Join 91,517 users already on read.cash

Thoughts on developer funding

17 186
Avatar for SharkySharkdog
Written by   15
2 years ago

With a miners funding announcement we understand that the actual work and, well, funding targets are not decided yet. This gives the opportunity to take a peek at the kind of development work and teams we have today and what funding would do to them.

The most obvious teams are the ABC and the BU teams. They both have high numbers of nodes shipped and running on the network. It is likely that both are used by the miners doing the funding.

BU itself has received funds already a couple of years ago and they are clearly not in need of more funds. They just approved the year salary of another developer as well as many projects, like the specification documentation project. They supposedly still have millions in BTC/BCH.

ABC, then is the more likely target. ABC's Amaury has been vocal about how he thinks miners should pay him. The video from the Australia conference some months ago is very enlightening on this position.

What we learn in that video is that ABC behaves like a copy-of-Core. The software Bitcoin Core ships is seen as the place where development happens. Amaury states:

The positioning of ABC is clearly that it is reliant on Bitcoin Core. The software development being done there is leading. Innovation is difficult to impossible in Bitcoin Cash. Again, according to ABC.

But is this really the case? Is it really so difficult to split away from the people we decided to no longer want to work with 2 years ago? Many people speculated that the Bitcoin Core people write code to avoid Bitcoin from being a danger to the establishment (banks, mostly). If that is so, then what is the cost of importing their changes? We might all remember the infinite inflation bug that was inserted in Core. What happened once can happen again and we might not catch it before copying it into ABC.

Bitcoin Cash has a long list of good implementations. Some more developed than others. From the ones mentioned above and then we have BCHD, Flowee the hub and Verde. Each one having its own strengths and weaknesses. What is most important is that all of them have no problem having ownership of their respective codebases. In contrary to what we read from Amaury that this would be tantamount to suicide. I understand it likely is not a dreamjob to just follow the code from developers that don't like him or his goals. A divorce like we saw between BCH / BTC typically means one moves out and ignores the other. I expect this to get weird or even nasty at times. Is that why the BTC devs call us bad names?

Funding for a questionable business model

It seems clear from the statements made by the ABC lead that the business model for ABC is of questionable design. They openly acknowledge that most maintenance work is done by the Bitcoin Core team and the ABC people have problems fulfilling requirements on the Bitcoin Cash side as a result. We saw this most recently with the 25-unconfirmed transactions dept that ABC inherited from Core. We saw the problem with block size where miners are told they can't mine bigger than 2MB.

Any company not being able to support its customers like this in any other market would end up being replaced by one that is more competent. Instead, the miners suggest to fund them millions of dollars. How does that make sense?

What is the problem that funding solves?

This is the real question that the miners making this proposal need to answer. The Bitcoin Cash community has grown immensely over the last years. Every day new developers come in and work on their own projects. Every month more infrastructure is being created. Infrastructure in the shape of libraries, indexing software, services and much more. Really impressive stuff.

What is also infrastructure are designs and implementations like the Cash Fusion privacy innovation that is in testing today.

Immense efforts have gone into the SLP token designs. With a company at the front that has recently created a piece of infrastructure to validate and index them.

So, really, what is the problem that needs solving? There is one team that is asking for real funding and their reasons are based on a questionable business model.

People working in Bitcoin every day will be like stock-owners. This is how I expect open source developers to fund themselves after some time. If you do this every day full time, you can play the market much better than the normies can. Not a professional trader, but in this market you really don't have to be.

What problems are being solved by this hard fork?

2
$ 104.00
$ 100.00 from @MarcDeMesel
$ 2.20 from Anonymous user(s)
A
$ 1.00 from @Read.Cash
+ 3
Avatar for SharkySharkdog
Written by   15
2 years ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

What problems are being solved by this hard fork?

Well, currently it's planned as a soft fork. Hard fork is under consideration.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

by rejecting the blocks of non-accepting miners, this will "break" the current consensus, which imo classifies this as a "hard fork"

$ 0.00
2 years ago

IDK it's hard to say, because typically a hard fork has to do with incompatible consensus changes, so that it's impossible for both sides to work on each other's chains. In this case an orphaned client A could still easily continue work on biggest proof-of-work chain B, unless it's on a checkpoint or something. But frankly, it's all just semantics :)

$ 0.05
2 years ago

i hear you .. although its NOT "technically" a hard fork, there sure as hell isn't anything "soft" about telling the 49% to comply or go elsewhere..

i'm all for this plan, i will just pray (and beg if needed) that EVERYONE keeps this TRANSPARENT. transparency is truly my #1 goal for crypto to bring to the world (if nothing else).

