Join and earn Bitcoin Cash for participation

Bitcoin Core developers do understand economics

53 1252 boost
Avatar for deadalnix
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
ย ย 90
1 month ago

There is a common theme in various crypto circles that Bitcoin Core developers do not understand economics, and this is therefore why they made decisions such as keeping the block size small.

This argument is often professed by people who themselves think they have a great understanding of economics because they've read Rothbard, Mises or Hazlitt. Unfortunately, they demonstrate doing so how spot on Hayek was when he wrote abut the pretense of knowledge.

In my presentation in Arnhem in 2017, I explained what are the incentives of different actors in the space and how there behavior is explained by their incentives. However, it wasn't the main point of the talk and it is definitively a point worth going over again.

What is a rational economic agent

In economics, a rational agent is an agent able to take into account available information, probability of various events taking place, risks and benefits, and its own self preference to make the best decisions.

Bitcoin is secured by incentives, which means it assumes a large portion of its participants are rational agents. While this is not stated in these terms in the whitepaper, Satoshi is very clear on the matter - and and study of Bitcoin's security model will confirm this from first principle to anyone willing to go through the trouble.

He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

An agent which does not understand economics is unable to be rational and, therefore, will makes choices that are sub-optimal or even sometime detrimental according to its own preferences. Conversely, an agent which understands economics is able to make optimal choices based on available information.

In order to decide if Bitcoin Core developers understand economics or not, we need to ask ourselves if they've acted as rational agents or not.

Are Bitcoin Core developers rational agents?

To understand this, we first define a realistic set of preferences for Bitcoin Core developers. Let's assume that they value money and status and would rather avoid poor working conditions, such as adding upon themselves additional work and responsibilities.

Obviously, in the real world, there is not such things as a Bitcoin Core developer. Each of them are individuals with different preferences, but, fortunately, the assumptions we are making about their preference are very bland and will fit almost everyone who ever lived, and this will be sufficient for our demonstration.

An analysis of the alternatives that were available to Bitcoin Core developers when they took actions for which they are deemed to have lacked economic insight will tell us if this is effectively the case or if, they were able to understand the different incentives at play and make a rational economic choice. We will limit ourselves to the analysis of the 1MB limit and its alternatives, as it is obvious that other choices made such as RBF are simply the natural continuation of keeping that limit in place, and this is therefore the choice that matters.

Money

Everything else being equal, every one of us would like to have more money. Bitcoin Core developers are no exception. The main sources of funding for the Bitcoin Core project, as far as I know, are Blockstream and the MIT media lab.

Blockstream is a company that makes money by selling products such as Liquid. These products are more valuable when blocks are small and therefore the incentive for Blockstream, as well as for Bitcoin Core developers funded by Blockstream, is to keep blocks small.

The MIT media lab is an academic institution. It's goal is therefore to build interesting technology and do scientific experimentation. Looking at this way, a roadmap including sidechains, lightning network and other complex technical schemes is preferable.

On the other hand, the larger block community just closed a funding round of roughly $500k that must we shared across 6 node software - and this has largely been reported from within the community as a success. My guesstimate is that it is more than an order of magnitude smaller than what is provided to the Bitcoin Core project - and for 6 projects. It is therefore not reasonable for Bitcoin Core developers to have found an alternative source of funding allowing them to make more than what they do now.

Considering the current Bitcoin Core roadmap is supported by institutions that are willing to put an order of magnitude more money into funding its infrastructure, it would be widely unrealistic from the part of these developers to expect making more money by making an alternative choice. We can therefore conclude that they made the rational choice by keeping block small when it comes to money.

Status

The Bitcoin Core community often states that it has the best developer in the world. We can debate if this is true or not, but in our case it doesn't matter. First because economics tells us that value is subjective, and therefore it is possible that the Bitcoin Core community effectively consider these people as the best in the world, but more importantly because it doesn't mater if this is true or not, what matter is that they are conferred the status.

On the other hand, has they made an alternative choice, they'd have to deal with community leaders such as Roger Ver who consider they have to be held in tight leash and collar.

It is therefore evident that Core developers made the rational choice when they kept blocks small in term of status.

Workload

Increasing the size of the blocks require a lot of work from developers. As block gets bigger, every inefficiencies in block processing gets bigger in the same proportions - sometime worse. What can be a problem small enough to be ignored at one scale can become exceedingly important to fix once the block size is increased.

