The difference between us

20 367
Avatar for Cain
Written by
3 years ago

Thursday, August 6th, 2020

I started this article last night, but life moves fast in BCH so I had to make some small changes this morning crossing out Grasberg and putting in IFP. What this reveals is that the real issue was never about either of those things.

What is the difference between us? Why do I want to fix the historical drift the IFP while you don't? I'll tell you one thing, it's not because someone paid me off and told me to write in support of it.

I choose to see the best in people, not the worst, so I'll give these two the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this. Hell, I'll even take it as a compliment.

It did get me thinking, how much would it take for me to do something like that, to write in support of something I don't believe in? I don't know since I've never been presented with such an offer, but I'll say this much, it's a lot. It's so much that I don't see anyone offering me that kind of money anytime soon.

So what separates us? Why do I support Grasberg IFP while you don't?

You can talk about simplicity of the code, not changing the emission schedule, not bending the knee, but for me it's not about any of that.

I think at the core, the difference is you prioritize decentralization over everything. You believe that without decentralization you can't get peer-to-peer digital cash. So you don't want to give any one person or group too much power. Because you believe power corrupts. Who knows, you might be right since I can't read anyone's mind and there's no way of knowing what someone is truly thinking. But then neither can you.

I don't fault you for your way of thinking. I don't think it's evil, just different. And though you may not agree, I have no choice but to see you as a collectivist, someone who favors the group over the individual. I don't use that term pejoratively. I think you can be a collectivist and have the best of intentions.

It's just that I don't agree with that philosophy. I believe in individualism. I also believe in seeing the best in people, in thinking them capable of acting in their own self-interest because they believe it is right and best. Selfishness for the greater good, selfishness to help them reach their goal. In this case the goal being p2p digital cash for the world. At the same time I believe collectivists can act selflessly for the greater good, because they believe their selflessness can help them reach that same goal.

To me this fork is an experiment in and of itself. It's a way for us to discover what works better. BCH as we've known it can serve as our control. The two chains will act as variables to that control. One chain made up of collectivists, the other chain made up of individualists.

I can see the advantages to both. What's better, the chain where people work voluntarily with a willingness to compromise and collaborate for the common good? Or the chain where we believe in following a capable CTO, giving him the benefit of the doubt based on past performance and funding/supporting him in any way we can?

It's an interesting scenario we've set up, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out. This is why I am hoping for an amicable split. I think there are smart people on both sides, we just have different mindsets. And even though I prefer individualism, it doesn't mean that I know for sure it will lead to success. The fact is, nobody knows what the future holds. All you can do is make a choice and see what happens.

With that said, I want to add one more thing. Although I support those of you who want to build BCH collectively, I don't support destroying the work of others by employing the state or through terrorist acts as suggested in the screenshots below taken from public chats. Remind anyone of something? I hope cooler heads can prevail. I hope people don't see ABC's actions as an act of terror. No one is being forced, everyone has a choice.

[sponsors]

40
$ 4.24
$ 2.42 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.77 from @Marco
$ 0.50 from @OnChainScaling
+ 5
Avatar for Cain
Written by
3 years ago

Comments

Classy piece, Cain. Thanks.

$ 0.25
User's avatar Marco
3 years ago

"A writer for hire" is such a silly accusation, coming from BCHAZers, who get $500-$1k tips just for literally preaching to the choir of anti-abc cacophony.

$ 0.00
User's avatar Koush
3 years ago

Exactly! Meanwhile I write pro-ABC pieces for a couple of dollars. I could literally be making 50x that going the other way.

$ 0.00
User's avatar Cain
3 years ago

"I think there are smart people on both sides, we just have different mindsets. And even though I prefer individualism, it doesn't mean that I know for sure it will lead to success."

The difference is that red is a color. Its own entity, without any flexibility. The rainbow can have red (and does), but it is not limited to red. It allows for other colors, based on their properties. Individualism can still manifest itself within collectivism, but the same cannot be true the other way around. This is what BCH strives to be- a collectivist effort that still rewards based on individual merit.

I tipped you again. Like you, I choose to see the best in people.

I hope you believe me when I say I still give the benefit of the doubt. I posted an article a few hours ago where I explain that I want Amaury to "come back" to the community. I want him to get the recognition he deserves, socially and financially. But I do urge you to stay on your toes. You gave a very hand wavy pass to ABC generally and to Amaury specifically. You even left it in as part of your article: you say the issues themselves don't matter. It can be Grasberg, it can be IFP, it can be anything.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that Amaury made a very big deal about the "philosophical consistency" of Grasberg? That he worked on something for weeks without letting anyone know about it, pushed it through as something "ABC will move forward" with, but suddenly doesn't even plan to implement it in the next update? Hell, he even said that ASERT "does not leave us with sufficient time to review adequately, simulate and test, and get feedback addressed before the feature freeze on August 15th."

Philosophical consistency matters, sufficient time for thorough evaluation matters...until it doesn't? This would make sense if it was by conceding to a more fundamental value (e.g. to not cause a split), but it's becoming evidently clear that a split is still very much on the table. So what is it conceding to? Given the evidence, the best explanation is: A disguised move to keep as much control of the BCH ecosystem so that it's not pulled out from under him.

You can say "well if it's for BCH to succeed, then so be it." But now your moral compass is starting to become a bit cloudy...

Nobody can call it an exertion of force if the unsuspecting participants don't know about it.

I'd urge all the "hard core" individualists to wrestle with that one honestly.

