The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead

40 3346
Avatar for PeterRizun
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
  37
3 weeks ago

Despite the best of intentions, the developer service fee, AKA dev tax, will corrupt BCH.  It represents a departure too far both from our core principles and from bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash.  In this article, I will first explain how the proposed service fee scheme would work, and then I will argue why it has no place in a decentralized digital cash system.

WHAT IS THE DEVELOPER SERVICE FEE PROPOSAL?

In the spring of 2020, after the halving, the supply of new bitcoins will be reduced to 6.25 BCH per block.  If the proposal is adopted, the coinbase from each new block would be split into 8 pieces. Seven (7) of the eight (8) pieces (87.5% or 5.46875 BCH) would go to the miner who found the block, while one (1) piece (12.5% or 0.78125 BCH) would go to a newly-formed company domiciled in Hong Kong.

Fig. 1.  If the proposal is adopted, 1/8th of each new coinbase would go to a company domiciled in Hong Kong. The coinbase would then consist of a 5.46875 BCH coin mined competitively and a 0.78125 BCH token issued at zero cost.

Under the proposal, it would be useful to think of new BCH coinbases as consisting of two parts: a coin that is competitively mined, and a token that is issued for zero cost to the Hong Kong corporation.  Because the competitively-mined coin is 12.5% smaller than before the dev tax, the network's hash rate would fall by roughly the same percentage. As BCH represents approximately 3% of the SHA256 hash rate, total revenue for SHA256 miners would fall ~0.4%, all else held constant, as a result of this reduction in mineable revenue.

Fig. 2. Under the proposal, the developers would modify the consensus rules in software so that blocks that do not pay the service fee to the Hong Kong company would be deemed invalid by cooperating node operators.

Under the proposal, BCH developers would change the consensus rules in software so that blocks that fail to issue the 0.78125 BCH to the Hong Kong corporation would be deemed invalid.  As explained by BCH developer Mark Lundeberg [link] and confirmed by the self-proclaimed "pusher" of the dev tax [link], this is necessary to prevent chain splits due to BCH's 10-block finalization and its minority hash power (the alternative is that miners would coordinate the orphaning at the pool level leaving the protocol unchanged).  This action would also prevent non-cooperating miners—that together might hold more hash power than the cooperating group—from avoiding the service fee.

The Hong Kong company would then raise capital by disposing of its newly issued tokens, for example, by selling them to investors.  A market for these tokens is guaranteed if key exchanges cooperate by running software to enforce the issuance to the Hong Kong company (e.g., blocks that did not issue tokens would not be considered legitimate BCH by the exchange).  The proceeds from these token sales would then be used to fund further work by these developers to grow this BCH enterprise. The purpose of the developers' efforts would be to improve BCH as a cryptocurrency, with the expectation of profit for the investors.

Fig. 3.  The Hong Kong company would raise capital by selling the BCH tokens it's issued. It would use this capital to pay its developers to continue growing BCH in an effort to increase the value of the BCH tokens.

In nearly all of the discourse on the developer service fee, it is claimed that miners pay; however, this diagram reveals that the capital raised to pay developers actually originates from the investors who purchase the tokens issued to the Hong Kong company.  The SHA256 miners as a group suffer only a small reduction in aggregate revenue, all else held constant. The name "developer service fee" is more accurate than "dev tax" in the sense that it reveals the implicit investment contract between the Hong Kong corporation and the investors who purchase the tokens: the fee is passed on to the developers who would provide the service of advancing the protocol to generate profit for those investors.

WHY THE DEVELOPER SERVICE FEE HAS NO PLACE IN BITCOIN

Although the service fee would create a reliable and stable mechanism to transfer money from investors to select developers, such a protocol change comes with great cost.

IT REDEFINES WHO OWNS NEW COINBASES

In the bitcoin white paper, Satoshi wrote:

"By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block.”

Fig. 4.  BCH would depart from the Bitcoin white paper by redefining ownership of the new coinbases and introducing the Hong Kong Corporation at the protocol level.

The key word is "owned."  The developer service fee proposal would change this so that the miner whose work created a new block would instead own 87.5% of the new coin.  The remaining 12.5% would be owned by the Hong Kong authority. By accepting this proposal, this 12.5% would no longer be the miner's property to keep: 

https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/.

