Understanding Amaury

8 225
Avatar for bomtom1
3 years ago

The following is a summary of one angle on the current infrastructure funding plan debate. It's compiled to the best of my understanding as I follow along with the debate. Disclaimer: I'm yet another long-time lurker who's passionate about Bitcoin, unassociated with any of the development teams, and doesn't have any clues of what's going on behind the scences. This is my subjective perception of the events and facts.

I'm convinced that all known and relevant actors of our current community act in good faith to promote Bitcoin Cash as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the world. For the reading time of this article I invite you to assume the same. I'm happy to be part of such a passionate community. In the current infrastructure-funding debate, however, different believes separate us irreconcilably. Those are

a) proper funding for long-term infrastructure development is necessary, and
b) funding for infrastructure development must not come from the coinbase.

As a lurking community member and as a software developer I find myself in the awkward position to consider both statements true [0]. So I cannot wholeheartedly support one side over the other. Here's why.

Understanding the necessity of an infrastructure development fund

If you put yourself in the shoes of a professional software developer who would like to become independent of the Bitcoin Core client, who wants to properly maintain such a project and further develop it according to a well defined roadmap, you will quickly see that you need considerable long-term infrastructure development funding (IFP) [1,2] (Please do read/listen to both references). Without such a funding, you cannot fulfill your goal. Software developers understand this and that's why a large portion of members inclined to the IFP are software developers (e.g. @trout, @VinArmani, @TobiasRuck, @cpacia).

Understanding why the coinbase mustn't be touched

The coinbase is the incentive for miners to build blocks. It's the sum of all transaction fees of a mined block plus an decreasing share to initially distribute Bitcoins in the system. A block's miner decides who receives the coinbase (usually the miner itself).

Any development team who by default receives a share of the coinbase which is uncorrelated to a trustlessly verifiable amount of work evolves to a trusted third party of the system: It will never be possible to challenge the resources of this team. Even if the trusted third party is benevolent, this introduces a single point of failure to the system. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system which intrinsically doesn't and mustn't require a trusted third party.

To my understanding this is why most of the publicly known community members reject any diversion of the coinbase [3,4] in particular given the adversarial attacks Bitcoin Cash is continuously facing from the all-powerful fiat world.

One way forward for Bitcoin ABC

With these points established (necessity for infra funding & majority of the community rejects coinbase diversion), voluntary donations are the natural fit to the problem. Can we achieve this on a voluntary basis? Let's do the math by rule of thumb: 15 decent developers at a salary of 450 BCH at current price for a reasonable first project term of three years totals to 20 kBCH. ABC only asked for 1 kBCH in their fundraiser and couldn't get it filled [5].

Until proven otherwise at this point the only viable option left is to use a share of the coinbase which could decrease as the token valuation grows. Ideally, this would be understood by the community in order to have the essential discussion on governance of the IFP which necessarily needs to predate any implementation [0].

If the community doesn't understand this or is unwilling to because their funding is already secured (as maybe with Bitcoin Unlimited's predating BTC donation) and thus no other node team joins in on the IFP, then the governance discussion cannot even be had. The issue is then solved as there's anyhow only one team willing to understand the bitter truth and move forward. How much longer shall Bitcoin Cash wait and let Bitcoin Core lead the way? The answer might be 'until we outperform Bitcoin Core in tx volume and then we'll have enough participating companies with vested interest to invest in infrastructure'. The latter might mean a decade of stasis and there's further arguments against it [6]. I don't want to pretend to know what's right.

Two ways out for Bitcoin Cash

As I see it @deadalnix is enforcing a more active approach here in a clever way. Let's state the obvious

  • Jihan and Haipo potentially control enough hash (on BTC) to settle the hashwar short-term in any direction they want. No signaling needed.

  • Bitmain controls enough Bitcoin Cash to settle the relative price of the coins post furca long-term in any direction they want.

As a result, the hashwar can only be won long-term by Bitmain or an actor which can keep up with their Bitcoin-Cash stack. This incentivizes other large actors (e.g. Bitcoin Unlimited, @RogerVer) to convert an essential share of their total holdings to Bitcoin Cash prior to the fork. Depending on Bitmain's position in the debate this might mean Bitcoin Cash will either get strong leaders that have put not only a considerable but an essential share of their holdings in Bitcoin Cash or it will get a professional software-development team lead by Bitcoin ABC.

Win-Win Situation for Bitcoin

Currently neither BU nor Roger are to an essential degree invested in Bitcoin Cash. That makes sense from the perspective of any investing individual and I don't blame anyone. However, for establishing Bitcoin Cash as the market-leading cryptocurrency it is as huge a problem [7,8] as a missing infrastructure development at the scale of Bitcoin Core. Amaury enforces advancement on at least one of these fronts. It seems this makes some sense from a free-marketeer perspective: On the one hand we believe in the output of the free market, its magic hand which delivers perfect information at minimal friction. Yet on the other hand we're reluctant to provide the input for the output we would like to see by either showing up bold at our degree of investment (essential, not just considerable) or at the infrastructure development front (leading, not just following by backporting core).


