Join 69,143 users and earn money for participation

The Suggestion for the Rational and Harmonious Fork of BCH

38 327 exc boost
Avatar for ProfLiu
Written by   9
11 months ago

BCH理性和谐分叉的建议

 

One begets two, two begets three, and three can create millions of things. Just like biological evolution and market prosperity, forks in a decentralized ecosystem are inevitable. The crucial consensus divergences can only be resolved through forks in order to retain the opportunity of development and successes to a larger extent.

一生二,二生三,三生万物。跟生物进化和市场繁荣一样,去中心化生态的分叉是不可避免的。重大共识分歧,只有通过分叉,才能最大程度保留发展和成功的机会。

However, decentralized cryptocurrencies have not yet to adapted to forks. During the forks between PoW and PoS, BTC and ETH, ETH and ETC, BTC and BCH, BCH and BSV, the conflicts became more and more intensified and the harm caused among the involved parties also became more severe.

然而,去中心化的密码货币还没有学会适应分叉。在pow与pos、btc与eth、eth与etc、btc与bch、bch与bsv的几次分叉中,斗争愈演愈烈,相互伤害越来越大。

The experiences gained from trying to fork in a rational and harmonious manner has become the key to the healthy evolution of decentralized cryptocurrencies and this is something Satoshi Nakamoto did not anticipate, let alone produce a solution to.

学习和尝试理性和谐的分叉,已经成为去中心化密码货币健康进化的关键,而这是中本聪没有预料,更没有给出解决方案的。

Another endogenous flaw of the Nakamoto framework is that it lacks a public governance mechanism in this decentralized model. This is the fundamental cause of the Bitcoin scaling debate and other disagreements in the past. It is also the reason BCH faces another fork now.

中本聪框架的另一个内生缺陷在于,去中心化模型中缺乏公共治理机制。这是过去导致BTC扩容之争和两次分叉战争的根本原因,也是现在导致BCH面临再次分叉的直接原因。

Currently, the divergences in the BCH community are:

目前,BCH社区的分歧是:

• ABC insists that 8% of the coinbase is used for the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP). This has been included in the ABC 0.22 node version upgrade on November 15. These funds will be transferred to the address where ABC holds the private key; the management and distribution plan of the funds is not clear yet.

ABC坚持将区块新币产出(coinbase)的8%作为基础设施发展基金(IFP),并且已经写入11月15日升级的ABC0.22节点版本中。这笔基金进入ABC掌握私钥的地址中,而基金的管理和分配方案尚未明确。

• The opponents believe that the IFP will lead to the centralization of the BCH ecosystem which deviates from the nature of a decentralized cryptocurrency. Therefore, they firmly oppose the upgrade plan of ABC. BCHN has been developed and released BCHN 22.0 node version without the IFP.

反对者认为治理基金导致BCH生态的中心化,背离了去中心化密码货币的本质,因而坚决反对ABC的升级方案,并且由BCHN开发和发布了无IFP的BCHN22.0节点版本。

Based on the current opinions and behaviors of both parties, it is difficult to reach a compromise and a fork seems inevitable.

基于当前双方的观点和行为判断,分歧已经难以达成妥协,分叉难以避免。

In this case, accepting the reality of the imminent fork and realizing the first ever rational and harmonious fork in cryptocurrency history is the most sensible way forward. This is beneficial to all parties in the BCH ecosystem:

在这种情况下,接受即将分叉的现实,实现去中心化密码货币历史上的第一次理性和谐分叉,是最明智、对BCH生态各方最有利的:

1. ABC’s IFP exploration is beneficial. The inefficiency of public governance is a key issue that has restricted the development of BCH for a long time. The first step to resolve the governance problem is to have a public governance fund. In any case, ABC included the IFP and took the first step in forming the public fund. 

1. ABC的IFP探索是有益的。公共治理低效率是长期制约BCH发展的关键问题,解决治理问题的第一步是要有公共的治理基金。无论如何,ABC加入了IFP,迈出了从公共产出中形成公共基金的第一步。这是有益的探索。

2. The version without IFP ensures the direction of decentralization. The biggest risk of the IFP is causing the centralization of the BCH ecosystem. Once the governance fund management is centralized, the ecological centralization trend will be difficult to reverse. Therefore, the decentralized BCH ecosystem must be protected before ABC has successfully tested the decentralized governance fund management method.