Bitcoin Unlimited's (BU's) mandate is to foster the development and growth of "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" as described in the white paper.  It is my opinion that BU would not condone this radical departure that hard codes a third-party into the protocol.

COOPERATION VERSUS COLLUSION

Changing the word "cooperating" to "colluding" in the scheme's diagram and adding some kickbacks illustrates the antitrust problem.  Regardless of how well the raised capital is managed, at a distance the scheme is indistinguishable from a scam that takes money from investors in exchange for tokens (issued to the HK corp at zero cost and legitimized by colluding exchanges) with the promise of moon lambos in the future thanks to the hard work of its "world-class dev team."

Fig. 5.  There is antitrust / conspiracy risk with the developer service fee proposal. The group in control has their skin in a different game than the investors.

This is only made worse by the fact that the colluding miners, exchanges, and developers benefit regardless of whether the tokens appreciate in value or depreciate.  As long as the tokens have some market value, the scheme can reliably and continually transfer capital from investors to the colluding group members. In other words, the group in control of the scheme has their skin in a different game than the investors.

Moving forward with this proposal without legal clarity on the antitrust and conspiracy risks (e.g., to avoid civil lawsuits) is foolish.

THE HOWEY TEST: MINED COINS VS SECURITIES

The "Howey Test" is a test created by the US Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions qualify as "investment contracts."  Transactions are securities if they are:

  • An investment of money,

  • In a common enterprise,

  • With an expectation of profit,

  • Through the efforts of the promoter.

Bitcoin satisfies all but the last.  There is no "promoter" whose efforts are intended to generate profit for the investor.  It is for this reason that bitcoin fails the Howey Test and is not considered a security by the SEC.

The proposed developer service fee and the new structure centered around the Hong Kong corporation changes this in an important way.  The explicit purpose of the Hong Kong corporation is to pay developers whose efforts are intended to increase the value of the tokens.  The Hong Kong company is in fact a promoter!

Fig. 6.  BCH would need to be reevaluated under the Howey Test after this protocol change, to determine whether the BCH tokens the promoter sells to raise capital qualify as investment contracts.

Moving forward with this proposal without regulatory clarity on whether the sale of the tokens issued to the Hong Kong company, or tokens issued directly to developers, would qualify as investment contracts is unwise.

It is important to recognize that the problem is not the Hong Kong Corporation, it is the issuance of tokens to the third-party encoded into the protocol. The problems remain if the free tokens are issued directly to developers.

IT INTRODUCES FISCAL POLICY IN BITCOIN

Why shouldn't the Hong Kong promoter charge additional service fees to pay for marketers to grow BCH adoption?  It would be more useful than further development work. Our network needs new users more than new code.  In fact, with Avalanche and proof-of-stake, we could redirect nearly all of the coinbase rewards to the Hong Kong corporation without changing bitcoin's inflation schedule.

Do not take this idea seriously.  The point is that once we start paying for one "super important thing" it will turn out that there are many other "super important things" that also need funding.  It will not be possible to raise taxes sufficiently high to pay for them all. Deciding which of the super important things are the most important will become a politicized process dominated by opportunists jockeying for position at this new faucet of free money.  

The bitcoin protocol is very simple and was mostly complete in 2009 (by Satoshi).  It is 11 years later and we should be moving towards a stable protocol (without block size limits) and the role of the "protocol developer" should be waning.  Many people are passionate about bitcoin and will continue to do the work that needs doing. And as bitcoin becomes more important to businesses—because we attract more users—these business will also have an incentive to contribute.  But with service fees funding a wage assistance program for select developers, these select developers will block initiatives that come from the volunteer devs or companies, to avoid revealing the uselessness of the assistance program. In fact, the developers receiving assistance will create roadblocks that only they can solve in order to justify their continued feeding from the public trough.

THE END

Back in 2013 we used to say that fiscal policy was impossible with bitcoin and monetary policy was known decades in advance.  Today, advocates for the developer service fee are too blinded by self-righteousness to see that they've lost the plot, or too greedy and entitled to care.  It is bad enough that mining is centralized to the point where it might be feasible for a cartel of miners to impose a tax on block rewards.  The fact that the community is seriously considering modifying the protocol to kill-off this cartel's competition is sickening.  As Satoshi said, "the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block."  The community must reject any change to the protocol that would make this no longer so.




