Put your Money Where your Mouth is

HE tried to troll me, not the other way around. I didn't take the bait and he blocked me. This person is a net negative despite having some skin in the game, but influenced a decision, that was not his and ultimately of businesses with a great track record for progressing and securing BCH and having dozen times more skin in the game with their giant established businesses, as opposed to him.

What he does is politics and most of the things he says are unfounded or flat-out wrong. Making it clear how destructive I think his actions were is not trolling.

Yeah I was talking generally. So all good. Just against that sort of behaviour. Lots of it on other platforms. :) Live long and prosper!

Yeah. I agree, sometimes I just get too riled up. It didn't happen for a long time for me. I have also stopped on any type of discussion or communication about this topic or his actions. So it'll be all good. Thanks

Great to hear. Time to enjoy life on RC now and make some digital friends. Grow ones channel and learn from people with quality posts :)

jesus, you actually upvoted this article? hopeless bunch.

Yes and I did look up the conversation before upvoting.

as I said, hopeless

Fantastic news isn't it! :)

Great to see the community rally round these developer teams.

Exciting times for sure!

First of all, please tone it down. You agreed to the rules before signing up: no name-calling or personal attacks ("honks", "whale-bozo", "off brand Calvin").

This is not Twitter and this will not be tolerated. This is a warning. It would be quite unpleasant to apply the rules to you, but you did agree to them before signing up and you're making this place unpleasant for everyone by denigrating other people.

It's fine to argue with ideas, don't make them personal.

Second, I don't understand your criticism - you seem to imply that Marc is somehow circumventing the Nakamoto Consensus mechanism, when NC is in full play: https://bitcoincash.network/voting/ The miners are actively voting. There is zero support for IFP and as long as I understand George from ABC - if there is no support by May 15th - it's off the table. Some of the miners are actually voting by choosing to mine with BCHN - so they are specifically voting against IFP.

I do personally agree with Marc that IFP poses a great risk for Bitcoin Cash - he laid it out pretty clear here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIiUvfTckdM

You are correct - he can't do anything against Nakamoto Consensus by supporting competing nodes. He can't make miners use BCHN. They are doing it voluntarily. What's the problem?

The last nights I have written quite a lot about all of this on reddit, which is a place I usually don't use, because of the abysmal reasoning going on. I have no issue with any insults and cussing but take much much bigger issue with people making underhand attacks and smears or implying very damning or hurting things, without using cuss-words or insults, which is far more destructive than anything else and should be pushed back just as well by you. "O-B-Calvin" is a term I coined and I may keep using it, if I need to. This is not an insult and I think it is my right to make this definition, which is very explanatory and should open up some peoples eyes, without Marc being able to claim foul play.

I frankly don't want to go into the details yet again, let me just tell you, that Mr.Demesel abusing flipstarter for his political astroturf campaign is self-evidently much worse than any supposed or 'tax' or 'gaming the system' that could (or actually never would) have happened based on IFP/NC voting mechanism.

We went out of our way to be vigilant and ask for decentralization, but are absolutely hyping and celebrating the fact, that one guy frustrated with ABC astroturfed (yes, this is my conclusion, not an insult) his way into influencing the entire space with his net negative remarks and downright fake-news. This makes all of this a cargo cult. I made a meme, emphasizing on this here: https://twitter.com/KoushBCH/status/1253379434964541440

You happen to have experienced exactly, what I am talking about just the other day on david allens article, be it just a 'soft' and forgivable example. But this person and his followers, who simply are headless in their judgement, create rumors against ABC or IFP based on even less.

And this is all based on the fact, that ABC is not wanting to affiliate with him, as they see him as a net negative for a very long time now. Sorry but I think ABC has the right to ignore people like him. No matter how much he donated or wanted to donate. As we see, ABC again did the right judgement call to see him as a liability. As he is right now fueling and amplifying the unreasonable voices, leading even to people calling for "a law against node implementations with malicious intent". Of course no one is taking any of them seriously and of course these people are feeling "left behind" by something they don't understand and frankly don't have to, because it is not even their decision. They can sell their coins alright, if they don't like a market-based cartelization of miners ensuring the future security, utility and standing of BCH. Ultimately leading to bigger bags. It's not that Jiang is not the guy who'd be hurt the most with a falling price.

Everyone opposed to the IFP or ABC has yet to come up with a better reason than: "it's contentious, because it is contentoius" if they don't want me to call what they are doing 'NO2x' methods. If you don't see that or not at least understand where I am coming from, then I really really don't know what to say anymore.