2. 无IFP版本保障去中心化方向。IFP的最大风险是导致BCH生态的中心化。一旦治理基金管理中心化,则生态的中心化趋势将难以扭转。因此,在ABC没有试验成功去中心化的治理基金管理办法之前,必须保护好去中心化的BCH生态。

3. No one will get hurt if no one is attacking each other. The fork itself does not cause harm and thus no cash of anyone will decrease. The resulting mining revenue also will not decrease. In the fork between BTC and BCH, the total currency price and miners’ income have increased significantly. In its history, the damage each fork produces comes from mutual attacks between two parties. This includes language attacks, hash rate attacks, public opinion smearing and mutual smashing on currency price and others. This was fully demonstrated in the BSV fork. Without these attacks, no one would really be hurt. At most a little sad.

3. 不相互攻击就没人受伤害。分叉本身并不造成伤害,币不会减少,挖矿收入不会减少,在BTC和BCH的分叉中,甚至总币价和矿工收益大幅增长。历史上每次分叉的伤害都来自双方的相互攻击,包括语言攻击、算力攻击、舆论抹黑、相互砸盘等等,BSV分叉做了充分展示。没有这些攻击,就不会有人真正被伤害,最多有些伤感。

4. Show the world the evolution of BCH. Reproduction, mutation, and survival of the fittest are the laws of natural evolution. From the moment BCH forked from BTC, it has started its natural evolution. The realization of a rational and harmonious fork will be an important milestone which indicates that the natural evolution of BCH has embarked on a rational path.

4. 向世界展示BCH的进化。繁殖、变异、适者生存是自然进化的法则。BCH从BTC分叉出来的那一刻开始,就已经开始了自然进化,实现理性和谐分叉会是一个重要的里程碑,表明BCH的自然进化走上了理性之路。

Therefore, I call on all parties in the BCH ecosystem to calmly accept the consensus divergences and be prepared for a harmonious and rational fork:

因此,我呼吁BCH生态各方,坦然接受共识分歧,为和谐理性的分叉做好准备:

1. Give up on “never forking”. The “never forking” dogma was an important weapon used by Bitcoin Core in 2017 to sway public opinion that destroyed the New York Consensus. In 2018, CSW tried to use this to become the leader of the BCH community but failed after being debunked and later forked out BSV instead. Now, we need to explicitly abandon this seemingly loyal dogma which is simply used by a few people to hinder evolution. The result of manipulating this dogma has repeatedly brought damage. 

1. 放弃绝不分叉。“绝不分叉”教条是2017年Bitcoin Core绑架民意摧毁纽约共识的重要武器。2018年CSW试图借此上位为BCH社区领袖,被识破后失败,转而分叉出BSV。现在,我们需要明确放弃这个看似忠诚,实际上容易被少数人利用、阻碍进化、屡次被打脸的教条。

2. Both parties to discuss on the naming together. The substantive contradiction of the fork lies in the naming of the two branches. The smooth realization on the naming of the two branches is the key to the harmonious fork. It is recommended that both parties attempt to consider aspects from characteristics, direction, and community support. Then negotiate rationally and reach a consensus on the naming as soon as possible. The following problems will then be solved easily.

2. 协商双方命名。分叉的实质性矛盾在于两个分支的命名。如何顺利实现两个分支的命名是能否和谐分叉的关键。建议双方从两个分支的特点、方向、社区支持度等方面综合考虑,理性地协商,尽早达成命名的共识,后面的问题将迎刃而解。

3. Exchanges need to be prepared. After the naming has reached consensus, the community from both parties should coordinate with major exchanges, wallets, blockchain explorers and other facilities. They should prepare for the fork,naming and issue notices to users. Encourage exchanges to list the future trading of the two branches to form the market prices.

3. 交易所做准备。命名共识达成后,社区各方应协调各主要交易所和钱包、浏览器等设施,做好分叉和命名的准备,向用户发出预告。鼓励交易所开设两个分支的期货交易,形成市场价格。

4. The hash rate remains neutral. It is recommended that all SHA256 algorithm mining pools, mining farms, miners maintain a neutral hash rate during the fork, and only to decide on self-interested mining strategies based on relative price formed by the exchanges. Both chains are the source of wealth for miners, please do not attack the other chain. There is also no need to be loyal to any chain. Protecting the normal operation of the two chains is the rational behavior of the mining industry.

