Join 54,349 users and earn money for participation

Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan

60 962 boost

“Wow, this is not just controversial, but downright unpopular.”  That was my reaction this past week, upon reading the social media comments concerning the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding plan (IFP).  I have a few things to say about this, so I thank you for your attention in advance.

Background

I alluded to this in my previous article, but let me say it more explicitly: I was one of the key people who helped set the initial IFP proposals into motion.  I take all of this seriously and I want what’s in the highest and best interests for Bitcoin Cash.

It’s Not About the Money

For me, this was never about getting money, or even about the Electron Cash project getting money.  (We didn’t even have a notion of “whitelist” in the beginning). The fact there is now a short whitelist (which I did not create or approve of) and a common assumption that I am supporting this because I’ll profit from it is both false and damaging.

It’s About Infrastructure

My intention was always to help ABC get the funds they need to hire great developers.  I took Amaury’s suggestions about funding infrastructure seriously, and I know from experience the great value of hiring and working with superstars.

Not very long ago, Bitcoin Cash was a 3% chain.  I resonated with the idea of supercharging our growth using money that would be mostly subsidized from the SHA-256 ecosystem and the concept of just doing a 6 month period.

Reactions are a vote on Amaury/ABC

Although there is some actual, concrete criticism for the IFP, it is buried under considerable noise and made murky by both fresh and long-standing biases (some earned, some unearned) against Amaury Sechet and Bitcoin ABC.

The arguments in the vein of “Stop thief!  Amaury is changing the protocol to pay himself.” not only miss the mark in terms of not actually discussing anything about the IFP, but they aren’t even true, as the pool operators have historically been asking for this for years, and I know because I’ve been talking to them for years.  And understandably, they are tired of footing the bill for Bitcoin Cash (which has probably cost millions), so I understand where they are coming from.

The Valid Criticism

Various people have written opinions on why IFP is bad, but there’s really only one line of criticism that’s compelling for me, although it is a big one.  And that is, a line in the sand is crossed. Once the distribution of the coinbase is up for discussion, it can forever be a point of contention. Can you imagine if people voted to have more than 21M coins “just this one time?”

Some things are better left set in stone, and the whitepaper specifically states that [the coinbase award] “starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block”.

The Counterargument

I had always viewed this situation from the humble context of being a struggling 3% chain.  I think once BCH flips BTC (which is inevitable if BTC doesn’t scale), then we once again are truly Bitcoin and such a ‘cheating’ mechanism would be clearly off limits.  Whether or not this is a boundary that would hold in practice in our specific case is an unanswerable question.

But given this context, (and under ideal conditions), I don’t think allowing the IFP is nearly as bad as some people in the community think.  But that is just my opinion, subject to being wrong.

The Contention

One assumption I had when I first considered this idea, was that it wouldn’t be tremendously contentious.  Perhaps mildly, but not in a major way. But this does seem contentious in a major way.

How do I know?  It’s because a lot of the people I consider my peers and fellow value creators in Bitcoin Cash are strongly opposed.  It is not just the usual Anti-ABC troublemakers screaming.

The level of contention far exceeds the quality of the arguments being made against the IFP.  As I mentioned, a lot of the heat is due to built-up pressure from Amaury/ABC, and this dislike of their leadership seems to have been combined with the distaste for the IFP itself, into one big “NO” from much of the western community.   

Unfortunately for ABC, that doesn’t really matter.  Contention is still contention in this case and needs to be considered with all the seriousness it demands.   

Did Amaury/ABC Act Responsibly?

Although I think ABC mishandled the situation, they do not deserve as much flak as some people are giving them.  First, it is hard to blame ABC for doing something their bosses want them to do and that will also benefit from. Secondly, ABC did make an honest attempt to form a consensus with both Bitcoin.com as well as the miners, and did incorporate changes to the plan as desired by other parties.

Could they have done a better job?  Absolutely.    

A Missed Opportunity?

At one point, after the first proposal from Jiang Zhuoer had been published, I had spoken with other key opinion leaders in the space.  We had started working on a similar plan, but with a much longer whitelist. More importantly, we were spending time talking to people in such a way that everyone felt included in the decision making process, and getting key opinion leaders on board so that the whole thing could be done fairly and with a minimum of contention.

Unfortunately, instead of agreeing that I should proceed with my approach, others insisted they would handle it themselves, and at this point the community reception is what it is.  

