ownership. The privilege given to ABC in regards to being the reference implementation comes from the years of work without credible alternatives.

  • Third, someone depositing their hopes and aspirations on the work of others does not grant ownership of that work nor a say in its direction. Voluntary contributions are their own reward and also don't grant a say about the work of others. If your influence (gained through your contributions) is not enough to stop the change then doing the change is simply making that evident.

I also think saying ABC founded Bitcoin Cash is an oversimplification but there's a reason it's popular and that it's because it's a simple explanation that carries truth. The same way saying Haipo Yang started the Bitcoin Cash chain is an oversimplification. Exchanges will decide the ticker but the reason ABC is expected to be seen as the continuation is rooted in a lot of expectations, formed over time, that have very little to do with the IFP. For that decision, the IFP is no different than a new uncontroversial opcode.

Note that nothing that I've pointed requires you to consider the IFP as good or bad. It simply requires you to consider ABC as not malicious, maybe acting in the interest of all as they think best. If they can't do the change it wont happen. If they can but it's an obviously bad change it should be easy to convince them of it. If they can't be convinced because they are irrational then an irrational team was able to gain enough influence to do a really bad change. If they can't be convinced and they are rational then maybe other people's arguments are not convincing.

It's hard to stop rational people from doing what they think is best without valid arguments or force.

$ 0.50
2 years ago

As far as the ticker goes, I agree it's not a simple answer. But I don't think you can automatically hand it to the anti-IFP side either.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Very nice article. You are a great writer. Thanks for shearing this article. The purpose of all viewers is to please subscribe to my account.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

This article starts out stating facts without bias, and I appreciate that. However, then you act like there is only BCHN as an alternative to ABC, which I believe you know is inaccurate. It also seems worthwhile to mention that more than one ABC developer has quit for various reasons and that some of those developers work on one or more of these alternative node implementations. Beyond that, when you start getting into theory, you have to make assumptions, and I believe some of yours are wrong.

For instance, we know there are very few solo miners, so when I say "miners" I really mean "mining pools" and I assume you say and mean the same. There aren't that many mining pools, and they are all large enough to presumably have the knowledge to manage their nodes as they see fit even when node software stays neutral as it should. That means any given mining pool can choose to use the "invalidateblock" CLI option in node software that has been available since long before BCH even existed to ignore any given branch. Since these miners can do this and know when the fork is scheduled, the implied risk of "BCHN blocks" being orphaned can be removed regardless of which chain has more hashpower. This also effectively negates the risk around the 10 block checkpoints.

There may be risk that different pools choose to invalidate different blocks and therefore start two different chains wherein one or more pools ultimately need to roll back and reconnect to the "correct" chain. There may also be risk that new node instances started up after the fork don't automatically follow the branch that the operator wants them to follow, but they still can and should handle that manually.

At the end of the day, both sides would be wise to admit that there are likely going to be two competing forks for the foreseeable future. Regarding the ticker, that battle isn't part of the blockchain and will have to be fought on the exchanges. However, my personal opinion is that Bitcoin is meant to be free and decentralized. To that end, Blockstream coin shouldn't have kept the BTC ticker and IFP coin shouldn't keep the BCH ticker for the very same reason. Opinions aren't worth much, though, and if Blockstream coin kept the BTC ticker because it had more value and ABC kept the BCH ticker even as BSV tried to commandeer it for the same reason, then I believe IFP coin will inherit a new ticker based on the non-IFP futures being more valuable than the IFP futures on exchanges (to be fair, I haven't checked in on this lately). Further, while there might be money available to manipulate this in the short term, my understanding is that the majority of 3rd party utility has openly stated they will follow the non-IFP chain (read.cash included here). Assuming those add value, then such manipulation would likely be expensive and might not be sustainable long enough for a permanent ticker decision to be made anyway.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

To be honest, That would be unfair for BCH that their brand will be taken away after building it for three years because of BCHN, but because of being practical they seems to support the other party. Hmmmmm

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Thank You so much for the information about Bitcoin Cash cause I don't literally know what happening in the Cryptocurrency community. Now I have some clue on who started this Bitcoin Cash and what will affect my earning in read.cash . Thank You very much... As for my thoughts in the questions below your article.

