BCH; Sharpen your knives...

33 639
Avatar for SeanBallard
4 years ago

Here is the crucial breakthrough that the IFP has created.

Professionalism.

No more hobby projects, relying on the goodwill of some coder that's fueled by Red Bull and an ideological obsession, such as the case may have been for Satoshi and other early contributors.

For a network to fulfill the mission of P2P Electronic Cash for the world, it has become clear that a sustainable funding model is needed.

IFP provides that.

"But what about coding neutrality?"

^This is the most common, and credible, retort in response to the IFP.

IFP enters us into the next phase of Bitcoin's metamorphosis.

Bitcoin, at inception, needed to be open source & "neutral." If it was not, there would be a central point of failure. Someone to hold to account for it's threat to the Dragon, and would be dealt with like the projects before it.

Bitcoin, since prominence, has clearly been nobody's project. Hence, the vast sea of talented developers creating their own projects, and a general lack of hostility from governments.

This led to the 2017 hype bubble, highlighted by ICOs.

Developers pursuing their self-interest. Seeking material profit, instead of psychic profit, by way of contributing towards the creation of an ideological, digital, Galt's Gulch. Why join the Bitcoin crusade? Just create your own religion & be the leader.

Yet, here we are, still relying on morals as a motivator, & not cultivating an environment to foster THE killer app that blockchain provided for. Money.

With ICO's flaming out, and the litany of shiny objects being pitched to desperate investors & lost developers looking to rekindle the flame *cough*-DeFi-*cough*. We've come back full circle to the original mission... Bitcoin as a better money for the world.

Primarily, a Medium of Exchange + Store of Value (or more accurately, a 'value-transfer network')

Bitcoin was nobody's project. Hence, it was EVERYBODY'S project.

And if it's everybody's project, a nebulous collective, who is responsible for continuing code maintenance? Who contributes the necessary commits? How does anything get done?

So, indeed, code neutrality was a necessary condition for Bitcoin to have any chance at survival in its beginning. Yes.

Enter the next phase...

Pandora's Box has been opened. The idea of a decentralized, digital, p2p money cannot be put back in that box. And the race is on. To compete against all monies. No longer amongst ourselves.

We see reports every day of countries and their governments planning to go fully digital & abandon cash, we see better payment apps (Venmo, CashApp, Zelle), the IMF's plans for a digital currency, the myriad of competing altcoins, corporate coins such as Libra, etc.

It is important to focus on BUIDLing, and adoption, once again. The fundamentals.

Especially in the advent of more private, State Chartered banks, that will no longer be under the thumb of the Fed and their regulations. See (1) article on credible competition from creation of private banks, and (2a) such private banks being cultivated in Wyoming by way of their (2b) Special Purpose Depository Institutions (Also, see CoinFugazi's article for the best counter I've seen for my positing of private banks providing metals + fintech/pmts as viable threat to Bitcoin.)

Alternative monies + payment technologies will, and are, competing to become the next money, and will be making themselves available for all those jumping ship once inflation starts sinking the boat of fiat. (See Hayden Otto's The Fiat Endgame)

BCH understands this, and #buidlerbergs are indeed sharpening their knives.

Come November 15th, incentives will be aligned, knives sharpened, a well-funded army, and the battle will commence.

Development teams, now getting paid by the network's native currency, will have their compensation inextricably tied their work product, the network itself.

And, as professionals, they will be held accountable for their work. No getting funded by donations & flaking, or pining for more funding in order to finish what they started. Such as is enabled by a precarious donation-based funding model. If there is not reliable compensation for work, and most coders have primary jobs outside of crypto, why would they continue working?

The IFP will incentivize developers to see their work to completion, and be compensated accordingly, all while attracting talented developers.

This sounds not only like a winning system, but a just one.

BCH with IFP cracks the code on incentives for a creating a sustainable network.

No more martyrdom & expectation of self-sacrifice for the good 'ol cause. That is an antiquated model. One that must be outgrown. The landscape has changed, paradigms sufficiently broken, and time to enter into the new phase.

Whether you ideologically believe it or not, there will be a professional development team buidling BCH to become P2P Electronic Cash.

The new frontier of property rights, and taking back individual sovereignty, awaits us at the other end...

Viva la revolucion!

