BCHN Survey of Chinese Ecosystem about DAA Change in November

The pools and exchanges are named.

Hashrate / history can be looked up at e.g. https://cash.coin.dance/blocks .

The BCH holders are from '100 bch club', a Chinese community where proof of holdings is a level of trust within their criteria + management.

Have not heard of "BitcoinHoldersParliament" - do you have a link?

Have not heard of "BitcoinHoldersParliament" - do you have a link?

same idea as http://bmp.virtualpol.com/ but for holders. does not exist yet unfortunately.

Markets are the "hodlers parliament" (absolute power in long-term).

There are a precedent for hashpower voting with 90% participation. But it is an impossible quorum to reach by voting with money. In addition to other problems of PoS.

Everyone wants power, but the reality is that in short-term, hodlers don't want to be deciding or researching sucessives highly complex tech issues, like the difficulty algorithm the miners use.

The ideal for hodlers -in my opinion- is that the miners take care of their own business (the Bitcoin blockchain) as an efficient and decentralized autopilot, running automatic for centuries.

In this way, hodlers can use Bitcoin Cash, making their own business and enjoy their life.

Don't be oversuspicious like that. The goal is to switch to a better DAA, whether it is Toomim's DAA or another one. I hope that all development teams will agree on what DAA to choose and when to implement it.

Also curious what the point of the survey of three key people is without telling us who they are or why they’re key.

I agree. If we don't know who these people are, this chart is irrelevant.

Maybe Jihan Wu, Jiang Zhuoer and Haipo Yang?

I was just was curious what the exact question was. I think it's important to know if the people surveyed are stating they just want a DAA fix versus let's implement ASERT in November.

The question was "Do you think DAA should be resolved in the November upgrade?"

The next step on the DAA is to adequately define the precise problem to be solved.

unfortunately, I don't participate in the Telegram community, so would you mind explaining to me what it means to "adequately define" the problem? and who gets to determine what is "adequate"? imo @jtoomim did an AMAZING job of defining both the problem AND multiple solutions? what am I missing?

my concern is that this is more about POLITICS (ie. who has the authority to make protocol decisions) than doing what's best for BCH .. say it ain't so

It is 100% politics. Trying to leverage yet again 'voters' who have even less faculty and thus no authority, to make decisions. Last time I checked the decision makers were also giving in to a mob of 'protestors' who should have no say in decision making, instead of letting the authorities decide (miners).

YOU are making politics out of this. You have no TG? Well install it. If not, write an email. And if you want to imply that ABC are gatekeepers of any kind, then you should start bringing forth real arguments for that and not populist bs like 'PriVaTe Tg GroUp mHkAy?' that is politics. Your Upvotes are an indicator as well. Are you going to make this page another reddit cesspool now was well?

YOU are making politics out of this

how??

You have no TG? Well install it.

i had TG for many years, but now they require a phone number to access their service .. don't know what's wrong with the username/password I used all this time .. so I made the conscious choice NOT to capitulate

If not, write an email

to whom? i would prefer to see this discussed in "public" .. perhaps @georgedonnelly would consider publishing the discussion from the ABC Telegram group on Reddit or read.cash

start bringing forth real arguments for that and not populist bs like 'PriVaTe Tg GroUp mHkAy?'

my issue, is I have no idea what ABC is saying .. until I do, and clearly understand their stance, what reasonable arguments could I possibly offer

Are you going to make this page another reddit cesspool now was well?

relax dude .. we're just talking

I can barely manage to read parts of the conversation and I definitely don't have the resources to do more than that. Sorry. I am already working way overtime and not even sure how long I can keep that up.

I can barely manage to read parts of the conversation and I definitely don't have the resources to do more than that

just an idea; why not just copy and paste it to a .txt file, then archive it on IPFS? I'd be very happy to pin the CID .. you could then link to it from https://www.bitcoinabc.org/

I am already working way overtime and not even sure how long I can keep that up.

trust me, I GET IT!! i just don't know whom else I could ask to do something like that .. don't burn yourself out George; if I may suggest 10min of daily meditation can do wonders https://www.calm.com/

I would have to select thousands of messages. I will see if there is another way to get the data

I am a fan of meditation as well. 100% great suggestion

Actually I discovered there is an export feature now for groups. Here you go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpetebnzqaxkjmz/ChatExport_13_07_2020.zip?dl=0

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/hqzgji/bitcoin_abcs_daa_telegram_logs/

thanks again for your help 🙏

Actually I discovered there is an export feature now for groups.

really appreciate you taking the time to do that 🙏 i'll do my best to get this up on IPFS by end-of-day .. though, actually reading all of that will have to wait until the weekend 😳

The next step on the DAA is to adequately define the precise problem to be solved. Proposing solutions without first defining the problem will not constructively advance the conversation on this point.