Risk/Reward

Even if there was no contention (or minimal contention), the risks of “messing” with the protocol need to be weighed against the money to be gained.  When there is serious contention, other risks also need to be considered, especially price depreciation.

One very positive and exciting note is that some of the pool operators believe (based on their forecasts) that there can be a very huge crypto prices after the next bull run, which can last 2-3 years.  Maybe $100k BTC and $20k BCH.

Jiang Zhuoer told me the last thing they want to do is cause a split right before the bull run. 

I should point out a perceived conflict of interest:  Assuming ABC is the main beneficiary of the IFP, they are not incentivized to care as much if there is a hashwar, a split, or a dump because they will receive more coins.   But this doesn’t necessarily align with the rest of the ecosystem, particularly the mining pools and other investors.

BU is not an acceptable alternative to ABC

One motivator for me in initially wanting the IFP to succeed is to make sure Amaury and ABC can continue to provide a rock solid engine for Bitcoin Cash and maybe move a bit faster on their roadmap.

The fear was, if ABC doesn’t get money, Amaury could quit and BU will take over.

Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), although seen by some as a viable alternative implementation, is not an acceptable substitute for the mining pools to use, due to bad leadership decisions within BU, which I’ll explain another day.

If the IFP does not get activated and Amaury leaves the project, then the BCH community must be ready, willing, and able to fork the ABC code and put the best, most trustworthy, and competent people in charge of it.

This is something to keep in mind.

Recommendation

The miners and mining pools should closely observe the sentiment of the western Bitcoin Cash community.  Although there is the possibility for growing support and the dropping of pitchforks, it is also quite possible the contention will only solidify.

Whenever there is a significant amount of community uproar, the risk of a fork is higher, and if this is the case, the miners should not activate the IFP, because the risks don’t justify the rewards to Bitcoin Cash as a whole. 

I still think the IFP can potentially be a good idea in theory if the conditions are right.  Who knows, maybe things will look bright and sunny and completely different in 3 weeks. If the IFP cannot be activated now, it should be considered and debated under calmer conditions, with more time to plan.  

2
$ 28.87
$ 15.00 from @molecular
$ 5.00 from @Big-Bubbler
$ 2.00 from @zveda
+ 25
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

As a long-standing critic of ABC (really, of Amaury), I will say my concerns were fully justified and my warnings vindicated by his proposal. You might not have liked the criticisms about becoming the next Blockstream, but... here we are.

$ 11.01
1 year ago

Please, a little less drama. There would not have been a bch without him. He had the foresight to create the fork. This funding proposal is not the end of the world. It is an experiment which can solve the funding problem once and for all or it can be turned off if it doesnt. I wish everyone would relax a bit.

$ 0.10
1 year ago

interesting: Jonald argues that making this about Amaury is not a good argument against the IFP (I agree) and the top-voted comment does exactly that. Not that I disagree necessarily, but you can see in the followup comments what happens: emotions boil up and sensible discussion is drowned.

$ 1.07
1 year ago

I agree. Hurt feelings and vendettas seem to be everywhere. We need to focus on the path forward, not "I told you so."

$ 1.00
1 year ago

Also what some people in the community don't understand is that this was commissioned by the MINERS not Amaury!

The miners who maintain our coin want it. That is it. You don't mine? You are irrelevant to this decision!!

$ 0.70
1 year ago

You are irrelevant to this decision!!

If you think that you don't understand some of the mechanisms at work here.

$ 1.50
1 year ago

And, if we use 100% pro-BCH miners who agree in advance to mine and donate, then it is their money to send wherever they choose.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

it is their money to send wherever they choose.

I don't know why the message that the true cost is really not borne by the miners, but by the holders isn't getting through to some people, you included.

Maybe you can help me understand by checking my arguments regarding this?

I think I understand your point of view (correct me please if this is wrong): it's very simple: usually the miner gets 12.5 BCH block reward. Now he'll get only 11.875 BCH (0.625 BCH less). Hence he's bearing the cost. Correct?

I think that's a naive way to look at who is bearing the cost.

The correct way to view it (in my mind):

  • effect on miners: When the 5% coinbase reward diversion takes effect, profitability of BCH mining reduces by 5%. Hence roughly 5% if profitability-switching miners will switch to mine another coin (let's say BTC). Hence again, difficulty in BCH will drop by 5%. Ergo the remaining miners (your 100% pro-BCH miners who made that decision) mine ~5% more blocks each and reap the same value as before.