In addition to regular development work, larger block also means that various attacks on the network can be executed much faster or with much greater impact. A concrete example of such an attack is the now fixed out of memory problem revealed by Christopher Jeffrey at Breaking Bitcoin in 2017.

This in turn increase the pressure due to developer being effectively always oncall, even though nobody is paying for it.

Once again, what is the rational choice for Bitcoin Core developers is self evident.

Conclusion

The Bitcoin Core developers have demonstrated via their behavior that they understand their economic incentives and are able to act as rational economic agents by making choices aligned with these incentives.

On the other hand, people accusing them of being economic ignoramus have demonstrated an inability to understand the plurality of economic incentives that exist in the ecosystem, which is the base of every economic thought.

While it is undeniable that users and businesses benefit tremendously more from a Bitcoin network that is uncongested and over which transaction are cheap fast and reliable, it is also undeniable that these same users and businesses failed to provide the proper incentives for Bitcoin Core developers to make it happen. In doing so, they also demonstrated a very poor understanding of economics.

When people quoting Mises and Rothbard, bragging about their economic knowledge, fail to apply economic principle so fundamentals that they'd have Keynes and Hayek in agreement, we are reminded that markets are about human action, and that these self aggrandizing words mean very little.

23
$ 10.44
$ 2.00 from @Mengerian
$ 2.00 from @Marco
$ 1.87 from @maff1989
+ 19
Avatar for deadalnix
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
ย ย 90
1 month ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

I think it is safe to say Roger Ver has become a malicious actor in the space.

He does not want to support the hard work of Amaury and ABC but wants to reap the rewards of their work.

It is best you go over to nGeek coin with your philosopher friends @roger

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Another issue that may (likely?) be a large determining factor in core decisions is:

๐—›๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐˜€๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐—ฑ๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ?

If many/most of them are primarily relying only on a salary etc... from Blockstream and others, as opposed to ALSO having some amount of bitcoin itself, then maximizing the future potential of bitcoin is likely LESS important!

Those that have any ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ (amount can vary widely person to person) amount bitcoin are most likely going to do whatever they can to MAXIMIZE that value over time. But if they have little to no bitcoin then salary/work load etc... are likely going to be the main incentives...

Remember, at least in the early days... some within core said bitcoin ๐™ฌ๐™ค๐™ช๐™ก๐™™๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ฌ๐™ค๐™ง๐™ !

$ 1.01
1 month ago

Those that have any ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ (amount can vary widely person to person) amount bitcoin are most likely going to do whatever they can to MAXIMIZE that value over time.

Assuming these actor have a good grasp of economics, and therefore can have a reasonable plan of action.

Anything based on incentive do not guarantee a good result - or nobody would ever go bankrupt - simply that competent actors are rewarded and incompetent ones are not. Conversely, this means that Bitcoin is protected against competent actors by incentives, but not really against incompetents ones.

What you are looking for is competent actors who have skin in the game.

$ 1.00
User's avatar deadalnix
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

What you are looking for is competent actors who have skin in the game.

Agreed-BIG time!

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Yes, the attack on Bitcoin was better funded than the Bitcoin project itself. Paying off developers who's personal greed outweighed their dedication to the original dream was an effective strategy. When I think of the economics of Bitcoin and the core strategy in relation to that, I think about the economics of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin ecosystem. I do not think about the economic choices made by some who, basically, sold their soul to the devil. I do see your valid point, I just do not look at that as "Bitcoin economics" even though it is an important part of it.

I look at what would have happened if the developers had not been captured. Core appears to not understand economics because their token took a path towards economic destruction rather than growth. True, it was not really the individual developers who deserve the blame, it was the wealthy team that captured BTC and intentionally corrupted it. Even so, BTC crashed and burned in economic terms compared to where it would be today due to the decisions we call "Core strategy". "Core strategy and Core actions" are inaccurate shorthand descriptions pushed on us by the real owners of BTC.

In the big Bitcoin-ecosystem economic picture I think your point also works. The goal of the attackers (bankers and other entrenched fiat defenders) was to destroy Bitcoin's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people (or delay it as much as possible while they slowly adapt to the future) for wealth protection and/or maybe some kind of twisted "national security" fear. I still don't know who bought the BTC project. The Blockstream's greed explanations seem like a cover story to me. I think Blockstream was sent in to kill Bitcoin and make it seem like they were doing it for rational reasons. So, in my crazy view, it was probably economically rational for the new owners of BTC to destroy it's ability to become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. So, they can be said to be economically rational.