$ 79.69
$ 20.00 from @MarcDeMesel
$ 10.01 from @Read.Cash
$ 10.00 from @molecular
+ 33
Avatar for PeterRizun
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
  37
3 weeks ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

A Chinese translation of this article is now available:

开发税旨在使投资者受益,但反会使我们腐败

$ 0.00
1 week ago

Thanks, very informative article. My initial thoughts were this was a good idea. Ive read a couple of articles now that are rapidly changing my mind. Well written.

$ 1.00
3 weeks ago

imho, ur words are not only honest and genuine, but ur perspective is a wonderful addition to this conversation (i haven't yet really heard from any opponents to this proposal)

The Hong Kong company would then raise capital by disposing of its newly issued tokens, for example, by selling them to investors.

this is the FIRST I've heard of anyone mentioning "tokens". as well as, "selling them to investors?" where is this coming from?

It is my opinion that BU would not condone this radical departure that hard codes a third-party into the protocol.

if the 3rd-party were to be a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), I don't really see the problem here. The DAO could very well still be "governed" by a community (or miner) consensus.

the notion of this "Hong Kong Co", is just stupid .. i'm 100% convinced that someone made a terrible copy/paste error when drafting the proposal .. hopefully, we never hear it mentioned again

As Satoshi said, "the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block."

i'm going to respectfully disagree here .. i don't care so much for labels, but you seem to be a "purists", and that could be very restrictive for a protocol/chain that is currently in the "extreme" minority; and could REALLY use some drastic actions to get it into a "self-sustaining" position where it doesn't have to rely on the "generosity" of BTC miners

finally, with all the logic and reason that you expressed in your very thoughtful article, you still FAIL TO MENTION ANY ALTERNATIVE TO AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM...

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

hard coding a third party

that's like writing a specific company into some law or regulation. regulatory capture at it's finest. to be avoided at all cost because it will very likely be abused

$ 1.06
3 weeks ago

Hey Peter, thanks for publishing this excellent article on this awesome platform!

Thanks for arguing who really bares the cost of the proposed fee: the investors. To an extent it's also the users: yes, they pay the same tx fee, but the hashrate of the BCH network will drop due to the dev fee and hence users get less (less security) for the same price. That's also a cost.

So this in fact is a tax.

$ 1.01
3 weeks ago

YOU THE MAN

$ 1.00
3 weeks ago

It will not be possible to raise taxes sufficiently high to pay for them all. Deciding which of the super important things are the most important will become a politicized process dominated by opportunists jockeying for position at this new faucet of free money.

exactly. people who want this kind of thing should look into Dash

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

Thank you

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

We have months to make sure this sort of "doom and gloom" scenario is not what is set up. We are talking about an attempt to donate to BCH development and not BCH governance. Confusing the two is a common troll narrative these days.

When developers and miners "collude" they can alter any aspect of BCH. This is an awesome and dangerous power. When the community is in support of the change, we call it an upgrade. BCH is known as the Bitcoin that does upgrades.

In this case we have plenty of feedback to make sure we do it right. We also have a massive social engineering attack happening to try to stop the miners from donating to the developers. Anti-BCH forces opposed to peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people are out in force. Since this fund gets 97% of it's income from BTC-miners, they are enraged because it is not voluntary and some of them hate BCH. I don't blame them, but, too bad. Your immoral support of the broken BTC just for greed-based reasons has led to your not having any moral high ground to complain from.

This article seems to me to be looking for reasons to keep miners from donating to developers. I am not convinced it is rationally based and it makes the Chief Scientist of Bitcoin Unlimited look anti-BCH to me. It seems like another reason to question the motives of the BU team. This saddens me. My opinions are not important. If the logic of this article is sound and I just do not get it, I will appreciate him writing this later when I understand better.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

In this case we have plenty of feedback to make sure we do it right.