Do you support Bitcoin ABC's right to profit off their work and keep the BCH brand they built over the past three years? Or do you think it's right for another party to prevent Bitcoin ABC from changing their software as they see fit as well as take the BCH brand because they disagree with the direction ABC is taking?

I do support Bitcoin ABC'S right to have their profit in the work they have done for the last three years, I think no one in this world who wants to waste their work for not having a payment. It took them three years of hard work to make BCH brand so they should have the right to have the payment for those years. I also think that they should have the right to change the software as they like because they are the creator.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

ABCs work is overrated. I am not saying that they haven't done some good stuff, but so have others. And recently it has become apparent that ABC is just stalling to try to convince the community that taxing the coinbase is a neccessity. No it is not. It is also a defacto corruption vector. If they responded to what the market and eco-system actually want, they would also have an easier time attracting investment. Literally almost EVERY other team have gotten funding, because they make stuff people want and they are not assholes about it.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

that ABC is "stalling to convince the community that taxing the coinbase is necessary" is the narrative of someone, who hasn't even read the roadmap. You are simply drinking the cool aid of someone who came up with some crappy justification to get passed his confusion about why no one wants his money.

ABC has gotten more funding than any other team combined. The only reason they did not "got funding" through flipstarter, is because of the fact that these rich individuals are the only ones who make or break the funding. the biggest chunk comes from few individuals who-VERY COINCIDENTALLY- don't like ABC.

You believe the fake news almost completely and fail to see what is ACTUALLY going on in reality.

  1. That ABC has more funding than any other team combined
  2. That flipstarter is being used for political influence and not neutral funding, which is almost as bad as VC funding, if you want to have development funding "with no strings attached"
  3. That people who contribute NOTHING or even negative get more money than people who actually already created value and were always held up in high respects until they did not bow to the mob and declare their opinion against IFP. In fact even staying neutral gets you canceled by them.

ABC has done the only work, most of these devs claim they are not that good but in fact they simply have bad practices and would not achieve the same reliable software. In fact some of them either left the project when it was most important to stay while others kinda got fired (or never hired) due to their low-skills. Bad behaviour on top, which is funny because mot people who know they dont have any good arguments try to claim ABC lead dev is hard to work with, which is also just an excuse for losers.

What you propose they should do and whatnot is entirely build on fiction and fantasy that you gobbled up by the narrative, that is prevalent on social media, while you probably didnt even listen or talk to the people, who actually have any significance or reasonable approach based on a better situational awareness than the mob.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I see, I get your point there. I also agree to you but ABC must have some credit for their work and have a proper right regarding the matters.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

They have already gotten enough credit. What do you mean by "proper right"?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

they never gotten any credit. in fact, if there is a deliberate "stalling" , then it is due to the very same antagonists today, that since the beginning of the fork created trouble and were known as "wrenchthrowers" that hold off innovation by ABC. Especially those people on BU. You can rewatch old dev meetings and see how people try to argue for their inferior product to replace a much better solution by ABC by making up technical problems which turned out to be fakenews. just like today the fakenews about the tax or 90% of the trash talked about funding etc.

you should ask yourself what the people from BCHN actually did with the money and how they already starter distributing the funds to other projects and whatnot. it's basically burned money IN MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION. And people will realize that in a few years, IFFFFF they actually dare to ask questions.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I agree =)

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Thank you for the support. Can you subscribed at me, I do need to earn money to buy a Laptop for my Online Class. I did my very best to earn some money by having a physical job by no one offers here in my place because of the pandemic. But don't pity me please. I am saying the truth. Hope you help me.🤗🤗

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Wow , this is amazing thanks man for this great article it has really taught me a lot today that I don’t know about BCH.keep up the good work and more great work from you. Just wish and hope to get more interesting and informative articles from you . Kudos once again

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Beautiful.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

does that entitle me to take my friend's recipe, open a competing shop, and call it BCH Sandwiches while forcing my friend to change his shop to some other name?