  • effect on holders: security of BCH is reduced by 5%. Various attack risks and valuation metrics drop, so the value of their BCH holdings are reduced. By how much I can't tell you, but even a 1% reduction in value is a huge price to pay. This even ignores potentially much larger negative effects the IFP has on value of BCH due to another potential split, people leaving and/or selling, undermining of core values part of the community holds and associated detachment of those people from the coin, and of course all the related fears and uncertainties to name a few.

So please, I'm trying to be open-minded and at least understand: tell me where I'm wrong or why your simple view isn't invalidated by this.

$ 10.50
1 year ago

I don't know why the message that the true cost is really not borne by the miners, but by the holders isn't getting through to some people, you included.

Sorry this got long, but, I will get to your question below.

To start, I think these kind of arguments assume away the positive value supporting our developers has for holders and miners and the rest of the community. For instance, I believe developing the ability to allow massive worldwide scaling/adoption before we need it is crucial to the massive price and value rise I am expecting to happen unexpectedly sometime soon. We are not ready for that even though the attackers opposed to peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people are everywhere claiming we do not need to do any more development and we should not even worry about things like that until we need to. If BCH tries to go viral before it can, it will be very bad for our reputation and limit our potential rise to glory.

The attackers go even further and make crazy claims about the massive damage to the price and the demise of BCH etc.. The dark money wants to stop developers getting support and are spending a lot to fool the community into thinking miners donating to developers is a bad thing for BCH. They are pushing hard for a community split that I agree is unacceptable. I differentiate between a coin fork and a community split. I am sure you know any attacker can make a fork to try to attract the community to either move as a group (upgrade) or divide (community split). We have to be willing to stand up to fork attacks and remain together as a community. If we get a fork here, it will be to a coin that does not let it's miners donate to it's developers.

Anyway, even if we try to ignore the positive value this has to holders, the cost to holders will not be "taxes" they have to send in to the developers (the miners will be doing that). It will be a decrease in hash rate security due to a short-term financial decrease in the desirability of mining BCH. We need to ignore the greater value (and possibly rising price) of BCH tokens (to the miners) that have better funded developers again here. So, I do see the theoretical lowering of hashrate as a "cost" to holders.

If we assume we do get a lowering of hash rate on BCH, some would say it lowers our already pitifully low security a little bit lower. We are already counting on BCH friendly BTC-Miners as our hash security system. Because it does not really significantly affect our practical security level much, I see this "cost" as minimal in comparison to the benefits. It is a real thing, but, it is being exaggerated into something that is more important for holders than the increases in value a better developed coin is worth. I see getting past this community splitting attack and having better funded developers as making BCH better and more valuable. I agree a split would be worse than this possible success.

This can cause BTC miners to have a bit more competition and I can see them not liking this idea. Many say they are paying for it, but, I see it as just more competition because their chain is a bit more profitable since their developers are already "funded" by evil corporations that make that chain unexpectedly profitable. The success of funding BCH developers may also endanger the BTC house-of-cards and that may be a cost at some point as well.

I did get off on some tangents along the way, but, please let me know if I have not answered your question well enough yet.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I'll believe it's not about the money "for you" when you get yourself taken off the list.

$ 5.00
1 year ago

you have my permission to do in a pull request. happy?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

please don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds a bit like the core devs back in the blocksize wars saying: "you can always write a BIP if you want change". (while already thinking in the back of their minds: "NAK", "NAK", "NAK"). In other words: nimbys ability to write a pull request (that would most likely be ignored or at least not pulled in) doesn't magically remove your conflict of interest.

$ 10.50
1 year ago

The "get yourself taken off the list" is equally absurd. I clearly state the whole thing is a bad idea as long as the community isn't on board. What am I supposed to do: flip flop and say IFP is a great idea if EC gets taken off? Doesn't make any sense.

It's not like ABC is going to change it anyway; I made the comment to give my consent to it; nothing more. If people want to believe I'm in this for the money, that's unfortunate but most people that know me understand this isn't the case.

$ 0.05
1 year ago

Lol what makes no sense is saying it's a terrible idea, but signing up for the money cuz you know, you're not a dummy right?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

"Lol what makes no sense is saying it's a terrible idea, but signing up for the money cuz you know, you're not a dummy right?"

