I had been in BCH from day 1 ever since Bitcoin Cash forked. I’m in it because I believe very strongly that having a fairer monetary system has massive positive benefits for humanity. Life is really short and I wanted to contribute something meaningfully to others before my passing. Bitcoin Cash is something that gave me a reason to get up every morning.
I’m also in Bitcoin Cash instead of BTC because I don’t think a monetary system controlled by a single developer group, Blockstream, is a monetary system I want to be involved in. I did not leave a coin controlled by a single developer group “Blockstream” to join a coin controlled by another single developer “Amaury”.
Anyone who thinks the current DAA disagreement is the real problem is not solving the real problem. You can solve it this time (compromise), and the next time another similar conflict or drama will happen, just like almost every 6 months before. And until we solve the root cause of the problem, this “every 6 months conflict or drama” will persist into the future. So we cannot just solve the current DAA disagreement and call it a job well done. Please don’t be naive.
The DAA incident is only a symptom of a bigger problem and until you solve that problem, these symptoms will continue to manifest itself as things like Grasberg. And until the root cause of the problem is resolved, these symptoms will manifest itself as big Bitcoin Cash investors like Justin Bons or Marc De Mesel selling their Bitcoin Cash stake leading to the falling BCHBTC ratio. If we want a positive price action for Bitcoin Cash, then no more of these “every 6 months conflict or drama” bullshit. We need to send a strong signal to the world that Bitcoin Cash is a stable positive collaborative environment for new business/projects to thrive in, to invest in, to feel good in.
The root cause of the problem is the way Amaury thinks of the community, like you and me, as not important. He also doesn’t think other developers are important and force them to do things Bitcoin ABC’s way. If Bitcoin ABC puts their own self interests above Bitcoin Cash interests, then we will have problems every 6 months, like what’s happening right now. Bitcoin ABC also threatened to become Blockstream because the IFP didn’t go through. “By rejecting the IFP [...] poeple decided for the Blockstream model that day” Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGddt-ryRDI&feature=youtu.be&t=12160
If you can’t see why I am upset, it is because I didn’t leave Blockstream's coin to join a different Blockstream's coin. In fact, you can start to see some patterns of those behaviors as evidenced in Jonathan Toomin’s article.
In the process of showing this, I have also shown disturbing patterns in Bitcoin ABC's behavior:
- Bitcoin ABC has repeatedly misled the public. First, they withheld information about the 11.25 minute block times. Second, they falsely claimed that ASERT changes the coin emission policy, when that's actually what Grasberg does. Third, they claimed the nonexistence of other proposals.
- Bitcoin ABC has repeatedly demonstrated technical incompetence and unpreparedness with Grasberg. This has been shown with the lack of solid simulation results, the potentially oscillatory design, the algorithm's complexity, and the algorithm's susceptibility to attack.
- Bitcoin ABC has demonstrated a complete disregard for the positions and contributions of other Bitcoin Cash developers.
- Bitcoin ABC appears to be taking a "You do you. We will do us" approach to software development. They appear to have developed Grasberg in response to aserti3-2d, and may be intentionally escalating to a chainsplit.
- Bitcoin ABC is performing one of the gravest sins a developer can make: they are attempting to push through a change to Bitcoin's economic and monetary policy, and take on the role of a central bank.
- Bitcoin ABC appears to be attempting to consolidate political power over Bitcoin Cash. Should they succeed in doing so, they will likely be able to leverage their power for money.
This time, there is the possibility of a path back into their own coffers, but no direct evidence of such a path. That said, there is direct evidence of dishonesty and subterfuge from Bitcoin ABC in other respects; and there's evidence that they're hiding something, and have not been forthright about their motivations for Grasberg.
They say actions speak louder than words, and ABC's actions say that they don't put the interests of the Bitcoin Cash community first. ABC prioritizes ABC above else, and don't seem to care that their actions might split the community.
I also would like to add that I do not like Bitcoin ABC constant efforts in stonewalling progress from other developers in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. If you are not able to do something, at least don’t sabotage the contributions from others.
At some point, we all have to make a stand and I know exactly where I stand. I will sell all my coins from the Grasberg chain for the chain with Jonathan Toomin’s DAA chain. I have no intention of keeping my coins under a dictator who publicly claims that the community, people like you and me, are nothing to him. I have no intention of keeping my coins under a developer who threatens people (that they will be Blockstream) when things don’t go his way.
As far as I’m concerned, the main thing that gives any cryptocurrency its value is the community. And if the community sends a strong signal that we are united and we reject dictators, then I am very confident this strong signal is a bullish sign for the Bitcoin Cash price. My observations with BCHN and other node implementations had given me positive vibes again. Work can be really fun and enjoyable. The journey to making p2p cash go mainstream can be fun and enjoyable. And when it does, then the sky is the only limit for Bitcoin Cash.