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Yeah... this is the most controversial thing that has happened to BCH since the Bitcoin SV split... which, sadly, happened only a year prior. (hangs head in shame) We have too many controversies :)

$ 0.00
2 years ago

this is the most controversial thing that has happened to BCH since the Bitcoin SV split

BSV? i have no idea what that's all about, other than CSW claiming crazy-ass-shit .. honestly, before I joined read.cash, /btc was my only view into the world of BCH; and it wasn't pretty, not at all.

https://developer.bitcoin.com/ is a great resource, and I've just about made it through; but i also see (too many) problems there too.

if I may ask, who do YOU talk to when you have technical questions?? I still have no idea where the BCH devs hang out. I'm not on Telegram, so maybe that's why I'm still in the dark (fyi, Ethereum DOES NOT have this problem)

$ 0.00
2 years ago

if I may ask, who do YOU talk to when you have technical questions??

Frankly, Google and lots of experiments :) There are some communities on Telegram, but I'm not there either.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Yeah, basically CSW claimed that BCH is doing illegal shit with OP_CHECKDATASIG opcode (which is basically "take this string, this public key and signature and tell me if the string was correctly signed by the owner of public key)... but he was so persuasive that he's Satoshi and that BCH is illegal and that BSV is technically superior... that about half of BCH community left. Mostly non-technical lambo guys, because at technical level most of the stuff doesn't make any sense. After that the price of BCH dropped from $600 to about $80 in mere months and it took nearly a year to at least recover on some levels (at least we mostly got BCH ticker back, instead of the BCHABC stuff that some exchanges assigned at the split). There was a lot of drama and still is. But this thing... it really looks like it was before SV split. Unless this plan is scrapped, we're going to see another split.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

The article makes some assumptions about how the money will be spent.

AFAIK the miners who've come forward with this proposal or plan, have not settled that with decisive public information yet.

So I think that aspect is a bit speculative and one should perhaps avoid jumping to conclusions.

$ 0.05
User's avatar btcfork
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
2 years ago

I don't think it is speculative. I supported the points made. BU has money and they just signed up for funding a second dev full time. They are not the ones that need the money.

The proposal explicitly states they want to sponsor full node developers. Nobody else in the Bitcoin Cash is actually asking for funding in the amounts that we are talking. Except for ABC.

It may be that something really unexpected will happen, for sure. And from that point I understand your concern. But that makes it really a solution in search of a problem. It proposes a solution. But is there really a problem?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

ABC, then is the more likely target.

The very wording indicates it is speculative. No matter I agree with a lot of the points made.

$ 0.00
User's avatar btcfork
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
2 years ago

Good

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Any company not being able to support its customers like this in any other market would end up being replaced by one that is more competent. Instead, the miners suggest to fund them millions of dollars. How does that make sense?

this is a valid point. in traditional business, abc would have just been replaced. but obviously this is not standard business. perhaps more similar to a charitable organization, so i dunno

$ 0.00
2 years ago

but obviously this is not standard business

Why not? Or, more specifically, why should it not be a "standard business"?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

there were never any salaries for abc, so i don't see why they should be held to any expectations .. personally, i get pissed when i go out of my way to help someone, then that same person start making demands .. if there was some contractual agreement (as would have been the case in "standard business", then yes, you're fired!

i don't actually know, so please educate me, but were there any "expectations" that were formalized in receipt of the funds they received?

$ 0.00
2 years ago

there were never any salaries for abc

This is a misconception. Not sure why you think this. They got 800BCH on a "fundraiser". Roger said they paid half a million to them. And even well before that Amaury stated publicly that he got paid by some fund started by Jihan.

personally, i get pissed when i go out of my way to help someone, then that same person start making demands

This is understandable if you do this building stuff for yourself. It is, however, going to have consequences if you blow off a person wanting help.

For instance, if some big user of your software wanted to get something fixed, something they need and would cost them money if it wasn't fixed. Then stone-walling them, refusing to work with them on solving it is certainly in your right. But the consequences are that they will stop contributing to your project. And if enough people stop doing that, then the project becomes irrelevant. Much like a blockchain is only useful if more people use it.

$ 0.25
2 years ago

This is a misconception. Not sure why you think this.

I'm NEW here, so there are many, many things that I just don't know, or have yet to come across. My question to you is, "Where is the roadmap that Team ABC was supposed to be following?"

imo, its one thing to accept donations, but an entirely different thing to have a clear roadmap. if Amaury, or whomever, made it clear of their intentions to develop X or Y and then failed to deliver, AFTER receiving contributions, then I agree with you 100%.

I simply have not seen such a roadmap, or any of the "promises" made by their team. AFAIK, those donations had "no strings attached".

$ 0.00
2 years ago