Are you trolling? Nobody is that stubborn. Sorry.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

"If the IFP cannot be activated now, it should be considered and debated under calmer conditions, with more time to plan. "

Yes, please.

A split is a loose-loose situation for everybody.

$ 0.15
1 year ago

From what I am seeing in these replies and other places,

Bitcoin Unlimited is cancer on BCH and needs to be cut out immediatly. They contribute nothing but drama.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Your comments are incredibly divisive and shallow.

$ 5.50
1 year ago

WRT BU, our supposedly "bad" leadership decisions were questioning the decisions that brought BCH from 10-15% of BTC to 2.6%, and culminated in this IFP disaster. Our "bad" leadership choices have given us a treasure chest that can sustain blockchain development for years. You need to wake the fuck up.

$ 6.50
1 year ago

[deleted]

$ 0.00
1 year ago

earlier you said to bigblockiftrue:

Who are you anyways??

now this to AndrewStone:

You are irrelevant.

wtf are you doing with those personal attacks. That's childish.

$ 0.50
1 year ago

Bitcoin Cash will be stronger now that we have funding.

WE MUST TREAT ANYONE WHO IS NOT FOR THIS PLAN AS ENEMIES OF PEER TO PEER CASH FOR THE WORLD.

I guarantee most of the "opposition" is BSV trolls and BTC trolls trying to create division for no reason.

The MARKET has spoken. BCH is up alot since this plan was announced. Investors feel confident.

$ 0.10
1 year ago

Did you even read what he said? He said that the many people he trusts are strongly against it.

$ 0.50
1 year ago

WE MUST TREAT ANYONE WHO IS NOT FOR THIS PLAN AS ENEMIES OF PEER TO PEER CASH FOR THE WORLD.

who's the drama queen here?

$ 1.00
1 year ago

Not as simple as that.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

To your counter argument, I would add that you can still keep this: “starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block” set in stone if you keep this voluntary for the pro-BCH miners that earned that block. They earned it and they should be allowed to designate where it should be paid out. To make that work we need enough pro-BCH miners to do all the BCH mining. I think there are enough, but, maybe you know that answer.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I don't understand why ABC or other developers should simply be thrown money at ...

From my point of view, the best option would be to divide the roadmap into manageable parts and give an estimate of the effort for each individual project. These estimates could then be financed by donations or possibly consensus based. On the other hand, this whole drama puts the chain in real danger, right before the next bull run... such a decision should really be thought through carefully before taking this step. As far as I can see this, the approach as it stands today will only be supported by a part of the community, maybe half or possibly less

$ 5.51
1 year ago

From my point of view, the best option would be to divide the roadmap into manageable parts and give an estimate of the effort for each individual project.

yes, exactly. And please don't forget a large ongoing "project" for code maintenance, backporting, refactoring, documentation and all the other housekeeping that is necessary to keep a healthy development environment and codebase (which I'm sure would be funded first). Because if you forget to mention that you'll get strong emotional backfiring on that issue from devs who think the general population doesn't understand the need for that ;-) (I'm a developer myself, so I know it's sometimes hard to explain to customers. But experience has shown that you can simply state as fact it's necessary before any other work on features or whatever else is desired can be even be begun and the customer will understand)

$ 1.00
1 year ago

The level of contention far exceeds the quality of the arguments being made against the IFP.

I would say the opposite is true. For such a monumental line to cross, "I still think the IFP can potentially be a good idea in theory if the conditions are right." and the other arguments for it that I have seen are flippant.

then the BCH community must be ready, willing, and able to fork the ABC code and put the best, most trustworthy, and competent people in charge of it.

I have gratitude and respect for Amaury and I will not be opposed to this even if he stays.

$ 0.32
1 year ago

nah, arguments against have been pretty abysmal.

which is puzzling since there are much better, quite low hanging fruit to be picked; but many anti-IFP people have chosen to take the populist way out and just go for maximum emotional effect.

which is perfectly rational btw, but sadly is exactly what you would expect during a huge race to the bottom in argument quality for both sides of the issue.

$ 0.05
1 year ago

Could you split the good and bad arguments for me?

The two key arguments for me: 1) Block reward diversion of any organizational or algorithmic kind sets up a government. This is the beginning of the end for permissionless money. Fast + Cheap alone are not interesting or competitive at all without permissionless.

