Article

Can pretty much guarantee that the business you are talking to has more skin in the BCH game than most people, probably including you.

You have decided that some kind of tax funding devs is the way forward. Fine. But you are blind to say that the people opposing it entirely anti-BCH forces. An algorithmic white list IFP is just as bad as a corporation version and cuts directly into the core value proposition of BCH.

I have decided I think letting miners donate to developers is a good idea. That it be an open discussion about where the funding goes and then an automated distribution to avoid a centralized repository and point of failure should make everyone who is pro-BCH happier. Many powerful actors in this space are anti-BCH. I am opposed to the original proposal as described, but, I think it can be fixed. Does that mean I have called myself "anti-BCH"? Pretending I am saying things I am not saying is a common anti-BCH strategy. Does that make you anti-BCH? No. Opposing any plan that voluntarily supports BCH developers seems like it would suggest that, however. Are you doing that like many others are? I do not know.

You are implying a lot of intention and thoughts on my side that are simply incorrect. I suggest you step back and disentangle things a bit.

I have decided I think letting miners donate to developers is a good idea.

Fine. I do too. However I think any form of block reward distribution introduces skewed incentives and introduces pressure points for capture of BCH that are completely unacceptable to me as someone investing time and money into the future of an independent global cash system.

That it be an open discussion about where the funding goes and then an automated distribution to avoid a centralized repository and point of failure should make everyone who is pro-BCH happier.

I and I promise you other people who are deep BCH supporters do not agree with you. Please go back and read the miner thread on reddit. Basically it sounds like

1) You have an abstract view of "miners" that is not connected to reality. Block reward redirection make enemies of formerly neutral miners and that alone poses an existential risk to BCH.

2) You believe that an algorithmic redistribution mechanism will be fair. I 10000% guarantee you any algorithmic mechanism short of the elegance of Bitcoin's design itself will be corrupted very quickly and entrench itself so that it cannot be removed. That spells the end of this branch of permissionless money, and I do not know any other branches that exist. A split will lose so much time that it will be the end.

Many powerful actors in this space are anti-BCH.

I agree.

I am opposed to the original proposal as described, but, I think it can be fixed. Does that mean I have called myself "anti-BCH"?

I didn't call you that. Hope you are not suggesting I said that.

Pretending I am saying things I am not saying is a common anti-BCH strategy. Does that make you anti-BCH? No.

What did I pretend you are saying?

Opposing any plan that voluntarily supports BCH developers seems like it would suggest that, however.

🙄

Are you doing that like many others are? I do not know.

Many of us, including a lot of actual significant miners think any version of block reward redirection spells the end of BCH.

At least stop making the mental error of batching together trolls and real opposition.

I think any form of block reward distribution introduces skewed incentives and introduces pressure points for capture of BCH that are completely unacceptable to me ...

I think we need the temporary funding bad enough to risk the minimal risks I see from the way I would suggest distributing the funding (an open discussion about where the funding goes and then an automated distribution). The automation I propose may not be the same as the "algorithmic redistribution mechanism" you think I am suggesting. My suggestion is just to determine a percentage distribution to the various fundees and then have the funding go to them directly in that previously determined ratio. The percentages would not be changed unless the group that is tasked with deciding where the funds go changes the percentages and/or adds a new recipient.

I promise you other people who are deep BCH supporters do not agree with you. Please go back and read the miner thread on reddit.

I start from a place where I believe the majority of real BCH-supporting miners would be willing to lose less than 1% of their block reward to see 14% of BCH block rewards go to BCH developers during this early time when we do not have the protocol ready to scale yet. The "pro-BCH" Miner thread I read did not seem to be all BCH supporting. I agree this sort of proposal will be opposed by all who do not want to see any of their rewards go to BCH developers. A massive effort will be used to fool everyone into thinking most BCH fans oppose the funding of our developers this way. I could be mistaken, but, I believe there are many miners who fit my definition of "pro-BCH". If neutral and anti-BCH miners end up with more competition on their blockchain because BCH-miners have decided to fund their developers, I am fine with that. This is a morality-free/permissionless system and those miners are usually happy about that. This is miners funding their open-source developers to make the whole Bitcoin ecosystem better off, so, I am fine with those results.

Block reward redirection make enemies of formerly neutral miners and that alone poses an existential risk to BCH.

I see your point, but, think they will get over it if the development work makes them better off in the future. I believe this is being done for good reasons. If they don't see that yet, I think they will eventually.

