@bitcoincashnotes.com
edited
more from that month
Article
@bitcoincashnotes.com
edited
more from that month
@bitcoincashnotes.com
edited
more from that month
Log in to join in Reading is open to everyone. Replying needs an account.
29 comments
I like mutual assurance contracts. Let this be a call to arms for the DEFI community
Who are you and why should anyone care? You have no skin in the game and it's not your money
Can pretty much guarantee that the business you are talking to has more skin in the BCH game than most people, probably including you.
> The more likely state of affairs that will ensue is that the community will eventually accept corruption instead of shooting itself with continual splits, and then we are back to square one: corruption and government monopoly of money. 💯
I think you are referring to the recent developer funding proposals. I think there is also a "$200 Million infrastructure fund" project created by Bitcoin.com and I am assuming you are not talking about that. > The voluntary donation model on the other hand is inefficient and chaotic. However, it is also a model that has worked quite well to date, and helps us have an abundance of passionate people who sacrifice their time for spreading freedom. It has failed miserably to date. The anti-BCH troll army pushes this false narrative. I regret seeing you guys fall for this baloney. That's how BTC was captured and why BCH is so far behind on development. This developer funding from block rewards idea is great. It needs to also be supported by most pro-BCH miners (not be coercive upon them) and have other concerns addressed, but, you should consider flipping your support back. Making it easier to to donate voluntarily in other ways is also great, of course.
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.
Also, the many forks will happen false narrative coming from the troll army of social engineering agents is more baloney. The only forks that will matter are the ones with a community. This idea of funding BCH developers is so good for BCH, the anti-BCH forces have pulled out all the stops and are trying to use it to split our community again. There were real problems with the original proposal and that just made it a lot easier for the massive social engineering attackers. That proposal was abandoned and would be replaced with one supported by the real BCH community. The troll army of pretenders claiming to be pro-BCH will try to use this to split us up. Please don't fall for their professionally implemented mind games.
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.
Just as an FY: bib-bubbler and j-stodd are recently-active accounts that can safely be called shills. If they bother you, there is a 'block' option to make their comments disappear from your stories.
> shills **Important** 👆 This is a "personal attack" and "name calling", please read the [rules](https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/what-is-readcash-7b0bfcfc#what-can-i-publish-on-readcash). 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
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
"In other words, having multiple splits in an attempt to remain corruption-free is incompatible with the network effect needed for global money. The more likely state of affairs that will ensue is that the community will eventually accept corruption instead of shooting itself with continual splits, and then we are back to square one: corruption and government monopoly of money." This has been my thinking from the beginning. Thanks for acknowledging the issues with the initial proposal. Once you have a "fix budget" in place it is very, very hard to get off it. Voluntary donation model might not be "perfect", but it's the best we've got. Direct market feedback if one's contribution and activities are valued by the ecosystem and keeps people disciplined.