Join 76,145 users and earn money for participation

Without governance model the infrastructure-development fund mustn't come from the coinbase

35 314 exc boost
Avatar for bomtom1
Written by   45
1 year ago

On first sight it is very appealing to fund infrastructure development from the coinbase. Just as miners provide a service to the community by keeping the timestamp server ticking, so do infrastructure developers by maintaining and developing the software. Why should miners be rewarded for their communtiy service but developers not? Let's say we would agree to distribute 8% of the coinbase to a specific address of a given dev team.

Now for miners there remains a well-defined relation between the effort they put and the reward they receive. They prove their work by finding blocks and receive 92% of the coinbase. More proof-of-work, more reward.

For infrastructure developer there's no such relation between the effort they put and the reward they receive. With every block found they receive 8% of the coinbase. More dev work or less, it doesn't matter. A feedback mechanism is missing.

While some incentives persists for the dev team (to deliver high-quality code due to valuation of their network token compared to competing network tokens), one incentive is lost: to compete for better development within the network itself. The dev team which achieves to redirect a share of the coinbase to their account has no incentive to share it with any other dev team, other than goodwill. The network is then at the mercy of this dev team.

Funding the infrastructure development from the coinbase might be the right thing to do if a proper governance model for the distribution of the available funds is implemented. And funding infrastructure does have very high priority! But its governance should be properly discussed and not implemented lightly or in a rush.

Without a well-discussed and communtiy-wide agreed-upon governance model for available funds such an implementation is an irrevocable power grab of the network by one dev team.

Effectively this turns the IFP debate in a debate on a multi-node vs a lead-node ecosystem. Which one do you prefer?

34
$ 5.03
$ 2.00 from @molecular
$ 1.00 from @JavierGonzalez
$ 0.72 from @TheRandomRewarder
+ 4
Avatar for bomtom1
Written by   45
1 year ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

I agree with your opinion

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Nice writing

$ 0.00
1 year ago

this article is best.i read full article

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Well its a nice article but i cant comment much since there is some line that i couldnt understand. I just staring to learn so i hope you could explain it in a basic that even behinners can understand it fully

$ 0.00
1 year ago

nice

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Without a well-discussed and communtiy-wide agreed-upon governance model for available funds

Even with that, i would still be opposed

Thanks for a great article

$ 0.03
1 year ago

Good artical

$ 0.00
1 year ago

You are right

$ 0.00
1 year ago

"Funding the infrastructure development from the coinbase might be the right thing to do if a proper governance model for the distribution of the available funds is implemented." I totally agree with your sentence and your point of the need for a feedback mechanism. Let's suppose now that the proper governance model need to be implemented and that implementation requires to be properly funded. We would be in a chiken and egg problem. Sometimes the solution requires to soften some requirements. Hopefully a future avalanche consensus in BCH could be the proper governance model that all of us dream about.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

avalanche has nothing to do with governance. Fortunately we know exactly what the governance needs to be and it does not require any further expensive development. https://read.cash/@tula_s/briefly-on-governance-ff06770f

$ 0.00
1 year ago

avalanche has nothing to do with governance.

Avalanche is a consensus mechanism that could be used for governance, not only to improve 0-conf security, as proposed by Amaury.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

what gave you that idea?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

The idea that avalanche is a consensus mechanism is in the whitepaper, the idea that the consensus mechanism could be used for governance has been told several times by Amaury Sechet. I recommed you to read the whitepaper.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

avalanche is a consensus mechanism for very specific purpose = thousands of participants needing to agree in 2 seconds . this has absolutely nothing to do with governance.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Creo que no siempre mecanismo de consenso es equivalente a gobernanza.

No en un aspecto tan amplio como decisiones complejas.

Sigo teniendo esperanza en que Avalanche sea útil, pero para 0-conf nada más.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

El comportamiento reciente de ABC indica que en su caso es incluso más peligroso darles un cheque en blanco, que es lo que significa suavizar algunos requisitos. Por otro lado, hablas de que se implemente el modelo de gobernanza adecuado, pero asumo que para ti es aceptable que todos los criterios los decida ABC unilateralmente, como la whitelist para el IFP de mayo, que era literalmente una verguenza arbitraria cuyos fines políticos se veían a leguas.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Nice article

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Well nice article article This is the new update of bch

https://read.cash/@Secure/bitcoin-cash-network-update-could-trigger-a-hard-fork-d8a35712

New fork will be coming soon

$ 0.00
1 year ago

...such an implementation is an irrevocable power grab of the network by one dev team.