"take my friend's recipe" .. omfg, have u never heard of a thing called BTC? does Core developers ring a bell? dude! (smh) 90% of BCH was "taken" to use ur analogy

In what world does that make any sense?

i guess only in a world where justification requires comparing a local sandwhich shop to a global decentralized financial network (eye-roll)

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Nyusternie you're missing the whole point. Yeah they forked the code so that's why they changed the name to Bitcoin Cash (BCH). They didn't try and claim the name or ticker.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

fwiw, i've just been made aware that ABC's original ticker was BCC; and yet now it's making claim to BCH ?? (head scratcher) 🤔 there are too many things surrounding this whole situation that just don't add up it's dizzying, lol..

anyway, back to BUIDLing... 💪

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I dont understand this article but i tried to learn cryptocurrency.. I want to study this kind of trading. But for now. Learning and study is a must and soon become a good trader. I love how this kind of method in in myself because.. Its just like a game. But for the sake of the money.. Its very enjoy soon. This is the great start for me. And all of us become successful.. By the way i really like this kind of article/content.. Wat to go.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Let's hope in this change's in BCH it did not affect greatly the value and future of BCH in the world of crypto currency.. If it's failed we the holder greatly affected of it,, BCH is the only included or one of those with small transaction fee and commission fee

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Yes. I am always wanting and interested to feel free to share my thoughts and in this context I would like to support Bitcoin's ABC's right to profit off their work and keep the BCH Brand built over the past three years. They did a good thing and future is clearly improving for the best possible performance of BCH will be significantly improved. Hope, Bitcoin Cash future is looking so bright in the nearest future.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

What a great job for legends you did it right on the right time

$ 0.00
2 years ago

would argue the lack of infrastructure funding can't be blamed on market conditions alone. This is supported by the fact that the Bitcoin Core team has also suffered from the same funding problems despite the huge financial gains BTC investors have enjoyed since it's earliest days. Ultimately, BTC developers ended up being funded by companies like Blockstream and Chain Code Labs that chose to take the protocol in a direction that benefited their own purposes rather than the currency as a whole.

Sure you could argue that another team may have had the ability to raise sufficient funds through donations alone, but all the evidence thus far has shown otherwise. Bitcoin Core couldn't do it, Bitcoin ABC couldn't do it, and so far the money raised for all the other BCH node teams through flipstarter campaigns have been significantly less than what ABC raised on its own. The market has spoken, and a donation model doesn't appear to work.

Which leads us to Bitcoin ABC making the decision to move forward with the IFP this November. While some people in BCH argue the 8% is a tax, we must remember that miners are always free to mine using whatever software they choose, whether that's BTC, BSV, ABC. or BCHN.

The beauty of Bitcoin is that no one is forced to do anything in Bitcoin. It is a completely voluntary system that encourages everyone to act in their own self interest.

For Bitcoin ABC, this means charging miners to use their software to validate blocks. To me, this is an elegant solution to the funding problem that aligns the incentives of all parties involved. ABC gets additional funding and is incentivized to make BCH more valuable without having to seek out venture capital that may require them to take the network in a direction that might be damaging to its future. Miners who believe ABC can successfully scale the network are incentivized to mine with ABC software because if they don't, they will risk losing a valuable

$ 0.00
2 years ago

8% back coinbase accoun.. BCH income important site read cash.daily heyous income ABC article Writing.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I didn't see the infrastructure support placed nearby on the topic, was the opinion of the community really not that important? I'm simply stressed over the network parting and worth getting annihilated. Much obliged to you for composing this, you helped fill in numerous little bits of missing setting for me and furnished me with the full picture.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Think of it this way. Without the IFP, Bitcoin Cash is going to die a slow death due to a lack of infrastructure funding anyway.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Hm,tnx

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Now i understand the two are competitors of esch others...