You're assuming there is a "right" way. I doubt it, but let's wait and see.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

looking for reasons to keep miners from donating to developers.

miners can donate all they want as of now. the issue is in forcing all miners to donate and jeopardizing core principles to do it

$ 0.02
3 weeks ago

As I reply to you elsewhere I agree it is forcing miners to donate. It is not, however, jeopardizing core principals. If you still think it is, please name such a principal this jeopardizes.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

$ 1.02
3 weeks ago

Clearly this guy understands what this shit show is

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

Thanks so much for the write up. People really need to consider the damage this could do. It's far from what bitcoin should be. And to see so many cheering it as if we have no other options and that bitcoin cash will fail tomorrow if we don't implement this radical Change today. We need to understand that bitcoin will survive without a forced donation. In fact we will be better off with out it. Bitcoin has done wonders for over a decade. It never needed a forced donation to a central entity. It definitely goes against the core principle of bitcoin as a decentralized currency.

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

Thanks for your article, and once again for saying the right things.

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

You must own a baseball bat, because that summary just hits it out of the park. ⚾️ Hope there remains a Bitcoin Peer-to-Peer Version of Electronic Cash after May, even if it’s BU alone with the intention to ensure there is.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Would you rather kill BCH than try something that might give BCH a chance to survive? If it does not work, the BCH community can always try something else.

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

Claiming that not funding two or three dev teams will kill the coin is still unsubstantiated in my opinion and to me sounds like fearmongering. It is easier to kill it by 51% attacking it right now.

But showing to everyone that our miners are willing to try to form a cartel to force other miners to pay up into a developer fund even for one day, could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the coin. This is a 51% attack orchestrated by miners with the explicit purpose of going against the whitepaper.

$ 2.00
3 weeks ago

Not accepting this radical change will not kill bitcoin cash. BCH is doing so well. We've made huge strides in the last two years. If we go back to the genesis. We've had over a decade of success. Once we step into this unknown area. There's no going back. Even if it's temporary. Bitcoin cash will forever be tainted.

$ 1.24
3 weeks ago

BS? Tainted in what way?

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

did you read the article? search for coinbase in the article

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

I think I found it. Nothing about taint I could see there. I guess I will speculate on what you mean to imply... If you are just saying (in a new way) that they are forcing the miners to donate, yes I agree. If you are saying making a change to who receives the rewards from mining is an untouchable detail for some different reason, I am not convinced. Mr Rizun may be suggesting a BSV-esque argument that we should not alter the holey scripture even temporarily because BU 'would never do something so horrible'. Well, BCH is the chain that does upgrades.

If you are saying we should not exercise the power that could change the protocol's important features even though this feature is not very important because doing so sets a bad precedent, I am not convinced. When the miners and the developers team up to do something they think is good for the currency they do have massive power. Pretending they do not (or that it will never be exercised) is the normal thinking strategy we use on a daily basis, but, it was never true.

If the miners and the developers team up to do something THEY AND THE COMMUNITY think is good for the currency it is considered an "upgrade". We do have to be very careful wielding this immense and dangerous power, but, when it is good for BCH and the miners, developers and BCH believers are all on board it is not going to crush BCH's reputation. We are already the currency that does "Upgrades". We just need to be very careful and we are getting a lot of feedback on the funding idea to help us avoid mistakes.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

There's no going back. Even if it's temporary. Bitcoin cash will forever be tainted.

This. Dash is still haunted by its Instamine, more than six years later. Fair coin distribution is one of the unique advantages of BCH, but once we lose it, we can never get it back.

$ 0.15
3 weeks ago

This does not create an insta-mine or unfair distribution. There is no taint.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

It does change the initial distribution. This is very clearly detailed in the white paper.

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

Wrong. Miners have the power to send the coins they mine to whoever they want. That's what this proposal does. Miners that do not want to donate can mine BTC. Those who agree to donate send some of their coins to a donation address, possibly in an automated fashion. The code is still law, some just do not like the new law. The number of coins distributed does not change.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Miners have the power to send the coins they mine to whoever they want.

yes, individual miners.

that's what this proposal changes: it forces all miners into collective action perpetually redefined by a central body no less

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Yes, the plan is forcing all miners to lose about 0.44% of the income they would have made. That is unfair and will really piss off the anti-BCH BTC miners. I do consider forcing that loss on good people is bad. Mining is usually considered a cutthroat/amoral/code is law kind of thing. I agree this is a basically unilateral decision to force BCH miners to donate and that will not be it's only affect.