2) You believe that an algorithmic redistribution mechanism will be fair. I 10000% guarantee you any algorithmic mechanism short of the elegance of Bitcoin's design itself will be corrupted very quickly and entrench itself so that it cannot be removed

I believe I already replied to the "algorithmic" part above. I do not claim this is "fair". It is definitely not fair to anti-BCH miners opposed to funding BCH developers. If they thought you were correct and that this would lead to the doom of BCH, they might be for it, lol. Anyway, mining is more about math than moral "fairness". If pro-BCH miners want to donate some of their block rewards, it would also not be fair to let anti-BCH miners tell them they can't.

I am opposed to the original proposal as described, but, I think it can be fixed. Does that mean I have called myself "anti-BCH"?

I didn't call you that. Hope you are not suggesting I said that.

You said "But you are blind to say that the people opposing it [are] entirely anti-BCH forces". (I added the [are], but, maybe I am mistaken about what you intended to say?). If your statement was correct (as I understood your statement), you were saying I WAS SAYING all people opposed to it are anti-BCH. I was pointing out this claim would lead to the conclusion I was saying I was anti-BCH. Sorry, that is confusing. Anyway, I have never said, nor do I think, all the people opposed to it are anti-BCH.

What did I pretend you are saying? ...

... At least stop making the mental error of batching together trolls and real opposition.

You seemed to be pretending I was "batching together trolls and real opposition". I try very hard not to do this. As I said, I do not think I have ever said, nor do I think, all the people opposed to the plan are anti-BCH. Because the trolls pretend to be BCH supporters or neutral, it can be very hard to differentiate them from real pro-BCH commenters. I do believe most commenters opposed to an improved plan supported by BCH-miners (as I defined them above) will be "trolls" (shorthand for professionally implemented social engineering agents). That is just because I believe the troll army has been mustered to massive levels for this effort to divide the BCH community.

If there is a divisive fork, I think the troll army and anti-BCH forces will be behind it. I do not think it will be because pro-BCH miners are volunteering to donate some of their block rewards to developers. I think the social engineers will gather a lot of real BCH fans up using lies and deceptions like they did the first two times. I hope to minimize the number who are fooled by false information. I do not doubt that many who like BCH will oppose miners donating block rewards for some true reasons as well. Just not wanting to support the developers will be a real reason, for instance.

This site is new. I am not. I suppose I am a BCH shill. I still believe in the dream of peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. BCH seems to be our best chance for that these days. That is why many attack BCH and ideas that would fund our developers.

edit - I retract this statement. Bubbler continues to frame everyone he disagrees with as anti-BCH regardless of the weight of their arguments.

I can vouch for Bubbler as far as any of us can on the interwebs.

BCH seems to be our best chance for that these days.

💯

he has no real history on this site, on reddit or other places older than 2 months.

His reddit account is over 2 years old if we assume they are the same person.

and didn't post any comments until 2 months ago.

You are mistaken

You are mistaken

shills

Important 👆 This is a "personal attack" and "name calling", please read the rules. Usually we delete such comments with a warning, but this time we're keeping it to make it visible. It's fine to criticize ideas, it's not okay to name somebody a "shill" and it's totally not ok to tell people to "safely" call somebody a "shill" on read.cash. That "safe" behavior is a violation of rules and will lead to a ban. If you disagree with @Big-Bubbler and @J-Stodd - criticize their ideas, not personalities.

If, however you feel that some people are disruptive to the community - please open a topic in https://read.cash/forum/readcash pointing out the particular behavior - we'll look at it and see if the person is really abusive and needs to be dealt with.

You can also click the "report" flag on any comment/topic/article that you think violates our rules. (This is anonymous)

The policy he mentions allows writers to censor replies to their articles that point out falsehoods or logic errors. I appreciate you standing up to this person's general encouragement of censorship by others. I do think the policy has and will be abused to hide dissenting opinions.

Edit: Options might be to "grey" such comments, make it so only the person who blocked them cannot see them and/or collapse them so you have to click a "+" sign to open them.

I find it most concerning that I lose access to my own writings which are often in comments.

I understand your concerns, but frankly if two people are fighting in community - it affects the whole community, so having them separated is a small price to pay to keep the community whole. Of course one person wouldn't be happy to see the other one's comment under their article. It feels like something bad has stuck to your writings. I'm speaking here having dealt with abusive BSV supporters and having mediated conflicts on read.cash.