And that Nakamoto Consensus actually is at play and nothing wrong is happening, is also my point. But these miners with pro-IFP people in the frontlines like Jiang Zhuo'er are definitely not against the IFP, but just respectful or afraid of activating and voting for it, because of a loud minority of unreasonable people, whose sole argument is the "contentiousness" of it. This is not an argument, this is circular reasoning. The fact that nobody is voting for it and the tax won't be pushed through just shows how everyting is working as expected and putting the IFP voting mechanism into the code is in no way at all an issue. It was just a few lines of code, which helped the miners to vote on a proposal. The only people, who should have voted and discussed this and the only metric we should care for, when talking about contentiousness or anything else. Issue is, AGAIN, like with NO2x, the miners and even some developers backed away, as if these insignificant naysayers (I hope thats not an insult) had anything to say, that should be taken into account. This is not a user-based democracy. This is not a MMO, where frustrated and downright entitled people make rumors as to why the dev team is trying to milk them with "pay2play" or the recent skill 'nerf' of their main character. These people are NOT the ones to decide. If you think this to be the case, you haven't understood PoW and Bitcoin.

But as a last point. I appreciate a lot, that you came to give me the opportunity to speak my mind and don't dismiss what I say, probably because you see I have at least some kind of a point. Thank you.

Thanks for much more calm response. However, I still ask you not to resort to name-calline ("O-B-Calvin" is namecalling), because first of all, name-calling doesn't help you move your point across and second it makes all of read.cash much less comfortable place for everyone. So if you continue doing it you'll force us to use some other measures. If you want to continue the name-calling - there's Twitter, Reddit and whatever. They don't care about it, we care.

implying very damning or hurting things

Yeah, if this happens on read.cash towards you - hit the flag under the comment or article and we'll figure out what to do. Personal attacks are forbidden here.

So, back to IFP and Marc.

1. What exactly do you want? You spend so much time telling what you don't like, but I have no idea what do you want to achieve.

2. You insist that Marc doesn't matter at all, because everything is decided by the Nakamoto Consensus, and then NC is pretty clear - IFP isn't happening (at least now). Not because of Marc, but because miners decided it, including Jiang. He wasn't forced with the gun at his head, so it was his own decision. You aren't happy with it, then ask Jiang to reconsider - why attack Marc instead?

3. "it's contentious, because it is contentoius" It's not just contention - it contradicts the very basis of the white paper (section 6, first paragraph), it was pushed after the code freeze, it was backdated to be written into the specification, it all was very sudden, no discussion, it is mired with secrecy (first the unknown HK corporation, now about who owns the addresses, why no competing implementations on the white list, etc.. etc.. etc..), it's not well tested, it's not voluntary (orphaning)

4. ... and yes - it's very contentious. And here's the problem. If IFP activates (which is still possible no matter what Marc wants) then BCH will split into two coins yet again. There will be a hash war again, there will be a name war, probably even delistings since we (BCH) can't stay away from drama for two years. There are hundreds of people publicly opposing IFP - they aren't as stupid as you think they are - they have their own reasons, not because of Marc, but because they thought this for themselves.

You assume I and everyone else was played by Marc, but I was against this IFP from day one. I didn't even know Marc exists back then. Jiang posted a Medium post. I was happy with it until I read the paragraph about orphaning - at that moment I started to hate this. It's one thing to donate, it's another to butcher the white paper to force everyone to play by the rules set by....

...we don't know who sets the rules. It could very well be a single bad miner wishing to destroy BCH who will just mine 66% of block to activate IFP and then never arriving. ABC knows this. They don't care, because they have a conflict of interest - if that happens and even if 100% of Bitcoin Cash miners oppose IFP - they'll be forced to do it, because one rogue miner activated it and laughs at us now.

One more thing is that ABC initially wanted to collect $6M. That's a ton of money. I worked as CTO, as team lead, as developer, I know how much projects cost, but $6M is a ton of money! Even if they start hiring in the USA (despite the fact that they're in France, where the salaries are lower) - that's 60 people working for a whole year. It's incredibly big and inefficient team! (Or it's a small team and an incredible level of corruption...) They didn't even explain why they need so much. (One more point to the "secrecy" point)

That's my reasons (not all of them) to oppose ABC's actions. Marc's videos have added some insights to my thinking - that if IFP activates - other teams, who don't get paid would be angry and leave, that idealists will leave, that it won't be enough - at the end they would require more and more - marketing budget, hash war budget.

But all of this happened after I became opposed to IFP.

I hope you reconsider the idea that everybody in BCH space is just dumb and follows Marc's ideas. We can think. We oppose IFP for our own reasons. I won't use the IFP coin even if it uses the Bitcoin Cash name - it goes directly against my ideals of how Bitcoin should work - voluntary, open for all, not suddenly changing the rules in the last minute to include some huge corruption potential into it.

Having said that, yes the devs should be paid and Flipstarter (and Monero) proves they can, when they ask for reasonable amounts and listen to their users.