In response to Roger’s recent video, I agree that last bullet point is ridiculous. How much a project is “in need of money” should be an irrelevant factor. If anything it shows how UNsuccessful that organization is.
A free market doesn’t force you to fund poor services. Government laws do this. They interfere with the free market.
In my opinion this funding is a bad idea as it’s too controversial. It opens up the possibility for a split, and there are bad actors who would love to take advantage of this opportunity.
As discussed, BCH only has about 3% of the global SHA256 hashrate. By creating the option to change the rules of the network with a 66% miner vote, this allows bad-acting miners (BTC or BSV miners) who want to guide BCH in a bad direction an opportunity to use their hashrate for a LIMITED time (just during the voting period) to cause LASTING effects well beyond the voting period. Once activated, it no longer requires their hashrate but the rules stay in place.
To a bad actor, this is the “gift that keeps on giving” (in a negative sense).
If I was Calvin Ayre for example, I’d throw every bit of hashrate I had at BCH during this time period to try to derail its decision. It would be worth it because after the vote the decision is lasting.
Normally, hashrate does not get longterm benefit from short term investments. It gets the benefit of a single block mined at a time.
If BCH didn’t share its hashrate with BTC and BSV this wouldn’t be as much of an issue. But it does.
Fund BCH another way.
i hadn't see that video, thanks for the link
I didn't realize how dangerous BIP-9 would be .. now, I'm 100% against any hashrate voting proposals :-(