[0] To be a bit more nuanced I'd argue one could actually get around (b) if a well-discussed and communtiy-wide agreed-upon trustless governance model for available funds were at hand prior to any node implementation (https://read.cash/@bomtom1/without-governance-model-the-infrastructure-development-fund-mustnt-come-from-the-coinbase-a583613d).

[1] Chris Pacia, The 253rd 'Thoughts on developer funding' Article, https://read.cash/@cpacia/the-253rd-thoughts-on-developer-funding-article-87b4d8e2

[2] Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 294s, https://youtu.be/uOv0nmOe1_o?t=294

[3] Roger Ver, Imagine How You Would Feel, https://read.cash/@RogerVer/imagine-how-you-would-feel-3a6b2516

[4] @georgedonnelly , Amaury Séchet is Forking Bitcoin ABC away from Bitcoin Cash, https://read.cash/@georgedonnelly/amaury-sechet-is-forking-bitcoin-abc-away-from-bitcoin-cash-8734adc1

[5] https://abc.flipstarter.cash/ - Can someone help me how much was raised at peak?

[6] Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 739s, https://youtu.be/uOv0nmOe1_o?t=739

[7] Amaury Séchet, Build Bitcoin Cash Culture, BCH Conference 2019, Timestamp 1499s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ywIL17ityk&t=1499

[8] @BigBlockIfTrue, "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", https://read.cash/@BigBlockIfTrue/fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-ece60d2b

43
$ 3.45
$ 3.44 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.01 from @Jane
Avatar for bomtom1
3 years ago

Comments

ABC only asked for 1 kBCH in their fundraiser and couldn't get it filled [5].

Until proven otherwise at this point the only viable option left is to use a share of the coinbase

But the total raised in the last 6 months via flipstarter (voluntary funding) by people other than ABC for development should not be ignored, as it's a total of 3582 BCH. [150 (jtoomim) + 80 (knuth lib) + 300 (Electron Cash) + 160 (Mark Lundeberg) + 8 (BitForTip) + 30 (BCH DevCon III) + 65 (BitcoinCashJ) + 750 (MainNet libraries) + 460 (Knuth Node) + 978 (BCHN) + 241 (Verde) + 360 (BCHD)].

Furthermore, outside of these flipstarters another 2000+ BCH have been directly donated to various fullnode or infrastructure developers.

Even further, investments into for-profit companies that also build infrastructure is more than double that.

There is no doubt about this anymore - the incentives built into the bitcoin protocol works, have always worked, and is likely to continue working for the forseeable future - but the market might not always direct its value to the same parties over time.

$ 1.60
3 years ago

use a share of the coinbase which could decrease as the token valuation grows.

I consider this as wishful thinking - power structures like this rarely voluntary give up their power.

Furthermore, while I was naive and took the initial IFP proposals on good-faith, other more cynical people pointed out to me that "the temporary nature is a lie" and "governance of this will be facade".

Given what we know about the IFP that is no pushed through regardless of concerns raised and the governance model outline for the GNC we can be pretty certain that the cynical perspective ended up being quite accurate.

Ideally, this would be understood by the community in order to have the essential discussion on governance of the IFP which necessarily needs to predate any implementation [0].

This discussion have been going on very actively for over half a year now but it has been reactionary after ABC have proclaimed decisions taken and disregarded the feedback provided. While ABC have said in words for a very long time that a multi-node ecosystem is good and important, they show very clearly with action that they are not interested in fostering such an ecosystem, and they are unwilling to cooperate and build together with it.

At least, this is my viewpoints based on the information I have. I am sure there are people who see it differently.

$ 2.55
3 years ago

I consider this as wishful thinking - power structures like this rarely voluntary give up their power.

I agree.

$ 0.10
3 years ago

This discussion have been going on very actively for over half a year

I rather disagree. There was a debate about whether or not to have an IFP, yes. But there was no directed discussion on how to do precisely do governance well / trustlessls. The latter is what I mean.

$ 0.00
3 years ago

I think you may have missed it - but it certaintly have been happening and multiple iterations of foundations have been discussed, on-chain voting, stakeholding and many more viewpoints for governance of IFP funds have been on the table.

$ 0.00
3 years ago

Until proven otherwise at this point the only viable option left is to use a share of the coinbase

Bitcoin ABC have already raised almost 2 million alone, through their 2020 fundraiser: https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/

$ 0.50
3 years ago

That's a great argument and I wasn't aware they raised that much. The page says 8 kBCH. So they did play in the order of my rule of thumb estimate, i,e. O(10) kBCH. While it's not close to 14.5 kBCH it should at least have bought the necessary time for the discussion around governance.

Thanks for pointing this out.

$ 0.03
3 years ago