$ 0.00
2 years ago

A large portion of this site appears to help BCHN, however sincerely I need more of a stake in this or adequate specialized information to realize who is correct. I'm simply stressed over the network parting and worth getting annihilated. Much obliged to you for composing this, you helped fill in numerous little bits of missing setting for me and furnished me with the full picture.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I just do cloud mining but I don't think if that is a great move?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

well written... there's a lot more to what's going on. The reason this is all happening is perhaps even more important than the different technical ramifications I've just described. this is prefered to me. thank you

$ 0.00
2 years ago

thanks for this post

$ 0.00
2 years ago

66%

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Good article

$ 0.00
2 years ago

If you are right then do your work silantly.time will tell the who is the winner.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

So from what I can understand here, BCH and ABC are in a kind of competition. Fighting for who will survive among the two

$ 0.00
2 years ago

BCH was created by multiple people including Amaury Sechet (ABC) and Freetrader (BCHN). Amaury is unsatisfied with the amount of donations he has received from the community, so he has decided to put the whole project in jeopardy. His IFP was fully rejected back in May, so he has decided to force it on miners in his latest update of the ABC software.

What an honest person would do is walk away peacefully, but there is a lot of money to be made in sabotaging a four billion dollar network.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

not quite. BCH is ABC. ABC is the developer team who created Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The team that tries to "compete" now is called BCHN (Bitcoin Cash Node). But ABC is and always ways the lead implementation and the reference of what Bitcoin Cash BCH is.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

nice

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Wow nice article... Keep it up😍👍🏻 Please anyone like a subscribe my comment

$ 0.00
2 years ago

greart job do good work for at Bch keep it up,

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I didn't see the infrastructure support placed nearby on the topic, was the opinion of the community really not that important? Because the moving force right now for ABC eviction/split is that a few BCH infrastructure will stay with ABC, which includes be.cash, Stamp, @micropresident's read.cash, and some other stuff I'm not aware of.

Good explanation though. It explains things in full detail, except leaving out the part that the community itself will disband when ABC holds BCH...

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Nice post dear brothers. Keep sharing with us, and keep writing ok:3

$ 0.00
2 years ago

The 10 block rolling checkpoint is important because if BCHN miners are ever able to get 10 blocks ahead at any point, the BCHN chain will be locked in and a permanent chain split will occur.

Correction: BCHN needs to be one block ahead and keep this for 10 blocks. Being one block ahead means that BCHN won't consider ABC the longest chain and won't re-org to that.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Thanks

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Finally, i got something about BCHN. I read many article about BCHN,but It's better i think. Can you please describe easier in another article?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

What would you like to know?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

This one's very informative. Though I am wondering on how this upcoming upgrade will affect non-miners.. 🤔

$ 0.00
2 years ago

It's complicated. We won't really know until after November 15, but if you just hold your coin, you are guaranteed to have both coins in the event of a split.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Actually, as the Nov 15 does have a DAA upgrade, the wallets will also have to update to acconodate for the new algorithm change. Otherwise, it's not yet known.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I didnt know that! Thanks

$ 0.00
2 years ago

You're welcome.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

The drama is what didnt get me in BCH in the first place. And it keeps happening again and again. Until this get sorted out for good I think its going nowhere. Kind of sad but this is reality no matter what article, explaination, vision is given.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

This is where you need ask yourself why it keeps happening and who has been in charge and been there all along. Maybe it is time to consider not having that leadership anymore or even have a leadership in the first place. After all, all that really matters is a consensus spec that all nodes software and miners can choose to follow.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

the fact is that ABC has not been in charge, while actually being the only one holding up the network. that is the whole point. the fact that they even tried 3 years to compromise and give the other people from BU to Roger and others one chance after the other is what lead to one drama after the other. Or did you want nChain to win over ABC years ago? Were you even there to see that the same guys are now again throwing stones, while sitting in a glass house? I dont think so. you dont reat beyond reddit, right?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