If you want to be heard about something - just publish another article.

FYI You still have access to your own writings, use the search feature at the top - there's "My comments" selector. Eventually we'll create a feed of all of your own comments (the data is there, we just need to show it, the comments aren't really deleted, just not shown).

FYI You still have access to your own writings, use the search feature at the top ...

Thanks

No that is not how BTC was captured. This is not that.

In my opinion you are blinded by an easy solution that in the medium term will destroy the foundation of BCH.

Big voluntary money bought developers and used them and dishonesty to capture the BTC git hub. You see that capture differently?

How would funding developers harm BCH in the future? Or is there some part of the proposal you think would do that? I may already agree with changing that part that bothers you?

Big voluntary money bought developers and used them and dishonesty to capture the BTC git hub. You see that capture differently?

Absolutely. It was a concerted effort to capture Bitcoin, aided by insiders. What combination of political, economic and financial reasons is behind it is anyone's guess until we see evidence in hindsight.

How would funding developers harm BCH in the future?

I responded to this in another comment. You are conflating "funding developers" and "block reward redistribution" (it would be a lot easier if everybody would just drop the semantics and agree to call it tax).

Funding devs good. Funding marketing efforts good. Funding businesses to develop products on BCH good. Funding political lobbying for BCH good. etc.

Funding those through a gameable algorithm is equivalent to the capture of BCH in my opinion. BCH will never rid itself of that monkey once it latches on. Even in the short term, making enemies of neutral miners is a pretty dumb move. We need no additional enemies.

Or is there some part of the proposal you think would do that? I may already agree with changing that part that bothers you?

Block reward redirection must be stopped. I am working with others on an improved version of voluntary funding. We are doing what we can to provide an alternative and encourage people who need funding to get ready for it.

Funding those through a gameable algorithm is equivalent to the capture of BCH in my opinion. BCH will never rid itself of that monkey once it latches on.

I do not see a gameable algorithm proposal I like. Many of the suggested automated miner- or user-voting methods are gameable and I am opposed to those. Whatever we get in a future proposal, should have a "sunset" that ends it after a set time. I do not see a real entrenched-system problem need be set up.

Block reward redirection must be stopped.

I think your concerns are overblown and intentionally fanned by the troll army to fool people. You have every right to believe this and I am happy you are willing to explain why. Communication of real opinions and logic are what this mess needs. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, though.

I am working with others on an improved version of voluntary funding. We are doing what we can to provide an alternative and encourage people who need funding to get ready for it.

I do see and appreciate this effort. If I thought it would get us developer funding great enough to get us worldwide massive scaling soon, I would not feel the need for the controversial funding initiative. Maybe if you could get a similar amount pledged (by people we trust to follow through, or into a trust, or bonded or ...) and have them make their donations contingent on not redirecting miner rewards, we could settle this whole brew-ha-ha.

I do not see a gameable algorithm proposal I like.

And you will not find one. That is one of the big points of my opposition. This is trying to solve a deeply human problem with a kludge that will fail.

Whatever we get in a future proposal, should have a "sunset" that ends it after a set time. I do not see a real entrenched-system problem need be set up.

Please see how incredibly and deeply naive this is. This monkey does not let go and does not accept sunset clauses. Look at any anachronistic agency of a massive government and you will also find a sunset clause that is extended ad infinitum or eventually just deleted.

I think your concerns are overblown and intentionally fanned by the troll army to fool people.

Please stop giving any weight to what trolls say and stop using them to pass judgement on people who disagree with you.

If I thought it would get us developer funding great enough to get us worldwide massive scaling soon, I would not feel the need for the controversial funding initiative.

Yes it would be nice. Even if it does not work, the "not a tax" is not the solution. From my perspective it is a short term desperation move that sacrifices the whole point of why I am here - yes we will have to disagree about it.

Maybe if you could get a similar amount pledged (by people we trust to follow through, or into a trust, or bonded or ...) and have them make their donations contingent on not redirecting miner rewards, we could settle this whole brew-ha-ha.

BTCForks has proposed a futures market for this very purpose.

Please see how incredibly and deeply naive this is. This monkey does not let go and does not accept sunset clauses.

You are comparing people who receive money with this plan created to donate money. The donators have the opposite incentives and should remain in control of the "sunset".

Please stop giving any weight to what trolls say and stop using them to pass judgement on people who disagree with you.