2) There is a real short term existential risk created by taxing (I have confirmed with a handful of hardware miners that they will perceive it as a tax) the dsha256 mining community. Because the majority don't really care about BCH. The "clever" trick is a clever way to make totally unnecessary enemies and estrange current allies.

$ 12.02
1 year ago

I think both of these you said are very reasonable, and I wish they were made more often. As an aside about 1), I think this is a good read: https://urbit.org/blog/the-dao-as-a-lesson-in-decentralized-governance/

The bad arguments are legion and I've been hearing them way more than I'd like. A small sample, in no particular ranking of egregiousness: 'this is a tax', 'this is creating inflation', 'this is Amaury's plan', comparing an infrastructure outfit like ABC with Amazon/Apple and arguing that they should 'sell a product and make money' etc

All of these have been propped up to the tune of thousands of dollars in some cases, by the way.

$ 0.05
1 year ago

In response to one of yours, I don't know that many miners but each one I asked explicitly "Will miners interpret the IFP as a tax?" "Yes" "Yes" "Yes" "Absolutely". Fuck semantics. It's a tax. Hardware miners are just a convenient target for skimming money because they are not very involved in the politics where pools dominate.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Interpretation is irrelevant. Often someone who just wants to punch you in the nose will interpret anything you do (or don't do) as, say, making a move on his girlfriend or disrespecting him as a way to justify punching you in the nose, but that doesn't make it true.

$ 0.05
1 year ago

You are right about interpretations but I think not right about it being irrelevant. BCH won't survive a punch in the nose by a majority of the sha256d ecosystem. My resistance to IFP is not ideological or philosophical. It is practical - it damages, possibly destroys the core value proposition, permissionlessness, of BCH and it invites hostility from sha256d ecosystem because it will be perceived as a tax.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

The "clever" trick is a clever way to make totally unnecessary enemies and estrange current allies.

hadn't even thought of that aspect.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I am glad the miners are showing some initiative. Miners make and enforce the rules, the 66% miner consensus makes me comfortable. Abc listening to miners is a good thing.

$ 0.20
1 year ago

66% consensus on a 4% chain is 2.6%.

2.6% of dsha256 hashrate can make a massive change on BCH. It should make you exactly the opposite of comfortable.

$ 5.00
1 year ago

You can say that about anything in bch now. By your logic we have no choice but to change the algo.

$ 0.10
1 year ago

No, they are not the same at all.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

What if i told you before the fork that bch would only have 3% of the price and same hash. Would you think that could work?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I'm not sure I understand your question. The EDA and later DAA ensured that hash would roughly be a function of relative price.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

My point is Crypto is very unpredictable. Many would assume that btc miners would just use the majority hash to ruin bch but they dont. They even defend the chain when needed. I think the risk is low enough to justify trying the funding proposal.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

go for maximum emotional effect.

which is perfectly rational

I don't think that's rational at all.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

You had said:

“...pool operators have historically been asking for this for years, and I know because I’ve been talking to them for years. And understandably, they are tired of footing the bill for Bitcoin Cash (which has probably cost millions), so I understand where they are coming from.”

Could you please elaborate on how pool operators have been footing the bill for BCH for years?

$ 5.00
1 year ago

Very curious myself too. Did they donate anything near the 1000 BCH coinholders gave in fundraiser half a year back?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

How does ABC have "bosses" if they are not getting paid right now? Hm?

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I don't know if "bosses" is a good term, but to their own words they "got asked to implement IFP code". I'm not sure what this word "ask" means exactly in this context. Do you think if I (for example) asked them to implement a better DAA (for example) they would just simply do it? In other words: (some) miners might not be their "bosses", but they sure do what they're being asked to do at least in some cases.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Funding the infrastructure is necessary, and East miners (who own the majority of the hash power) are tired to pay. This is clearly understandable. The side effect of their majority is : if the IFT can be activated and if they activate it, due to their power it'll stay the longer chain. No possible competition. To illustrate that, have a look to Bitcoin.com BCH pool : it seems that BCH miners deserted it recently (end of January). Is it because Bitcoin.com has withdrawn its support for IFT ? May be... On the other side, a node implementation is already available, which doesn't include the IFT. If miners use this node their blocks will inevitably go on a minor chain and will lose their value. We are already living with the fork of SV and it's obviously damaging. Another fork would be terrible. I fully agree : the only way is postponing the IFT, go on with the debate more quietly and find an agreed solution. May be it'd be easier if this hard-coded white list was removed and replaced by something more democratic ! But this is probably not that easy, due to the pressure from East miners...

