I have been following the IFP Debate a few months after I rejoined the Cryptocurrency community by buying (and spending) Bitcoin Cash since last November 2019. Seeing posts that are anti-IFP and pro-IFP, I have decided to attempt to debunk the underlined words that Amaury chose and the implications for the BCH infrastructure that is already in effect.

Bitcoin is the foundation for a voluntary, free market. When Satoshi Nakamoto, in the white paper, stressed that “nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,” he identified Bitcoin as a system based on voluntary action. Competition and consumer choice are key to accomplishing the end goal of a global peer-to-peer, censorship-resistant network. Bitcoin Cash, for most of its existence, lacked any alternative to Bitcoin ABC that was a viable mining implementation. In recent months such an alternative has been developed. This allows Bitcoin ABC to make this much needed improvement while miners who may prefer other rules are free to choose a viable, alternate implementation.

Amaury Séchet, Bitcoin ABC's plan for the November 2020 Upgrade

The White Paper Quote

Let's start by explaining, in my interpretation, of the Satoshi Nakamoto quote.

Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

Section of Abstract, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin white paper.

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

Conclusion, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaper.

Now, this brings an interesting point as this no longer works for the debate between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.

This, however, is also not in effect against Bitcoin Cash's default rules and Bitcoin ABC's rules as the sentences suggest, in my subjective opinion, that every node is to choose the longest chain that the node can read.

During the days of the whitepaper back in 2009, Bitcoin (Core) didn't have this problem when they upgrade and undergo a hard fork, as each system upgrade would invalidate the old chain.

However, in today's problem, this would merely mean that any node that connects to Bitcoin Cash's blockchain will choose which node is larger and that depends on who will get the majority hash and has their block be the tenth block for the rolling checkpoints to recognize as Bitcoin Cash's. ABC has wired against this possibility by orphaning non-ABC blocks.

Essentially, what I had interpreted that Amaury gave to the miners is this:

Feel free to mine using BCHN/BU/other implementations, but I will take control of the blockchain no matter what happens because your blocks are invalid.

Interpretation of: "nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will"

Bitcoin ABC Mining Alternatives

... Bitcoin Cash, for most of its existence, lacked any alternative to Bitcoin ABC that was a viable mining implementation....

Amaury Séchet, Bitcoin ABC's plan for the November 2020 Upgrade

In some ways, this was right. Bitcoin Unlimited had a few problems that broke its nodes, and BCHN didn't exist during 2017-2020 where ABC was the lead implementation. But today, we have Bitcoin Cash Node as an IFP-less ABC fork. Bitcoin Unlimited has been fixed, and all the other nodes that we have available can be used for mining.

Yes, BCHD and the other four nodes can mine. But they are built for other cases that needed a node, like development (BCHD), code diversity (Verde), product framework (Flowee the Hub), and performance (Knuth). Knuth specifically is tailored for high-network activities, such as mining, exchanges, and businesses.

And if ABC has locked itself as lead development node until then? All these nodes will lose the ability to mine blocks unless they add the coinbase rule or force a split.

Here's my interpretation of what Amaury meant here:

We don't recognize other node implementations who can mine, because even if they do, they will have to add the coinbase rule anyway.

Interpretation of: "Bitcoin Cash, for most of its existence, lacked any alternative to Bitcoin ABC that was a viable mining implementation"

Amaury's Verdict

This allows Bitcoin ABC to make this much needed improvement while miners who may prefer other rules are free to choose a viable, alternate implementation.

Amaury Séchet, Bitcoin ABC's plan for the November 2020 Upgrade

Amaury had given miners the go signal to not use ABC at this statement. This explained the current signaling and the statement given by the miners to not allow IFP to happen.

This, also, had the effect with some of the BCH infrastructure vowing to not build in the ABC blockchain. Other people have expressed no support in the IFP-chain.

Here's my interpretation of the final sentence in his paragraph:

Either mine with Bitcoin ABC or go mine with Bitcoin Cash Node, I don't care. Just be ready to lose your money.

Interpretation of: "miners who may prefer other rules are free to choose a viable, alternate implementation."

My Verdict

This is a mess. Miners don't care about these types, but when a group of miners signs a joint statement against something, it meant that they will lose money. Please know what will happen when Bitcoin ABC stays as lead implementation.

Please read this post to learn more about all the event via @georgedonnelly's article here: https://read.cash/@georgedonnelly/amaury-sechet-is-forking-bitcoin-abc-away-from-bitcoin-cash-8734adc1

Know more about the current turn of events from @Cain's article: https://read.cash/@Cain/the-current-bch-drama-for-outsiders-282d6b63

This is Rowan, singing off. The photo was taken from Cash.Coin.Dance.