4. 算力保持中立。建议所有SHA256算法矿池、矿场、矿工在此次分叉中保持算力中立,仅根据交易所形成的相对价格,决定自利的挖矿策略。两个链都是矿工的财富源泉,不要去攻击任何一个链,也没必要效忠任何一个链。保护两个链的正常运行才是矿业利人利己的理性行为。

5. To add replay protection. Both parties should protect the interests of the users and maintain the security of other facilities such as exchanges and others by incorporating replay protection in the code. Exchanges and wallets should be ready to help users to separate, store and trade the two currencies.

5. 加入重放保护。分歧双方都应当保护用户的利益,维护交易所等设施的安全,在代码中做好重放保护。交易所、钱包做好帮助用户分离、保存和交易两种币的准备。

6. To maintain mutual respect. The two parties should respect each other, understand the rationality of the existence of the other branch, seek common ground while reserving differences and leaving the right and wrong for the market to decide. Each can express and debate on their own or other party’s judgement and logic freely but please do not attack others’ motive, character, or even private life etc. These can only bring more harm to each other.

 

6. 保持相互尊重。分歧双方应当相互尊重,理解对方版本存在的合理性,求同存异,将对错留给市场去验证。可以自由表达自己的判断和逻辑,反对对方的判断和逻辑,但不要攻击他人的动机、人品、性格,甚至私生活,等等。这些只能带来更多相互伤害。

7. Prevent instigation. Identify and prevent malicious instigation from some of the Core supporters, BSV supporters, market short sellers and some people who hate BCH due to their losses in BCH investment. What they wanted the most is to see the BCH community hurt each other because of the differences and forks. Some Core supporters did this during the BSV fork and will do this again together.

7. 防范挑拨离间。识别和防范来自部分Core支持者、BSV支持者、市场做空者和一些在BCH投资中亏损转而痛恨BCH的人的恶意挑拨离间。他们最希望看到BCH社区因分歧和分叉而相互伤害。一些Core支持者在BSV分叉时就是这么做的,这次,他们会一起来。

8. Discuss the governance plan. The ABC’s IFP governance plan is still not mature yet. A bad governance plan will make this fork meaningless. Under the premise of accepting the fork, we should discuss and improve upon the governance plan with ABC. Let BCH make an important step forward in governance. I began to study the governance issue of the Nakamoto framework since 2016 and conducted the experiment in BCH. Overall, it is successful, and I am willing to share the related experiences and some of the lessons I learned from it.

8. 讨论治理方案。ABC方面的IFP治理方案还没有成熟。一个糟糕的治理方案将使得这次分叉变得毫无意义。在接受分叉的前提下,我们应当跟ABC一起讨论和优化治理方案。让BCH在治理方面迈出重要的一步。我从2016年开始研究中本聪框架的治理问题,并在FCH中进行试验,总体成功,愿意分享相关经验和教训。

9. Code sharing. After the fork, the underlying program and application developers from both parties can develop collaboratively and share code together. The underlying code can be shared and adopted between both parties. Upper layers applications can be realized respectively in both ecosystems. They can even jointly support the development of cross-chain functions and applications.

9. 代码应用共享。分叉后,双方底层开发者和应用开发者仍然可以协作开发,共享代码。底层开发代码可以相互采用,上层应用可以在两个生态中分别实现,甚至可以联合支持开发跨链的功能或应用。

10. It is recommended to hold both currencies in the short term. Before and after the fork, there may be market price fluctuations. It is recommended that the majority of the BCH holders, especially the giant whales to adopt the strategy of holding coins of both side in short term. They can gradually adjust their investment strategies when the market stabilizes. 

10. 短期建议双持。在分叉前后,可能出现市场价格的波动,建议广大持币用户,尤其是大量持币的巨鲸,短期内采取双持的策略,等市场稳定了再逐渐调整投资策略。

In fact, since the market is currently on an upward trend as a whole, if the naming issue can be resolved and the above points be realized, the BCH fork will cause not only no losses, but will also create more opportunities and gain more market attention.

