Repost: Thoughts on the IFP
We have ambitious goals, global P2P cash for the world. This is what we have signed up for, and there is no doubt we will need talented developers to get us there.
Multiple full node teams competing in the #BCH ecosystem is my dream. It was disappointing to me that less than 50% of the full node projects were on the whitelist in the latest version of Bitcoin ABC.
We need devs. We need lots of them, and we want them to compete with amazing full node projects that push innovation forward.
Design & Architecture
Builds and release management
Marketing / Branding
Now, the above is just the bare minimum to do business. Unfortunately for full node developers, they also come with additional requirements.
Bitcoin protocol knowledge
Now we take a peek at the Bitcoin Cash roadmap -
Lets just start by getting to the point. I am not a fan of the infrastructure funding plan (IFP) and think it is a mistake to include in the May upgrade. Be prepared to read for a while, I plan on covering a lot of topics, you have been warned.
Unfortunately, when you give your product away for free, with source code. The typical ways these projects try and make money, or get their devs paid:
Support contracts (RedHat)
Commercial sponsored devs
However, the lack of financial support by those benefiting from ABC seems to signal they are not doing what the market wants.
The money in #BCH isn't going to the full nodes, but to people building wallets, payment processors and other growth generation opportunities.
So, in that position it is imperative that a software team actually explain what major features/refactors they are currently working on. Why those are important to the project, and an estimate on the resources required.
This changes the incentives in the system, and more importantly signals that discussions about the block reward are open game. The optics of a team adding code to the consensus layer to pay themselves can never be undone. Imagine if BTC had attempted a 5% kickback to the core client.
So, my criteria for dev funding:
Easy for profiteers on the network.
So, right off the bat, the IFP doesn't meet my criteria.
It isn't voluntary. The protocol is being changed to force miners to do something they wouldn't usually do. This also happened after they put a significant investment into the network that could take years to repay.
I consider #BCH more than ANY full node implementation. Having a whitelist gives those on that list an unfair advantage at the protocol layer.
So, my proposal is simple. We need to build project funding into the mining pools themselves and gamify the process!
Funding can easily be integrated into solutions like #flipstarter, requiring a threshold before a feature is funded. Again, the market decides if constant payouts or flipstarter style funding works better!
Simple solutions can work, we just need to try them and see what is effective.
This article collect from @quest
This is a repost article. Thank you very much for reading this article. @Mobarok0210