The centralization of the Miners decision on who to send the donation to is best for BCH. Would 10 corporations make you happier? No, I will guess you want individual miners to decide. I believe that is what the anti-BCH miners are trying to get to happen. I believe they can game that system to make sure BCH does not get good developer support. I also want a transparent process and miners would be unlikely to be willing to have their individual decisions be open.

There is no evidence of perpetuality. That is a concern to be vigilant about.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Miners that do not want to donate can mine BTC.

By that logic, there is no coercion in any cartel. You can always just go to an area outside of the cartel's influence to set up your business.

Either you will admit that they are forcing unwilling miners to donate to some address, or you will admit that they are forcing unwilling miners to leave. 51% of the miners is not allowing the other 49% to mine according to the rules of the protocol under this soft-fork proposal.

Unless they own up to it and make it a hard-fork, which would be much better as we would have two coins: donating-BCH and classic-BCH and we'll let the market decide which one is better.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Yes, the plan is forcing all miners to lose about 0.44% of the income they would have made. That is unfair.

There may well be a hard fork, but, there will be only one BCH unless the community splits. That is what the troll army and the anti-BCH miners hope will happen. They want to kill BCh and hope that would finally do us in. I believe the developer funding would be good for BCH and BCH miners of the future (even if they do not think so now), So I am hopeful the community will not split due to the massive dishonest social engineering being used to try to split it.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

I don't think there is any serious social engineering. I am truthfully against the plan. Rizun is against the plan. And it is obvious that Jonald, Amaury and Ver support plan. So I can see people I trust not to be trolls on both sides. The community is split and there are good intentions on both sides. Which is fine. There are though a few very vocal trolls that just accuse anyone on the other side of being a sockpuppet as if that makes their opinion less valid.

If we cannot find a middle road or some alternative solution then the only way for both sides of the community split to be happy is to fork the coin. Which will be bad itself since both sides will be weakened but what can you do?

What I really don't want to see, is the side with Jonald, Amaury and Ver forcing the miners of "my" side to donate by soft-forking.

I also don't want to see the chain hard-forking but if we can't find another solution I don't see what else can be done so that each side gets what they want.

It seems like the pro-plan side has started to give in though. Which is to be expected. I don't know how they thought that what they were proposing would not be extremely divisive. They suggested adding Dash-like governance to BCH, how could that not cause a backlash? Perhaps the underestimated the backlash but I do not think that the backlash is engineered at all.

$ 2.00
3 weeks ago

Wow. You are not aware of the massive troll army that was used to capture BTC from the bitcoin community and has been attacking BCH since before we forked? My long summary of my theory (it sounds like you may think is crazy talk):

https://read.cash/@Big-Bubbler/the-troll-army-still-cant-stop-magic-internet-money-c5ad0453

So you hope to fork and then take the development work we funded and use it for free later on your chain? And you are willing to split the community to get that free ride over .44%?

The pro side is not giving in. The troll army will tell you that 10 times a day though in case you are willing to believe it. The pro side has the hash rate and developers and, I believe, most of the community. So, they are not real vocal due to their strong position. I think that is a mistake because it lets the social engineers work their dishonest community-splitting magic.

This whole brew ha ha is about the miners trying to donate to the developers. It is not about BCH governance. The "centralized governance" boogeyman used by the trolls is about the governance of how the miner's rewards will be divided. The miners earned them, so, they are the miners coins to do with what they want. How they decide to divide the donation to the developers is not about BCH governance. It does give them the power to fund the developer projects they choose and I think Peter may be opposed to this plan because he is concerned they will fail to support BU? That's just a guess since I do not yet see real anti-plan logic of importance in his long anti-plan article.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Wow. You are not aware of the massive troll army that was used to capture BTC from the bitcoin community and has been attacking BCH since before we forked?

I never said anything about no troll army ever attacking BCH. I only said that in this debate, I see honest arguments form honest people from both sides and a very real split in the community. Whether there are some trolls on top of that doesn't matter to whether the community is split or not.

So you hope to fork and then take the development work we funded and use it for free later on your chain?

So because your solution requires everyone to support it you are not even going to let people fork off of it? Is that what you are arguing for?

We are also still cross-benefiting from BTC, should we start noting down which community helps the other the most and then demand payment to make up for the deficit?

The pro side has the hash rate and developers and, I believe, most of the community.