No. Strongly disagree. You can't "adequately define the precise problem to be solved" because there are multiple problems.

Oscillations causing high average confirmation times are a problem. Mining fairness is a problem. Issuance schedules are a problem. Selfish mining is a problem. Timestamp manipulation is a problem. Et cetera.

Asking for a single definition of the problem is a Sisyphean task. Insisting on it as the first step is a good way to ensure that we never make it to the second one.

there are multiple problems

Indeed, this is precisely why a clear problem statement for any proposed solution is indispensable, so we can evaluate the solution for fitness against others aimed at the same or similar problem.

It would be strawman to claim to I am saying we need 1 master problem statement.

It would be strawman to claim to I am saying we need 1 master problem statement.

for those of us who are not privy to the ABC private Telegram group, what is YOUR current "problem statement" for improving/replacing the DAA? I'd love to get a reference as to what it is that the ABC team is looking for, or at least ABC's current position on solving this problem..

I am guessing Avalanche would have been it. A much better solution to the real problem. Too bad most people drove away those developers who could make it happen, now we are left with people, that try to make anything a political game... even the 'private ABC telegram group' that most people simply refused to join, when they had the chance, out of sheer pettyness.

If you have a question towards ABC, how about directing it in one of the dozen ABC public facing groups or even in a reasonable DM to one of the devs or the PR guy, George? Why do you do this on reddit or readcash? You need those upvotes so bad or what? You want to make this 'democratic' like all the other people right now, who refuse to do it the right way and leverage the people who have no clue what this is about? None of you seem to grasp the social problem that you are introducing right now. The biggest attack vector to Bitcoin ever existing. You rather leverage the mob, why? Because you're all too lazy to ask the important questions directly via the right corridors?

I am guessing Avalanche would have been it. A much better solution to the real problem.

I don't know much about Avalanche, or much about node development for that matter (don't speak c/c++), so forgive me if I take the laymans viewpoint .. imo, Avalanche would likely cause a change in consensus from PoW to PoS .. maybe this is incorrect, but no one has shown me any evidence to the contrary .. it is for this reason and this reason alone, that I DO NOT support Avalanche .. ETH 2.0 is attempting to change their consensus from PoW to PoS and they are currently 5yrs into that effort and have spent untolds amount of $$$ to do so; we'll see if they pull it off in the next year or two .. sooo, YES, i question if BCH has the capacity to make it happen

Why do you do this on reddit or readcash?

particularly when it comes to "public" matters; I strongly believe in keeping the discussions as "public" and "transparent" as possible .. why is that a problem??

You need those upvotes so bad or what?

what??

Because you're all too lazy to ask the important questions directly via the right corridors?

no one that knows me would ever call me "lazy", can't speak for the "others"..

i'm happy to discuss, however, i don't have access to Telegram (I'll add Discord to that group for the same privacy-violating requirement of a phone number) .. fwiw, if there was an ABC Slack group, I'd be in there in a heartbeat; adding whatever value I possibly could to the conversation..

I'm not the enemy @Koush, I've been VERY supportive of ABC (donating regularly to multiple ABC funds) and particularly vocal about the hard work that @georgedonnelly has done since joining their team .. if you would rather push away anyone who disagrees with your opinion, you'll find yourself with very few allies .. but to each his own

Hey nyusternie, I did not say you are an enemy. I do not see people as enemies. I also am the only person reaching out. All those 'others' that you think I see as 'enemies' got a direct invitiation from me and if at all either completely ignored it up till today OR pushed me away only because I did not want to be part of the mob. I act always on what someone is writing directly. I don't go by affiliation or opinion. Even though I have strong opinions.