<3

-Sean Ballard

32
$ 33.26
$ 17.62 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 5.02 from @Cain
$ 5.00 from @BitcoinBCH
+ 11
Sponsors of SeanBallard
empty
empty
empty
Avatar for SeanBallard
4 years ago

Comments

Information is really power, and i am pleased to have grabbed some insights from your piece of article.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Great article 👌

$ 0.00
3 years ago

I have helped you please help me.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I want a dollar please help me I need sponsorship

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I need a dollar

$ 0.00
4 years ago

great article you have written.really informative

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Great information about this article my Dear Dear friend I have subscribed you

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Extremely need to be sharpen

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I dont get it. Bitcoin needed to start without funding to be seen as legitimate, but now we need funding because its necessary? This is just a damn self contradiction.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Copypaster

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I don't get why you're downvoted this time, it's literally your comment that was first.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I like the call for this, yeah, but things don't simply change with the IFP. Bitcoin Cash is a network of different nodes, and all but ABC has not approved of the IFP. It might be a metamorphosis for a more professional standard, but most of the developers are already developing BCH infrastructure, fueled by the fact that ABC is no longer controlling the development. If you looked at the code presented by non-ABC teams, they have managed to do the following and is continue to do the following:

  • Double-spend proofs
  • Optimized loading and faster RPC calls
  • SLP Token Integration
  • Flipstarter
  • ASERT DAA (ABC didn't want to add this!)

When the time comes, I will return to this article to fix things, but until then, we are still fighting for a better world with BCH as the peer-to-peer cash.

$ 1.10
4 years ago

And, as professionals, they will be held accountable for their work

How does funneling 4% to abc unconditionally enforce any accountability?

$ 0.35
4 years ago

they are now getting paid, reliably, by the miners, to perform a job that they are commissioned to do. If they don't do it? Or perform poorly? The miners will put them under review, and court replacements, just like any professional environment meant to be productive. And if problems are not addressed, and coder not replaced, then the miners can easily direct their hash to another chain.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I dont get it. Bitcoin needed to start without funding to be seen as legitimate, but now we need funding because its necessary? This is just a damn self contradiction.

$ 0.10
4 years ago

Precisely the opposite. It needed anonymity to appear less legitimate, insofar as there is nobody to attribute to its creation & punish, and encourage the entire cypherpunk coders to contribute . Now, it's created, as well as thousands of others vying for market share. Professionalism & legitimacy is what is needed to carry it forward, complete the roadmap, and outcompete all other forms of money edit: and early on, mining was much easier, and coders did mine, and hence their coding efforts would be rewarded. So this really isn't that dissimilar, as far as incentives goes from the early days.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

What does anonymity have to do with literally anything? Satoshi wouldnt have ceased being anonymous with a block reward dev fee. That literally has nothing to do with anything.

And no, coding is not mining. Anyone could mine. Writing more code didnt give you an advantage over mining.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Look, before Bitcoin even existed, Satoshi is a cypherpunk. He is a man who (mainly) advocates for the future through encryption. And during those days, he and other cypherpunks who are able to develop programs improved on it, and they mined it to test things out among other things cypherpunks might want to be.

If there wasn't any new innovation in mining, all the developers might as well get a super high-end CPU and mine the coin they're developing to get themselves funded.

We need to have a professional team that coordinates with everyone now that it's a worldwide thing, not some person's obscure program because they acted upon the 2007-2008 Global Depression.

The IFP is a good plan, but ABC just implemented it during a time that everyone is angry about Grasberg, their implementation leads to a specified single wallet address with no full in-depth explanation on how it's gonna get shared between stakeholders and developers, and everyone can't develop properly because apparently Amaury doesn't like it.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

The points against the IFP are weak and that the "IFP might not even be bad BUT it's about HOW they implemented it" argument is actually one of the "reasonable" takes, makes it even clearer at least for me, that it is a good idea.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

I mean, it really is, it's really just the thing that peeved me. Everyone, one way or another because of the world economy, needs funding. All others are mere observations on the current ABC response and reading specific merge requests and ABC announcements. The IFP means infrastructure funding plan after all, and BCH's infrastructure is built upon our BCH nodes.

It's just that this iteration of the IFP is just very poorly implemented (among the mob mentality-induced hatred right now, good lord democracy...)...

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Well, today it is a contradiction, but before then Bitcoin was just a small hobby project that caught attention for being innovative and dangerous to the economy by simply not having a centralized bank.

$ 0.10
4 years ago

Facts dont change with time. Saying "Bitcoin didnt need funding because it was a hobby project" isnt arguing anything, its just baselessly asserting that it was a hobby project.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Yes, it's probably not even a hobby project but an activist's attempt to topple the central banks, but as I said in your response to @SeanBallard, it started in some forum nobody knew until it blew up, and apparently, it all started with the 10,000 BTC Pizza and the adoption of WikiLeaks for it.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Nice

$ 0.00
4 years ago

good

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Very beautiful article

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Motivational and inspiring articles (9a0c)

$ 0.00
4 years ago

So informative article dear.

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Wow nice bro

$ 0.00
4 years ago

Very clear and nice article

$ 0.00
4 years ago

POW incentive brought a huge amount of energy to secure the network, imagine the same incentive will attract talents around to BUIDL! If miners to mine Bitcoin for donation? Good luck! It is about time. With mining incentive and development incentive, Bitcoin will become the biggest decentralized Corporation in the world, competing with Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon for talents and market! And it is the only way to go.

$ 0.05
4 years ago

Good stuff bro

$ 0.00
4 years ago