It doesn't look like they have the miners, those that came out to support it don't reach 50%, they do have many of the the developers, and I seriously doubt they have the users. At least any libertarian user (i.e. the old users) that I know seems to be leaning against this thing. We'll never know though since there is no way to poll the community.

I think that is a mistake because it lets the social engineers work their dishonest community-splitting magic.

Please stop blaming social engineering and accept that other people can have honest opinions that don't match yours.

The pro side is talking about trying to turn put central entity in control of forced donations, and you expect this NOT to cause a real split in the community? If we wanted Dash-like governance we would go to Dash. If we wanted soft-forks we would go to BTC and LTC. Is it really that hard for you to see why people are really pissed at miners trying to alter BCH this way?

The "centralized governance" boogeyman used by the trolls is about the governance of how the miner's rewards will be divided.

1) Read your message and how many times you accuse the other side of being trolls and social engineers and try to think which of the two of us a third part would consider to be the troll here.

2) It is centralized governance. 12.5% is an arbitrary number, decided by a majority of the miners and forced upon a minority who is not even allowed to hard-fork away. It seems to me the same like the arbitrary 1MB block limit. And the same as Segwit which miners cannot chose to refuse. The miners' majority has every right to enforce centralized governance upon the minority. And I have every right to call them out for acting like authoritarians inside a coin that split from BTC because of soft-forks, and which is celebrating the fact that hard-fork are actually a better way to implement radical changes.

It does give them the power to fund the developer projects they choose and I think Peter may be opposed to this plan because he is concerned they will fail to support BU?

Come on... that's very cheap. Above, you use the fact that developers support this plan without acknowledging the glaringly obvious conflict of interest (why the hell developers would NOT support getting money?) and you dare to accuse Peter of not supporting the plan "because he is afraid he won't be paid by it". Are you serious? And then you accuse the other side of social engineering? What do you call what you are doing right now then? (BTW I am not accusing Jonald and Amaury of liking the plan because they get paid by it. I believe that the justifications they provided are honest enough)

That's just a guess since I do not yet see real anti-plan logic of importance in his long anti-plan article.

Or maybe Peter is just giving us his opinion and there is no secret purpose behind this article.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

The massive troll explosion on r/BTC is obvious. Have you not looked there or do you still claim otherwise?

So you hope to fork and then take the development work we funded and use it for free later on your chain?

So because your solution requires everyone to support it you are not even going to let people fork off of it? Is that what you are arguing for? We are also still cross-benefiting from BTC, should we start noting down which community helps the other the most and then demand payment to make up for the deficit?

A partial solution to the need for development funding is being offered by miners. We do not need everyone to support miners being allowed to fund developers. When the only reason for the split you seem to want is to not pay for development expenses, it is a clear and different situation that your reply fails to answer.

I wish I had time to cover more now. I will try to get back soon.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

The massive troll explosion on r/BTC is obvious. Have you not looked there or do you still claim otherwise?

I didn't see a "massive" explosion. I think it's the same amount of trolls that we usually have. And I saw a lot of serious posts from both sides so disregarding the trolls there is obviously a serious divide in the community over this matter that has nothing to do with the trolls.

A partial solution to the need for development funding is being offered by miners. We do not need everyone to support miners being allowed to fund developers.

I don't understand what you mean here.

When the only reason for the split you seem to want is to not pay for development expenses,

Not wanting to pay and not wanting to be forced to pay a specific amount to specific people as decided by a committee as a matter of principle are two completely different things and I seriously hope you can see the difference between the two.

it is a clear and different situation that your reply fails to answer.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Different situation from what?

$ 0.00
2 weeks ago

Thanks for the response. It think we seem to be from different planets and will not be able to agree on much. Also, the plan is getting re-considered and I think they will be trying to make it more voluntary with clearer goals, so, discussing the old plan is not useful at this point. Maybe we will chat again when a new plan surfaces :-) Best Wishes until then :-)

$ 0.01
2 weeks ago

Let's try ignoring what Sechet wants. He's now made that a much cheaper option.

$ 0.56
3 weeks ago

Nice to see you here, Peter! Welcome!

$ 0.11
3 weeks ago
About us Rules What is Bitcoin Cash? Roadmap Affiliate program Get sponsored Self-host
hello@read.cash (PGP key) Reddit