You seem like a really smart guy Cain, but I have to say I think you're wrong on this issue. You've zoomed out so much that your argument has become overgeneralized. I hope that you can still ask Amaury these fundamental questions and get real answers to them. I'd love to hear those answers, but I have a feeling they won't come. That's ok. I just want you to demand them for yourself. They owe it to you.

https://read.cash/@Mono/we-can-still-win-and-we-will-c25c1b82

Cheers, Mono

$ 0.00
User's avatar Mono
3 years ago

I appreciate the tip and the compliment Mono. I read through your comment and your article and I don't get this need for all of us to stick together. I get a split isn't ideal, but it appears this is probably what's best for the future of both projects (since it looks like there will be 2 projects going forward). I welcome this as it gives us a chance to try both strategies. And I get your concern that I'm hand waving any concerns people have about Amaury. I mean I've never even met the guy in real life so who knows, maybe he's not who I think he is, but I choose to trust my own instincts and not worry about what others think. As for me having zoomed out too much, I recommend this article as it does a good job of describing the differences in another way. I also highly suggest you watch the presentation by Joannes Vermorel that's linked in this article. I'm not saying you're wrong, or I'm right. We just have different opinions and that's fine as far I can tell.

https://read.cash/@JustinMiles/this-fork-isnt-about-which-daa-is-the-best-it-is-about-how-product-decisions-must-be-made-af71bea5

$ 0.00
User's avatar Cain
3 years ago

I don't get this need for all of us to stick together.

Uh, what? What do you believe p2p cash for the world means? This is not some weird communistic utopia I'm talking about, it's just the basics of cooperative work for world adoption so long as the ideals are the same. As a family man, if your kids suddenly said "well we're 18 now and there's clearly a bit of disagreement on how you should "educate" us, we'll just go our own way. We don't get this need for all of us to stick together." If other node implementations had said that big issue changes like pre/post consensus were totally off the table then I would be the first to champion a split. When there's real disagreement, you need real change. That can definitely mean an amicable split. But last I checked, not only was there no truly divisive issue, Amaury is even GOING ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY BACKED DAA. At this point. the only "contentious" issue is how to get the money... short term. That's clearly not a disagreement in vision.

So you might say, "but it's bigger than that. It's about governance." Believe me, your point is not lost on me. I read the article you've linked and it's very good, but it hasn't really brought anything new to the table.

Are you sure you read my article completely? We don't disagree that much. If i had my way, Amaury would still be "CTO" of BCH. That doesn't exempt him from being a team player. I would propose maybe trying to find a model where for "higher level" technical decisions he gets greater weighting in the decision making progress. I believed that with a bit more teeth grinding, we could create more of a net benefit for everyone. I still believe that.

I saw that talk of "creating the iPhone" and references to Steve Jobs' work and impact was briefly discussed by Amaury as justification for leadership style. What about the Steve that was actually the engine behind Apple in its first years?

"Jobs was less hands-on when it came to developing computer software, and instead focused on design, advertising and talking to press, Wozniak said. “One thing he wanted was to somehow be important in the world, though he didn’t have the academic or business, background, he had me,” he said. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/steve-wozniak-on-steve-jobs-personality-shift-as-apple-co-founder.html

Its easy to be captivated by "industry movers". I am not belittling the genius of Steve Jobs, but it is a sin to not see the rise of Apple in its completeness. Part of that truth is that Wozniak toiled away behind the scenes because he believed he was doing good work with a good friend. Does that mean he should work for free? Of course not. I believe good work deserves good pay. But yes, much of the initial lift of Apple came from Jobs' business savy-ness, while the real work was being done with pretty crappy conditions. Xerox's PARC was an amazing space for R&D. Some people were more influential than others, but there was still a mutual respect that allowed progress between people to be effective. Amaury hasn't been willing to allow that to happen recently.

It's a shame more time wasn't spent trying to find better ways of making everyone happier, socially and financially. The problem is that ABC decided to barrel through the issue because of their "lead implementation" advantage. The governance debate is the important discussion to be had. But there can be no progress if Amaury, in his position, won't let it happen. There are solutions. Certain people just don't want to entertain them...

Cheers, Mono

$ 0.00
User's avatar Mono
3 years ago

i try to see and respect your point of view @cain, but lately it's really hard

I think at the core, the difference is you prioritize decentralization over everything.

for the record, I prioritize NOT having another Blockstream over everything

Why do I want to fix the historical drift the IFP while you don't?

I'm just curious, is the historical drift no longer a "problem"?

This is why I am hoping for an amicable split.

(sigh) it will only be amicable if there is no fight for the ticker .. when ABC adds its new "tax" I'm assuming we can safely no longer call that chain "Bitcoin"??

$ 0.00
User's avatar nyusternie
3 years ago

I just read a painful story about jealousy, lies, love and the truth about people. I felt into pieces while reading this article, now I do not know if I am able to fix myself together using my peelings to become one piece again, I appreciate this sincere confession. .

yours trully. . . SirPotato

$ 0.00
User's avatar SirPotato
3 years ago

One chain made up of collectivists, the other chain made up of individualists.

The mindset, which I also see present, will affect governance, that is, how decisions are legitimized. I think you were referring to the constitution of the users and fans, and those will be mixed everywhere because people are mixed everywhere. It's not even sure that people that want to participate in the decision process will flock to the place allowing that participation. BU's been allowing participation of people without technical knowledge and it's membership is pretty stagnant.

$ 0.25
User's avatar m4ktub
3 years ago

Wow good thought

$ 0.00
User's avatar Caleboy2002
3 years ago
About us Rules What is Bitcoin Cash? Affiliate program Get sponsored Self-host hello@read.cash