They are creating the arguments and I am working to refute them. If they have not created one you make to stop donations to developers, they will adopt yours as well. Most posts on social media come from them and pretend they represent you and BCH. What they say has split Bitcoin and BCH before. They are using any anti-BCH efforts they can find to split us again. I am proposing we find a solution acceptable to almost all of the BCH community. I would like to find ways to fix any problems with the proposals goal to donate. If people are opposed to supporting the developers, they will never agree.

There will be just as much corruption with an algorithmic white list as with a corporation. Just a different flavor.

Do you think there is any possible/better corruption-free way to distribute funding to developers?

Don't distribute anything. We are in a new world, we have to make it with new rules and find new ways. "Persuasion" I think would be the simplest answer to your question though. Developers (and marketers and designers and business people and...) need to make compelling proposals and be accountable for results. As an OSS team, FlipStarter is working on a proof of concept for how to make that work better.

You can't get rid of corruption. That's just human nature. But there is no need to invite it with open arms.

Don't distribute anything.

I am opposed to this basic idea as I have said elsewhere.

I think we have "persuaded" many pro-BCH miners to be open to donating some of their block rewards. I agree which developers get how much funding should be determined in the way you suggest (make compelling proposals and be accountable for results). I do not want them to get bogged down in "grantwriting" for the obvious projects on the roadmap, but, any new ones should make a real effort to compete. And, of course, accountability for all!!!

What you are saying doesn't make sense if I understand your assumptions.

Non-participating miners either get their blocks orphaned (or it's a hardfork) or not.

If so, then there will be a mechanism that gets gamed. It doesn't matter if it looks accountable. It will not be in the end.

If not, then we don't even need to have this discussion. Anyone can donate whatever they want.

I think we have "persuaded" many pro-BCH miners to be open to donating some of their block rewards.

Did you read the AMA on reddit? I think you are gravely mistaken.

If block orphaning is a thing, BCH supporters will pay the fee/tax or mine BTC. Anti-BCH miners (and those they have convinced splitting BCH is a good idea) may intentionally create a fork to try to divide the community. If you mean "gamed" by pro-BCH miners trying to pay rewards to developers, I guess you could call it that. My concern over gaming is gaming the distribution itself (assuming the rewards are getting distributed). Not the question of whether the rewards get distributed or not. Assuming there is a distribution, determining how to divide it is a challenge and some suggest game-able strategies like miner voting.

Did you read the AMA on reddit? I think you are gravely mistaken.

Those few miners who (one of them said) were kinda-pro-BCH did not sound like they really cared much to support or help make BCH better. My definition of the majority of pro-BCH miners is that they would take a temporary, less than 1% loss of block rewards to get 14% of BCH block rewards donated to the developers. There is circular reasoning in my definition that only works if I am correct that there are a large number of real "pro-BCH-miners". I think there are. Neutral miners may hate this idea if they think short-term, only care about money in the short term or believe lies about this being a permanent change. Anti-BCH miners may pretend they are pro or neutral and they will always hate it.

Also in my assumptions is the idea that the developers do need serious funding now to make BCH scale so it can go viral. We can't keep waiting years longer or we will miss another important window for massive adoption. Massive adoption is what the miners should be looking for. Many opinions of those who don't believe in peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people do not really seem important to me.

There is circular reasoning in my definition that only works if I am correct that there are a large number of real "pro-BCH-miners"

THIS exactly. From all accounts I have heard talking with hardware miners, the vast majority could not care less about BCH specifically. I confirmed that in the AMA. I also confirmed that in these miners' view, those neutral miners will view this as a tax and as a hostile action that poses significant risk for BCH.

Because you have to invert the perspective. They get the vast majority (96% today) of their profit from BTC and the majority of the tax (THEY see it as a tax) will come from that portion, even if they don't mine BCH.

And are they just going to take it and say "meh"? No of course not. It is going to setup a situation where a large number of neutral miners move over to the anti-BCH group because we forced them. That is an existential issue. It will be easy for anti-bch pools to attract miners at that point or to become anti-bch to ride the wave.

What miners have you talked with to come to the assumption that there are a large number of pro-bch miners?

Also in my assumptions is the idea that the developers do need serious funding now to make BCH scale so it can go viral. We can't keep waiting years longer or we will miss another important window for massive adoption.

I 100% agree about the limited window. A split and we are probably lost. This tax and we are also probably lost IMO due to the issues above in addition to the issue of capture - massive adoption of a system that is run by a whitelist committee is not a mass adoption I am interested in.