But that is still not the "Economics of Bitcoin" that I think of when saying things like Core took BTC down a bad economic path. You are right, it only seems like a stupid path if you are thinking about the bigger Bitcoin picture (like me). And, yes, the incentives seem to have failed because people who do not own enough BTC spent a lot of money to make sure it failed to perform and grow massively in value like it could have (and, I believe, still will someday). What it comes down to for me is that the people who claim to believe in BTC's future are making arguments that fly in the face of economic realities. Them lying all the time makes them seem stupid, but, it is their arguments that do not understand economics. The people behind the stupid arguments are probably very smart and very well paid.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

No one said that core developers are not rational, the opposite is true.. after all they are programmers.
If they understand economics.. sure they do. The economy of the dollar.. lol
Certainly not the economics of Bitcoin. That's certain.

You deadalnix seem more and more like them.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

By doing the exact opposite of what they do?

$ 0.00
1 month ago

What's that opposite, and what do they do?

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Bitcoin developer should have a proper planing and and try to working according to plan, need to spread this among massive people.

At first all bitcoin sites developer should agree to work together.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

The question isnโ€™t โ€œDo the Core devs โ€˜understand economics?,โ€™โ€ the answer to which is totally subjective. The question is, is the observed behaviour market driven, or the the result of the intervention into markets?

The signature of market-driven activity is spontaneous organisation. Blockstream investors were bankers connected to primary dealers of the Federal Reserve. Central planners who can direct market participants with the magic wand of counterfiet money are NOT market actors.

Sechet doesnโ€™t even understand that he is not looking at a market at all. He is comparing market actors with oligarchs. And without a hint of irony he says, โ€œthe oligarchs won.โ€

Thank you for that blinding insight, Amaury.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Hello @deadalnix thanks for the useful Economy's knowledge. I'm sure some people around had learned a lot from it. It gave me some good ideas about the technology and it applications. In 40 minutes around i'm going to speak about Bitcoin at the local radio station: http://fiestastereo-barrancas.colombiaemite.com/

Hope you could hear me, and everyone around too!

$ 0.00
1 month ago

The seen versus the unseen.

They likely could have made more money by buying a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and then increasing its value substantially higher than what it is now by working to make Bitcoin widely adopted money for the world.

Instead, they intentionally crippled the project, destroyed the growth in transactions, utility, and adoption, and got paid a bit to work on bandaids for their self-inflicted terminal wound.

True economic geniuses.

Additionally, who knows how much bigger the financial and business opportunities could have been as a developer if Bitcoin had actually been allowed to grow and thrive with massive adoption as programmable money that could be sent anywhere in the world, nearly for free, nearly instantly, without any middlemen or banks.

$ 1.00
1 month ago

What a terrible article. Just because Bitcoin Core developers understood how to become parasites does not mean they understand economics.

"Look, Jimmy is living in his mother's basement, because it's a rational economic decision. Therefore, Jimmy understands economics!"

I assume this is a thinly veiled admission that you're acting erratically and damaging BCH because it will keep you relevant and employed, just like Core did with BTC.

$ 4.10
1 month ago

Insert really bad "So you're saying" meme here.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

You sound like someone who read of lot of Mises, but understood none of it.

$ 0.00
User's avatar deadalnix
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

"Look, Jimmy is living in his mother's basement, because it's a rational economic decision. Therefore, Jimmy understands economics!"

Strawman

I assume this is a thinly veiled admission that you're acting erratically and damaging BCH because it will keep you relevant and employed, just like Core did with BTC.

Ad hominem

$ 0.05
1 month ago

Roger does not undersrand economics

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Amaury Sechet is spot on. The initial success of bitcoin relied on altruism along with it's sound economic incentives for various participants of the network. The incentives for core developers are quite clear and we should learn from the past mistakes. If the BCH developers don't get the funding they need, it will turn into a hobby open source project with bag holders resembling the core moon boys.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Wow! woke up one day you realized your holding of bitcoin was swallowed to the lowest, then in another shortest time it had sky-rocketed to the highest you could not image. Hence, you are sometime happy and then you are sad.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

While it is undeniable that users and businesses benefit tremendously more from a Bitcoin network that is uncontested and over which transaction are cheap fast and reliable, it is also undeniable that these same users and businesses failed to provide the proper incentives for Bitcoin Core developers to make it happen.

Blame the game, not the players. Bitcoin investors benefit most from hodling not from entrepreneurship. The largest incentive for them is to be parasitic on those, who actually do any economic activity or invest in the infrastructure. Perverted incentives pervert people. Appearance of hodl culture was just a matter of time.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

So the solution is IFP?