Dishonest claim. It is revocable. Also, calling it a power grab when the development team has the coin's best interests in mind is to use a personal attack that claims the team is corrupt. We have no evidence of that, but the dishonest anti-BCH troll army makes that false claim every day. Now the community is in lock-step repeating the dishonest claims and assumptions. A community that used to be the honest side with the best code and no need to lie.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

anti-BCH troll army

Mark, Roger, Josh, Jonathan, Jonathon, Tom Z, Peter R, Andrew... is this the anti-BCH troll army you're referring to?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I believe Tom Z and Peter R and Andrew are anti-Bitcoin. The rest are willing to risk the future of BCH to get rid of Amaury. The main anti-bch troll army are anonymous social engineering agent accounts spreading division, blocking developer funding and pushing for a fork to weaken BCH and leave us without a serious reference client team.

From the BCHN team technical review by Joannes Vermorel:

"... Based on empirical evidence from both recent and past software contributions from the BCHN members, this enthusiasm is misplaced. There are doubts that this team can even maintain the codebase they forked a few months ago4. Any hope that this team can deliver the state-of-the-art software infrastructure that BCH needs to outcompete its many rivals is lunacy... ...In the case of BCHN, the ample empirical evidence indicates - with near certainty - that they will not deliver anything of value to the BCH stakeholders no matter how much funding is made available." https://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2020/8/24/empirical-insights-on-bchn.html

I am not saying ABC is doing great. I am saying build a better system or team and let them step up and prove themselves BEFORE we hand BCH over to them. So far, we have a troll-army created mob calling for anarchy and pushing hard for the possible failure of BCH.

$ 0.02
1 year ago

I like https://mobile.twitter.com/vermorel but this assessment of his read like a prototypical propaganda piece. For reference see https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fibl0zm/

Regarding what is said about BU I would like to refer you to https://twitter.com/btcfork/status/1299265226337120258?s=20 and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY which make it both very clear that BU and Rizun are pro BCH.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I assume Vermorel is biased, but I think he may be right that ABC is BCH's biggest asset. That's why it is under attack so vigorously. I doubt he is far off-base with his review of BCHN developers. Those reviews are his business and I doubt he would sell his business credibility to be wildly dishonest on a public one like this. That review only needs to be partly true for allowing them to take over to be very dangerous for that fork's future.

BU and Rizun always claim to love BCH. All good infiltrators do. I think "follow the money" to see who is behind them applies to both of them. I believe Rizun is the one saying BCH should stop doing upgrades for at least two years.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I am totally convinced that ABC has acted corruptly.

In fact, they have suggested taking decisions unilaterally and dictatorially.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Dictatorial control of their own software node project, yes. Corrupt and anti-BCH, no evidence of that. You can believe whatever you choose to though.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

It is not appealing at all.

Attaching a hose to the coinbase and spewing money out the other end is not going to turn out well no matter how much red tape you use to build an administration.

Stakeholders need to wrap their heads around "permissionless" and understand that without it, BCH has no ability to survive in an ocean of extremely efficient digital fiat sharks. Governance is a great topic. However coupling it to any of these money hose schemes is a fatal mistake for BCH.

$ 0.04
1 year ago

Exactly. That ABC is a disaster in PR and funding is their fault.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Governance > Finance

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Funding the infrastructure development from the coinbase might be the right thing to do if

Never

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Why?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

The soundness is that nobody gets coins for free, and the resulting lack of need of an authority.

If governance is implemented before you don't get coins for free. You get them for trust earned which clearly is work. It doesn't necessarily take the soundness away.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Are the Fed and the US gov doing work for the dollar coins they create?

$ 0.02
1 year ago

Agreed. I also agree with Roger when he says that if you want BCH with IFP, what you want is Dash. And the truth is that I'm not convinced by Dash vs BCH. I think BCH is better. Even Dash is better than IFP because he has a Dao. Imperfect, but better than that offered by Amaury.

$ 0.10
1 year ago