事实上,由于目前市场整体上处于上升趋势,如果能够解决命名问题,实现上述要点,BCH的此次分叉不仅不会造成损失,还会创造更多机会,获得更多市场关注。

I hope that all parties can calm down from the previous debates, tolerate each other, think rationally, and solve problems together. A rational and harmonious fork will then be completed and accelerate the evolution of decentralised cryptocurrencies.

希望各方能够从之前的激烈分歧中冷静下来,相互包容,理性思考,一起解决问题,理性和谐分叉,加快生态的进化。

  

(The author Prof. Liu Changyong is responsible for the viewpoints of this paper. Rymd and Su translate it into English from Chinese, and Cindy revised the translation.)

18
$ 7.87
$ 1.88 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 1.87 from @maff1989
$ 1.22 from @molecular
+ 7
Avatar for ProfLiu
Written by   9
11 months ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

Very well said!

In theory, I think you nailed the situation and a good solution. Sadly, I think this "war" has been manufactured by anti-BCH forces with powerful social engineering efforts to personalize a variety of valid and dishonest grievances into a power struggle between personalities instead of a battle between technologies. I think the kind of compromise needed to bring anti-ABC developers and other critical players back together might require "Amaury's head on a platter". Personally, I would be OK with that if there was a ready replacement that could keep BCH moving forward with less negativity. I see no equally talented and trustworthy new leadership offering to do the work. Maybe the 8% funding-distribution-governance system could take all of Amaurys power over the fund away? That could help with the so far unjustified "power grab" claims, but I think the personal animosities may continue to overshadow reasonable discussions.

Edit: Also, many believe the whole community is behind BCHN. The anti-BCH army of accounts has been claiming this for months (since before it might have been true) and now many real BCH fans believe it. It does seem true on social media where the social engineering is very strong. I am not sure it is actually true, but I believe fooling social media can be enough to fool the real community into thinking they are the minority view.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

I think you don't realise that nearly 90% of all businesses and users of BCH support BCHN or at no-IFP.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

In this case, accepting the reality of the imminent fork and realizing the first ever rational and harmonious fork in cryptocurrency history is the most sensible way forward.

What makes you think that ABC wants this fork to be harmonious? They chose to make their change a soft fork, which makes it likely that they are planning to attempt a 51% attack. If they were interested in having a harmonoius split, they would have chosen a hard fork version of the IFP. They did not.

$ 0.10
11 months ago

I think both sides want to war, so I wrote this proposal.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

That is sadly what it looks like. Personally, I would be willing to not have a war and also let ABC experiement with IFP, if they retract it now, then resolves the issues you write about in this article before they push for a breaking change.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

I think the Chinese community may not be aware that all the main Bitcoin Cash businesses, infrastructure, development tools, software will be using BCHN. The majority of the community is also supportive of BCHN.

https://read.cash/@sha256_88ebd526/bitcoin-cash-bch-november-2020-upgrade-statement-8c743a0d

https://read.cash/@SLP-Foundation/simple-ledger-protocols-joint-statement-regarding-bitcoin-abc-on-bchs-november-2020-upgrade-3ba8d706

https://read.cash/@GeneralProtocols/joint-statement-on-aserti3-2d-algorithm-f98f0a2c

https://read.cash/@asicseer/joint-statement-from-bch-miners-regarding-bitcoin-abc-and-the-november-2020-bch-upgrade-2cbdc38d

https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.com/bitcoincom-recommended-node-implementation-for-bitcoin-cash-prior-to-november-15th-2020-2590d28c

Amaury admitted that he doesn't care about Bitcoin Cash, all he cares about is money for himself.

Source: https://sigma.rcimg.net/images/0/8/d/NilacTheGrim/78e8e314/d6c1d2a752915ab79eb55ceaef399c9d.png

Source: https://sigma.rcimg.net/images/0/8/d/NilacTheGrim/78e8e314/c9b7462d48ece6f00eadb10d0624bb57.png

Amaury also threatens to become Blockstream. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i32k7m/dark_secrets_of_the_grasberg_daa/g09umet/

In the last 4 years alone...

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with BU.

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with Bitcoin.com

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with former BCH community (now BSV)

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with BCHN.