$ 0.00
1 month ago

It is a solution. There are many others.

$ 0.00
User's avatar deadalnix
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

I like ur article keep it up

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Like the Core developers, it seems like you also overlooked the easiest path to profit:

  1. Buy Bitcoin
  2. Make it useful to people in commerce.
  3. Price goes up.

That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.

Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well.

$ 11.26
User's avatar RogerVer
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

You are wrong and you became a bad actor. Bitcoin Cash will be better without you honestly.

Fund ABC or gtfo

$ 0.00
1 month ago

With what money am I supposed to buy Bitcoin? You stick to the same tired arguments, when given counterexamples, by the very people you are advising.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

BCH is already more useful to people in commerce. It's price is still lower than the price of BTC. Maybe you are right in the long run, but it is still a very risky bet. To make such a bet, you need to have some capital that you are ready to lose or at least not use for more than a decade.

So you are limiting your set of developers to people that are skilled and already rich enough to live without an income for over a decade.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Hey Roger,

The "easiest path to profit" you describe flies in the face of Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, man.

A cryptocurrency where people are expected to play the role of developer plus that of capitalist, entrepreneur and speculator, is doomed to be outcompeted by others where the magic of specialization is taking place.

Your comment is kind of confirming deadalnix's point that sometimes we talk the big economics talk but we don't really apply it as rigorously as we should.

$ 8.47
1 month ago

The solution to achieve specialisation is simple. If you are a developer and don't want to be a capitalist/entrepreneur/speculator too, then find a capitalist/entrepreneur/speculator to fund your work.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

And it looks like they did. Maybe because they understand economics?

$ 0.00
User's avatar deadalnix
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

No, it does not look like they got funded by investors who bought bitcoin and spend some on development in order for the value of their bitcoin to go up.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

How is this "the easiest path to profit", Roger?

This path requires one to be both a clever trader and to invest one's time altruistically in software development.

First, it is not reasonable to expect one person to do both, as each is highly time-intensive and each is a considerably different task. Second, if I am a clever trader, why would I spend my time developing for free?

Basically you are saying: Learn to trade, get good at it, and, when you do, live off of that and give us your development work for free.

How is this "a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit " when BCH is down 94% since the ATH in Dec 2017?

$ 1.97
1 month ago

Nice talk

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Agreed! But many people, even if economically ๐˜ข๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ are just satisfied with a day job and resulting salary... Not everyone has the drive etc... to be ๐˜ด๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ต with their labor to increase their ๐’“๐’†๐’˜๐’‚๐’“๐’… by orders of magnitude...

A great question for the core devs (before given commit access and/or hired) would have been: ๐——๐—ผ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜† ๐˜€๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ?

RE: "Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well."

Maybe, but I don't know what their goal is.

  • Are they useful idiots?
  • Have they been bought?
  • Or are they just punching a time-clock (taking path of least resistance (not sure that adds up?))

When Adam Back talked about ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™—๐™จ, that sure sounds like someone that has NO CLUE about ๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ-๐˜๐—ผ-๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—˜๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ต let alone one that was/is trying to spread mass adoption! (and he is the co-founder/CEO of Blockstream ๐Ÿค” ๐Ÿ˜ฑ)

Maybe they are achieving their goal... unfortunately for the rest of humanity!

I don't have the answer to why ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ง๐™š is doing what they do... Bottom line is it seems extremely unlikely to be the path to mass adoption of P2PCash.

So the rest of us reroute around the obstacle (Massive thanks to you Roger, Amaury and the MANY others that have continued the efforts in the goal of reaching the tipping point/mass adoption for:

๐—•๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป: ๐—” ๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ-๐˜๐—ผ-๐—ฃ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—˜๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ต ๐—ฆ๐˜†๐˜€๐˜๐—ฒ๐—บ

$ 0.05
1 month ago

It is much more simple to keep a car broken than figuring out how to make it work.

It is much more safe to accept a salary than putting your own money in an investment.

It is much more effective to take $100M+ than the expectation of number going up.

The fact that we, individually and as a community, decided to follow the path of P2P cash for the world is explained because we understand the concept of profit in a different manner. We know that ourselves, and the rest of the world, will profit in an incredible way by having permission-less payments available to all. That does not mean that we don't also expect the value of the network that achieves it to go up, but that we know that all the value in our pockets will be worth nothing while living in a world with no freedom.