For the ABC side, this should be the last split for a long, long time. Or who knows, maybe we don't even split this November.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

See that's exactly the problem... Maybe, maybe not. I think the IFP idea is good but 8% might be a little too much. But as it is right now, nobody wants to invest where there is drama as it always breaks something.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

The IFP is a terrible idea. The only reason ABC is pushing it, is because they have managed to piss off virtually everyone incl. many potential investors. Teams that play nice, instill confidence in that they can deliver what the market wants and delivering it, will always find financing. The problem is ABC have not acted like teamplayers. They want to dictate how the protocol evolves and control how and when. They have a history of stone-walling perfectly good proposals and code. A good recent example was the ASERT DAA that they reluctantly accepted to use only after they tried to play politics and failed. Going back history is filled with it, also many non-consensus features, that they simply ignored. A good example is Jonathan Toomims XThinner, Block Torrent etc. (both even utilizing CTOR). The end result is that if ABC would have let others contribute and not berating people and been less control freaks, BCH would be have been far ahead today.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

you are either producing or simply amplifying fake news and bullshit narratives. you should stop, if you actually have no clue what is going on and simply repeat what people like MDM or Roger say, as if it isn't clear that they are lying through their teeth or to themselves. Or even when they stay honest, that they do not have any argument to begin with.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

See this is what an IFP could solve... Do you see how much you had to write to explain all the drama happening. How does investors see this?

Also companies do get pay for mining, why developers couldn't get paid for usage of what they produced. Specially if it is to further the development of it. IFP could also be temporary until there is more adoption. It doesn't have to be permanent.

In the end innovation and optimization with no drama find financing. What were the last of these in BCH? How does it compare to much newer projects, I don't know lets say Polkadot/Kusama as an example. So sometime it might be a good idea to see some money injected in projects to make people proud and happy.

I'm quite new to BCH but all I see is drama and no innovation at this moment. I wont deny it is efficient to send receive but that's pretty much all it does to me for now.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

NOV 15th. until then simply dont listen to the whiners.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

That's kind of funny... That's mostly what I've seen from both side. So yeah lets see on Sept. 15 and wait for more whining...

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Unfortunately, nobody can see the future.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Wow thats so nice to heard about this article and your news have perfect meaning but one confusion all the markets value is increasing day by day. Will bitcoin cash be number 2nd with in 2 years of time module ? Please reply me if possible 😁😊😊

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Nobody knows what the future holds. Maybe you'll find the next block, or maybe you won't. But the only chance you have is to just keep putting in the proof of work.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Nice

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I also things that IFP is as capitalistic as its get

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Finally a complete article that I can share with friends asking me what's going on in BCH. Thanks!

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Thank you PiRK. That means a lot coming from you.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

This is a very interesting take. Most of this site seems to support BCHN, but honestly I do not have enough of a stake in this or sufficient technical knowledge to know who is right. I'm just worried about the community splitting and value getting destroyed.

$ 0.50
2 years ago

That's understandable. It's a complicated situation, both technologically and sociologically. To me, it's about believing in the right of an individual over that of the collective.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I can't find any particular sentence to highlight in this article, because every single one is worth highlighting. Chock-full of information, straight to the point, and beautifully written.

Thank you for writing this, you helped fill in many small pieces of missing context for me and provided me with the full picture.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Wow thanks for the tip and the kind words maff. Much appreciated. Biggest tip I've gotten in a long time =) Glad to see other like minded people who believe in the free market.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

It is much deserved, sir! I'm very excited to see what the future holds for Bitcoin Cash in these pivotal times :) onward and upward!

$ 0.50
2 years ago

Nice

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Nice

$ 0.00
2 years ago

i am new here ....please help me to grow

$ 0.00
2 years ago

what do you want to know?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

I am new here. Let me know about RC more

$ 0.00
2 years ago

ask me anything

$ 0.00
2 years ago