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with Jonathan Toomin on the DAA.

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with some of the current BCH builders and supporters.

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with big investors like Justin Bons Cyber Capital.

Bitcoin ABC has conflicts with someone who donated money to them in the past (eg. Marc De Mesel).

It is quite clear to me that Bitcoin ABC is the reason why BCHBTC price keeps going down.

To achieve what he wants, Amaury has been deliberately preventing other developers from building and making progress in Bitcoin Cash. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/i32k7m/dark_secrets_of_the_grasberg_daa/g0cknap/

If someone caused your investment to lose money, you still want to reward that person with 8% of the mined blocks? I will not do that. There are very good reasons why all the main Bitcoin Cash businesses, infrastructure, development tools, software, community don't support the IFP. Let's not reward people who do harm to Bitcoin Cash.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

It is quite clear to me that Bitcoin ABC is the reason why BCHBTC price keeps going down.

WOW, That's a new one.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

In other words, you do not support the idea of an amicable split that supports the overall ecosystem.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

negotiate rationally and reach a consensus on the naming as soon as possible

Don't want to be negative, but I don't think we're capable of completing this step.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

The ABC’s IFP governance plan is still not mature yet. A bad governance plan will make this fork meaningless. Under the premise of accepting the fork, we should discuss and improve upon the governance plan with ABC.

Should this not be resolved before making changes of this nature? Can't this wait 6 months while ABC sorts out an actual governance plan?

$ 0.00
10 months ago

I think that is the plan. Of course, in this toxic environment productive discussions are unlikely to be widespread.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

The inefficiency of public governance is a key issue that has restricted the development of BCH for a long time.

The IFP is a method of gaining funding, not a method of resolving governance issues. One of the main reasons why it is so widely opposed is because it leaves the governance issue completely unaddressed, and invites corruption. The governance system is still just Amaury Decides, except now with $8 million per year at stake.

$ 0.11
11 months ago

Amaury has not come up with a plan yet, I don't think he will stupidly occupy all the funds. He will have a distribution plan, and will be connected with development affairs, this is a governance plan. I also think that it is a serious mistake to start collecting 8% of coinbase without even a plan in details.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

sure, lets have a rational and harmonious mutual suicide by nuclear weapons. /s

$ 0.00
11 months ago
  1. ABC’s IFP exploration is beneficial.

I do not believe this. Bitcoin ABC is so desperate for money that they are willing to split BCH because it will get them more money than they are currently getting. I believe that ABC is doing this "exploration" because it benefits them, not because it benefits BCH.

$ 0.11
11 months ago

As I said in the article, ABC's ifp provides a new possibility under the premise of retaining a chain without ifp. ABC has not yet given the ifp management detail, let alone implement it. In case he comes up with an excellent plan, it may really solve the bch governance problem. Even if it fails, it verifies that this plan is wrong and provides a basis for the new plan.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Wouldn't it be better if this plan was properly formulated and peer reviewed first, before these kinds of changes are pushed on the users and businesses trying to use the chain?

$ 0.00
10 months ago

ABC's governance plan looks like a copy of Zcash without any significant innovation. Hence I see no point in executing this experiment.

$ 0.00
10 months ago
  1. The hash rate remains neutral.

The IFP code is inherently a 51% attack. That's just what the code does. Miners who run the ABC software will reject any block that does not pay ABC 8% of the coinbase. Miners who run BU, BCHN, BCHD, or any other BCH node will not reject the ABC blocks. This means that anyone running ABC's code will try to prevent any non-ABC miners from getting any revenue.

Miners who run ABC's software on Nov 15th will be contributing to a 51% attack.

$ 0.11
11 months ago

If an amicable split was the agreed intention, the code would support it.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

As long as the ABC chain rejected a bchn block, it will fork into two chains. bchn nodes will not accept ABC blocks any more. So this problem will not exist.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

bchn nodes will not accept ABC blocks any more.

This is technically incorrect. Jonathan Toomim is right.

To ensure a clean split, it would be advisable to first mine 10 BCHN blocks (which are then protected against reorgs) before starting to mine ABC blocks.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

No, if more than 50% of the hashrate mines with ABC, they will be the longer chain with most proof of work, and will cause non-ABC miners to extend it as the longest legit chain, but as soon as they make a block it will be abandoned.

