Join 91,678 users already on

You lead and maybe I will follow

2 213
Avatar for SharkySharkdog
Written by   15
2 years ago

The dev-tax proposal was made by some mining pools last week and the community back-lash has been quite extensive. It is safe to say that the proposal as is will not get majority hashpower. A majority hashpower is what you need if you want to change the coin basic principles.

The and other pools that actually made the announcement possibly even expected this. They never had a majority hashpower, even ignoring that pools and miners are not the same people. Why would they do this then, you ask?

What we observed is a fork in communities without a fork in code or chain.

I'm not sure if people realized this yet. But this may be very interesting going forward.

As I wrote in my previous post:

There is one team that is asking for real funding and their reasons are based on a questionable business model.

This team, it is very clear to people having followed this weeks posts, is the ABC team. They are also the only ones in favor of this dev-tax.

Here we have deadalnix (the ABC spokesperson): (post / spanish)

They asked myself several times to implement such a measure in Bitcoin ABC directly, to which I responded every time that such an initiative needed to come from the miners as there is obvious conflict of interest if devs decide to take away money from miners and pay themselves with it.

As we can see in a public video from him, the original request for this kind of funding is also from Amaury. While not a smoking gun, this quoted paragraph gives a strong impression that the miners have responded to such requests by stating ABC should just change their software to make it mandatory. Everyone knows that the market would react badly to this idea, and Amaury states he didn't take that risk.

But now some mining pools made the first move, ABC takes it all the way:

I propose that the control of the key needs to be in the hands of people who have proven they work in the best interest of Bitcoin Cash, even during rough times, have a commitment to infrastructure and a proven track record, such as Jonald Fyookball, Mengerian and myself. 

Please read this and realize that this man, today, has a lot of power to decide what goes into Bitcoin Cash. Does that make you feel happy?

So, what about Jonald and Mengerian?

Lets start with Jonalds "facts":

Bitcoin ABC (the lead implementation of Bitcoin Cash) could not have unilaterally decided to fund themselves as it would have been political suicide, even though this had been requested before.

Ok, these guys obviously coordinated their stories.

We need to get bigger before we worry about things like “decentralization” and “purity of protocol”. 

At least he is being frank. I agree that those values would be killed. The rest of the community is not so eager to kill those in order for Jonald to get a nice paycheck, though.

I take responsibility for “pushing” and encouraging this.

Thank you for your frank admitting of where you stand on this, Jonald.

Mengerian wrote a post here too. As yet another poster using a pseudonym it is curious to see that Amaury suggested him to be part of the inner circle. Reading his post it is clear that the man is well versed in writing non-committal sentences. It feels like reading the writings of a politician.

Is it a “Tax”? This question has been asked 1000 times, but here’s a different perspective: If anything should be compared to a tax, it is the block reward itself.
To the extent that the block reward is a “tax”, the Infrastructure Funding Plan is not a new tax, but a reallocation of the existing one. 

But, lets focus on the mans beliefs, not his great writing skills.

This would effectively make it a consensus rule.

Here we have the most important part. Orphaning blocks that don't pay him and his friends are no longer to be called Bitcoin Cash. That is his opinion. This is what the man honestly beliefs.

Leaders should represent those they intent to lead

There is no point in linking to the hundreds or thousands of posts, tweets, articles and blogs that all conclude the same thing. The sharp opposite of the above quoted people.

The Bitcoin Cash community is not really divided, in fact it is amazingly coherent. The only ones that really want this dev-tax are the ones that have designed it and are the ones that will benefit from it.

These people claim to represent us. As Jonald called ABC: "the lead implementation of Bitcoin Cash".

I ask you, my dear reader, to consider if this is really the team you want to be the leader. If there is a way we can make very clear to them that they do what the holders want, miners and people don't just follow them. That is not how Bitcoin works.

As closing, all 3 blogs had the same sentiment in almost the same wording.

Also, doing it without orphaning will fail because the contributions from individual miners will be meager, and pools cannot do this at scale because they will quickly become uncompetitive.

This is why this idea will never work. If ABC releases a client that forces this, then I'm willing to pay a developer to make a fork release for miners to mine with. Removing only the part that forces this uncompetitive behavior. ABC does not call the shots.

The holders call the shots. The miners decide with hashpower. This is the power of Bitcoin Cash.

$ 128.05
$ 100.00 from @MarcDeMesel
$ 25.00 from @molecular
$ 2.00 from @btcfork
+ 2
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.


Splitting Bitcoin Cash yet again would definitely be an option of last resort only.

I don't think anyone would like to see it happen, and I think we must really not assume bad faith on any side, but just point out the pros and cons of each proposal (or statement of intent, or ultimatum, whatever it may be).

The beauty is that peers cannot really follow your consensus changes very well unless you keep the source open. There is a huge incentive on the network to correct or route around harmful consensus changes if someone in a position of power introduces what others consider harmful consensus changes.

$ 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

Thank you for the tip!

I think we must really not assume bad faith on any side

I don't see that either. What I see is that the named people are greedy and want to gain power for their own. Bitcoin is unique because it takes on board this natural behavior of people. The design of the system is that the most selfish behavior is what is best for the whole system. This is the reason why I love Bitcoin and love Satoshi. It doesn't assume people being selfless in order to make it work.

This is not "bad faith", they are just being people. And their scheme failed. All I ask in this post is that people remember and take appropriate action.

What I expect to happen in the coming months is this:

  1. The ABC developers tried this and the market (the miners) rejected them. They will continue shipping ABC, and maybe even get some donations to hire one or two more devs.
  2. Some whales will sponsor ABC for 6 months. Not in the tune of 6 million, but enough to ensure they do good work.
  3. More effort will go towards a cheaper alternative mining solution. One that is not based on Core's ideas and designs. One that will actually be good for Cash.

Longer term I expect that ABC will have the choice that they change their tune, drop the entitlement attitude and become just one of the implementations. Or, they will just be irrelevant to miners and merchants like BU is today.

$ 1.05
2 years ago