So where we disagree is about mining and about the fact that we must fund devs. I know ABC have not been perfect. BU either. Nobody. I really appreciate ABCs work. I have told Amaury and other ABC guys that personally multiple times. I want them to get funded. But will BCH die if ABC has to lay off some devs? Is it possible that we continue another way? You have to consider all possible outcomes and I think that is the chance we have to take if we cannot fund sufficiently. I am working to fund ABC sufficiently through FlipStarter but failing that, the tax is not at all acceptable to me for the reasons above.

Many opinions of those who don't believe in peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people do not really seem important to me.

I think you have to accept the fact that hardware miners on the whole don't care today. I learned this lesson with BTC-BCH split and it is the primary point that BSV crazies never learned (in addition to CSW religion...). Pools are more aware and politically involved. I think that's cool. I would also love for miners to be more involved and there are proposals for that (e.g. expanding the scope of p2pool so that they are directly involved without needing a pool operator).

Those few miners who (one of them said) were kinda-pro-BCH did not sound like they really cared much to support or help make BCH better.

I have talked with some of those guys directly. For what it is worth, I tell you that you couldn't be more mistaken.

There is circular reasoning in my definition that only works if I am correct that there are a large number of real "pro-BCH-miners"

THIS exactly. From all accounts I have heard talking with hardware miners, the vast majority could not care less about BCH specifically.

Sounds like those are the ones I do not care to hear opinions from. I do want a majority of truly pro-BCH miners to be supportive of any plan we move forward on. If you are correct and there are few real Miners willing to fund the developers (it is only pool operators who want to do that), then BCH is in a bad situation. I hope you are mistaken. I am thinking the non-pro-BCH miners have your ear and are telling you they are the most pro-BCH miners around. I can understand them not liking this one bit and being willing to say that. I think if some pools say they plan to support it we will be able to tell by what miners stay in what pools.

Saying : "But will BCH die if ABC has to lay off some devs? Is it possible that we continue another way?" suggests you do not care about the "window of opportunity" issue you say you agree with. I am not super fond of ABC's behavior, but, unless you have another node project in mind that can do the scaling soon, I think that reasoning suggests you are in no rush to see BCH-scaling get done. That seems much more risky that letting miners fund the developers from block rewards.

It doesn't matter if you want to hear their opinion. You are saying I don't care about this room full of people I am about to make angry who collectively have the power to destroy my livelihood... you should care.

there are few real Miners willing to fund the developers

It is one way. It is not the only way. I think you need to stop conflating them.

I am thinking the non-pro-BCH miners have your ear and are telling you they are the most pro-BCH miners around.

Until you have a network of contacts to talk with and verify yourself, maybe you should trust me and not call those guys liars. Otherwise you sound like you are basing your opinions on your wishes rather than evidence. This is the BSV path I was talking about. Have I ever done something to break trust that I am 1000% supporter of p2p permissionless money?

I can understand them not liking this one bit and being willing to say that.

If you can understand that, then you should be able to perceive the existential risk of pissing off hardware miners.

suggests you do not care about the "window of opportunity" issue you say you agree with

Man, tell me I am wrong. Argue with me about it. But stop telling me that I am being disingenuous. I fucking care a lot or else I wouldn't be here and investing my time and money into this project.

From a risk management perspective, you have to look at both - the impact of not funding ABC now (not good) AND the impact of using this tax (even worse in my opinion). Then we need to find a way to fund ABC without this tax and I think that is where you should be investing your time rather than calling people who have a proven record of supporting, developing and building on BCH fakes.

Those few miners who (one of them said) were kinda-pro-BCH did not sound like they really cared much to support or help make BCH better.

I have talked with some of those guys directly. For what it is worth, I tell you that you couldn't be more mistaken.

So, you think they really like BCH, believe in the dream but are unwilling to take a less than 1% hit on income to temporarily give BCH developers 14% of BCH block rewards?

From my perspective and many others, the tax is

1) Not temporary. Lots of historical precedence here. Also it's idiotic as a temporary measure.

2) A short term existential risk due to angering the mass of neutral miners.

3) A medium term existential risk due to 1) and the exposure that creates to capture.

It's like making a deal with the devil because you are hungry. You get one meal and pay way more in the long run. I'm not willing to make that deal. I will find another way and I think you should help rather than framing people who think this way as trolls.