This will repeat over and over until the non-IFP chain miners realize that their only effect is to burn money, or decide to take action and manually intervene. (or random variance creates 10 blocks which triggers the 10-block rule, but only for BCHN and not for BU/BCHD/Verde/Knuth/Flowee.)

The outcome is a mess and will hurt users and businesses, and should NOT be tolerated without a clear and strong explanation of why it is valuable. Experimenting with IFP funding may be such a reason, but not when it hasn't set up governance rules ahead of time and allowed the stakeholders to and public to do peer review and provide feedback.

There are issues with the IFP according to many (me included), but to me it is FAR more important to recognize that how if is being pushed is problematic. Not only does it set a precedent that "changes can be pushed at will, without explanation", but it also does so with no respect and full disregard for user and business needs - it doesn't have a plan for how to split, it doesn't have a plan for how to handle the branding issue, naming issue and so on.

In short, the way that the IFP is being introduced is reckless.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

The biggest risk of the IFP is causing the centralization of the BCH ecosystem.

No, the biggest risk of the IFP is that it will cause users, investors, and developers to perceive BCH as a corrupt kleptocracy and leave BCH, causing the whole project to fail.

$ 0.10
11 months ago

The first step to resolve the governance problem is to have a public governance fund.

No, that should be the last step, not the first. We should not give Amaury $8 million/year, and then tell him to set up a system for distributing it fairly afterwards.

$ 0.21
11 months ago

I mean that governance needs money. Public governance needs money from the public.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Fortunately we know exactly what the governance needs to be and it does not require any further expensive development. https://read.cash/@tula_s/briefly-on-governance-ff06770f

$ 0.00
11 months ago
  1. To add replay protection.

I am in favor of both sides adding replay protection. The game theory only works if both sides do it, though. Otherwise, it just devolves into a finger-pointing match about which side should implement replay protection.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

I agree. IMO any side that intentionally forks without it is attacking the other side and users unless they can count on a very clear majority of mining hash.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

I think adding replay protection sets a dangerous precedent that threatening a 51% is enough to change consensus rules in a way that interrupts the entire Bitcoin Cash economy. Additionally, the feature freeze has already passed and clients have already been released.

If a significant chain split indeed materialises, at that time we can consider making some quick change to standardness rules to simplify coin splitting.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

Replay protection is not the most important, and replay protection by one party does not affect the naming. The naming mainly depends on the exchanges.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

The opponents believe that the IFP will lead to the centralization of the BCH ecosystem which deviates from the nature of a decentralized cryptocurrency.

No, this is not the reason why people oppose the IFP. The opposition is because we believe the IFP to be (1) a corrupt money-grab, and (2) a change made without consent or consensus, and against the wishes of most of BCH's users and investors.

$ 0.11
11 months ago

(2) a change made without consent or consensus, and against the wishes of most of BCH's users and investors.

i believe this as well, unfortunately we are too lazy to do a referendum, so the opposition can simply just ignore this

$ 0.00
11 months ago

So, you don't see the fatal danger of ABC's ifp: ifp controlled by ABC may cause bch to lose its source of power-decentralization.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

I think some, including Mr Toomim, may oppose ABC's continued control of BCH (as it has been for 3 years) for personal reasons. IMO, many social media accounts are secretly opposed to BCH and are using the weaponization of the problematic status quo and Amaury's difficult personality as a tool to divide the community and push for a split. Their efforts seem to have enraged some of the real BCH community to a point that reasonable ideas like yours become difficult. One of the problems is that there are good reasons to want Amaury to have less power, not more. I agree the funding-distribution governance system set up for the 8% is critical to limiting his power. Many will assume the worst for now. It seems staying enraged is a high priority for important players.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

I oppose the IFP for both Jonathan's reasons and your reason.

$ 0.00
10 months ago

Therefore, they firmly oppose the upgrade plan of ABC. BCHN has been developed and released BCHN 22.0 node version without the IFP.

BCHN 22.0 was being developed long before ABC announced their intent to activate the IFP in November. BCHD, BU, Flowee, Knuth, and Bitcoin Verde all are also are omitting the IFP from their code.

$ 0.11
11 months ago

I'm glad to know this.

$ 0.00
11 months ago