I just see time and time again people saying publicly 'they do not cooperate! they do not answer! they are arrogant" Just last week someone said ABC is arrogant and they are uncooperative, and HE was the guy who did not want to join our show on Ignite, because he doesn't like George. This is the reality I am facing that none of you sees.

Yes, 'they' are actually the ones, who refuse to join the conversation. I understand now, that you do not use TG for privacy reasons, but hey, you still can get your info per mail or stamp or any other group. (also you added 'private' to your description, which came with an implication... So don't act surprised if I read it as an underhanded attack. be honest here please.)

I have to say, I am angry that people always say that I am pushing people away or that I think I know better. The only thing I know better is that people are socially incapable of real progressive communication. It does not matter what your opinion is, my 'pushback' was only because I think it is wrong, simply wrong to discuss things on twitter or reddit and act as if ABC is uncooperative, which is simply not true. Because they do not use these channels to discuss technicals. Do I really have to tell people they should DM Amaury first before stating he refuses to talk to them? That's insane.

Exactly like everyone makes it so easy and say I am 'antagonizing' the community, which is also not true. I can show you all the direct messages and all the reasonable approaches I always take, before someone gets nasty on one or other way, even without using swearwords or whatever. I don't care about people's netiquette. I care about HONEST and forward thinking communication. So if someone is dishonest or unreasonable, even if he doesn't use swearwords, he is nasty in my books. That's how I role in life. Thats not how you make a lot of friends, but those that get to be ones, are real ones for life. The rest will backstab you out of peer pressure if nothing else.

And you will never see me do anything else, packed in cold hard truth. If anyone says that this is 'antagonizing', than he is basically saying truth, honesty and passion for the cause is his enemy. Why should I even respect that? I am not that type of guy, who has issues rocking the boat. I rock the boat hard to wake up the last sleepy head, if I must. And if anyone hates me for it, so be it. It just mean THEY antagonize and push ME away, not the other way around. Tell me please where did I even push you away? By asking questions? I don't think that I was pushing you away as way more pushing you to do the right thing. Which is NOT discussion on obscure readcash comment section and going straight to DM's or groups or anything that fits far better.

Thank you for your support. use stamp, you can reach George over there. Maybe we can ask them to create an ABC group there once group bot works.

this is also NOT a public matter. It is a highly technical official matter, but not a matter for redditmob, ~1BCH mini-bagholders or even 'bch investor'-minnows or 'power users' with no idea of the underlying technology AND incentive structure whatsoever. This is not politics. This is a talk for engineers. You can publicize your solution and the summary, not the discussion for every soul to chime in. This got us in the mess we are right now in the first place. A decision of LEAD DEVS should not be influenced so strongly by some cranky minnow just as a CONSENSUS decision of BITCOIN MINERS should not have been influenced by redditmob. I really wonder, why I have to explain this to a Bitcoin dev.

I did not say you are an enemy. I do not see people as enemies

well that's good to hear .. i would rather make allies in this space, and you appear to be a strong advocate for the same things that I value most in BCH

Just last week someone said ABC is arrogant and they are uncooperative, and HE was the guy who did not want to join our show on Ignite, because he doesn't like George. This is the reality I am facing that none of you sees.

that is probably because ABC IS "arrogant" .. i won't go so far as to say "uncooperative" .. I would have ❤️ to join your discussions on Ignite (I reached out to George when you guys launched), but you've chosen Discord as your platform, which is another "private" network (same as Telegram) .. perhaps it doesn't matter to you (and that's fine), but some of us WILL NOT support networks that require KYC to sign in .. you are welcome to read this to understand my position https://read.cash/@nyusternie/soft-doxxing-has-become-quite-popular-these-days-6b5ca6f6

this is also NOT a public matter

i respectfully disagree!! this IS a public matter AND a highly technical matter; the two are NOT mutually exclusive .. that is EXACTLY how Blockstream was able to convince the BTC community not to interfere, while the co-opted the entire network .. you remember that don't you???

I really wonder, why I have to explain this to a Bitcoin dev.

more arrogance (smh) 😣

Asking for a single definition of the problem is a Sisyphean task. Insisting on it as the first step is a good way to ensure that we never make it to the second one.

starting to make more sense now 🧐