I'm sure if we asked Core developers if they've achieved their goals, they would say a big YES with a smile on their faces, which means their strategy worked as they expected.

And I'm also sure every true BCHer will not be able to do the same until he can use the freest kind of money every day - everywhere. And HODL Bitcoin in the only place where it's supposed to be held- in our hearts.

$ 1.50
1 month ago

Here is the deal. If you car is broken, you pay a repairman to take care of it. And then you get to enjoy the benefit of having a car that work again. The repairman is not the one benefiting from your car being repaired, and therefore you don't expect him to show up at your door and repair it.

Well, it is the same here. Yes, increasing the size of the block creates value, just like repairing the car creates value. But the people able to deliver that value are not the people who would benefit from that value being created.

There is no failure to understand economics from the part of the repairman anymore than there is from the Core devs. There is a huge failure on the part of the people who expect the repairman the repair their car for free just as there is a huge failure on the part of people expecting Core devs to do the work to increase the block size for free - or bellow market rate.

$ 0.00
User's avatar deadalnix
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
1 month ago

Completely agree

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Is this satire?

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Oh no...

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Like the Core developers, it seems like you also overlooked the easiest path to profit:

Buy Bitcoin Make it useful to people in commerce. Price goes up. That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.

Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well.

$ 0.50
1 month ago

If only BCH had an IFP... Then perhaps it wouldn't need to worry about perverse incentives that created today's crippled BTC.

$ 0.10
1 month ago

Your statement proves the value of bitcoin core developers

$ 0.00
1 month ago

I don't think it means they understand economics, it only means they lack the morals to be in that position in the first place.

$ 1.00
1 month ago

The seen versus the unseen.

They likely could have made more money by buying a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and then increasing its value substantially higher than what it is now by working to make Bitcoin widely adopted money for the world.

Instead, they intentionally crippled the project, destroyed the growth in transactions, utility, and adoption, and got paid a bit to work on bandaids for their self-inflicted terminal wound.

True economic geniuses.

Additionally, who knows how much bigger the financial and business opportunities could have been as a developer if Bitcoin had actually been allowed to grow and thrive with massive adoption as programmable money that could be sent anywhere in the world, nearly for free, nearly instantly, without any middlemen or banks.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Like the Core developers, it seems like you also overlooked the easiest path to profit:

Buy Bitcoin Make it useful to people in commerce. Price goes up. That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.

Not only do Core developers not understand economics, but they are poor business strategists as well.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

great pls support me i dont have anything to start some business

$ 0.00
1 month ago

The core developers missed their sound knowledge of Economics. Reducing the block size indicated their short sightedness for growth and convenience of using the product - Bitcoin.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Decreasing the block size is not a mean for less economic knowledge i think they don't think about economy when they develop it

$ 0.00
1 month ago

The core developers missed their basic knowledge of Economics.Decreasing the block size indicated their short sightedness

$ 0.40
1 month ago

โ€œNot understanding economicsโ€ is when you misunderstand a blind auction as a โ€œfee marketโ€ and humiliate yourself to the world by toasting champagne to the unfolding market failure of your product.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

Thanks for sharing this information.
That is a much more effective, safe, and simple strategy to earn a profit than Blockstream's raising $100M+ from traditional finance, strangling Bitcoin, and then trying to sell products that fix the problems caused by the strangulation.

$ 0.00
1 month ago

share to me some bch guys to start some business

$ 0.00
1 month ago

On the other hand, has they made an alternative choice, they'd have to deal with community leaders such as Roger Ver who consider they have to be held in tight leash and collar.

some people also refer to this as ACCOUNTABILITY, something that was sorely (smh) missing from "your/their" IFP proposals .. pre @georgedonnelly, there was no mention of "how" contributions would be spent, and clearly, very few wanted that scenario to succeed, became very upset at your notion, hence why i believe ABC was unfortunately the only infra team not to hit its flipstarter..

not gonna start nothin' here, but I will say that had https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/ existed BEFORE the IFP, I do believe things could have gone differently (at least less hostility), but we all live and learn.. let's just move forward

okay, i actually can't help myself, gotta ask, "ru ever gonna remove the IFP code? if so, when?" personally, i don't care anymore, but I can definitely see how its just pissing some (a lotta) folks off, needlessly.. why??

anyway, I'm NOT the guy that just talks shit; I โค๏ธ what your team has done and continues to do for the community; just sent to your fund, and will be reaching out to george regarding an ABC case study on https://causes.cash

$ 0.60
1 month ago