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Reactions are a vote on Amaury/ABC

Amaury/ABC unnecessarily turned this thing into a vote about himself. Despite the original proposal wanting to leave protocol unchanged, ABC's default consensus rules were changed, escalating a hash war involving miners into a civil war involving all users. Despite the original proposal intending to set up a neutral organisation, ABC successfully pushed for direct control of funds and favouring himself and his closest allies over competitors. (Meanwhile slightly more distant allies suggesting alternatives are pissed off.) Despite the original proposal being led by miners, the final proposal was unilaterally announced by ABC. The original proposal was a miners' initiative, the final proposal more or less crowned King Séchet I of BCH.

I think once BCH flips BTC (which is inevitable if BTC doesn’t scale), then we once again are truly Bitcoin and such a ‘cheating’ mechanism would be clearly off limits.

I think if we want to flip BTC (we do), then we should stick to our principles and hold ourselves to high and ambitious standards. If something is off-limits after flipping BTC, then it is also off-limits now. Desparate moves are seldom good moves. We have the moral high ground as a truly unique selling point, so let's hodl it.

The fear was, if ABC doesn’t get money, Amaury could quit and BU will take over.

A BU takeover would indeed be a wild ride. On the other hand, ABC has now also done something spectacularly controversial and risky. Unfortunately for Amaury this makes me more forgiving of BU's mistakes - BU is no longer the only organisation whose governance severely failed. Sadly I think ABC has significantly reduced their chances of any successful fundraiser in the future.

$ 13.25
1 year ago

The miners choose where the money goes, not abc. There is a 66% consensus lock in. If you dont like it, all you have to do is hire hash rate to block it. Very simple.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

There is a 66% consensus lock in.

honest question: if I run ABC out of the box as a miner with default settings, what will my vote be?

$ 0.20
1 year ago

According to Emil Oldenburg it's even worse than what you think right now.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

The miners can choose where the money goes, among a list of projects Amaury likes, all chosen for inclusion in the list by Amaury.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

lay off Amaury, bud. Who are you anyways??

Without Amaury none of us who would be here.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

I am Amaury's #1 fan.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

What ? I am a fan of peer to peer cash.

$ 0.00
1 year ago

Thank you for sharing this. I agree with you. The risks do not outweigh the benefits.

It’s also not worth “crossing the line” and setting a precedent. As far as I’m concerned the purpose of the block reward was set in stone with satoshi’s whitepaper.

Only the most dire and extreme reason is worth a split. And the IFP is not the “most dire and extreme reason” to risk a split.

BCH has been seeing success recently, and we are finally (in the past 6 months) seeing it catch up to BTC in terms of price ratio. This is a very good sign. Let’s not destroy this, just as things are starting to look positive for BCH after years of struggle, price-wise.

We need stability— not division— especially in light of the fact that we are rapidly approaching what will be a huge bull run for Bitcoin Cash.

$ 5.50
1 year ago

thanks Jonald for this level-headed writing.

I agree we shouldn't make this about Amaury. I know he has made some bad decisions and even enemies and honestly his behaviour was probably a driver to get more people into the BSV camp when that split happened (at least I often heard this given as a reason by people to support BSV instead of BCH). He has done great things for BCH and we should not forget that.

Making this personally about Amaury or the ABC team is a distraction from the (in my view) main problem of the IFP, which you have identified correctly: it crosses a line. At least for many in the community. It does for me. It also opens a pandorras box I fear we'd never be able to close again (sort-a like segwit?) and I don't even want to discuss how "the whitelisting process could be improved" (this process is naive if you look at what other coins are doing) and all that shebang and I don't want to hear that "no solution is perfect" or be asked if I knew a better solution, because even if there wasn't any other solution, this idea would still be simply unacceptable for me.

I've thought (and still am thinking) hard about what I'd do if it gets voted through and I'm pretty sure I'd support any fork avoiding it and keep only a little "BCHIFP" as a hedge. In fact I've already sold 1/3 of my BCH due to the uncertainty surrounding this. It hurts, but it has to be done in order for me to sleep well.

$ 3.05
1 year ago