Understanding the Differences Between Bitcoin ABC and BCHN

If you see my post, please upvote me... please dear

"It's contentious because it's contentious". That was never a way forward. I was flabbergasted hearing these kind of arguments during the scaling debate, it is 1:1 the same logic as back then. And I would not make it that easy to say that it "introduces" politics necessarily. You could say as well that some weak but very prevalent arguments against it ("IFP is communism! / Hong Kong Shell Corp! Centralization! TAX!") introduced the politics and frankly I don't see why anyone, who actually thinks the IFP is neither of these things would bend over for to that.

That's why I totally understand that the voting mechanism was still put in. And frankly I believe enough in Bitcoin consensus mechanism and a dead straight market-based approach (despite what greenhorn-libertarians say about it) to yield good results.

The only thing left, as I repeatedly said during this time:

"They did it anyway, despite it being contentious!"

Yes, and we forked away from BTC, despite it. So? Aren't we glad we got rid of the mob, who simply were against scaling above 1MB even thought there were little to no good arguments for it? All the pro-ifp people who are now against it and think it is "not worth it" are in my opinion simply saying: "We know there is actually nothing bad to say about it, but because we didn't manage to convince a >loud minority< claiming to be the authority of community decisions I think we should scrap it all together.

I cannot understand how you can get there and I cannot understand how you can get from there to "ABC lost community confidence". Their judgement was right to ignore bad arguments, especially when most of the people don't even try to clarify on supposedly contentious things. And it is imo the inner circles bad judgement of letting people personally invested in attacking ABC or its lead dev amplify the narratives.

Another example of people trying hard to help but doing the exact opposite: Collins interview with you: "Keeping BCH Together - with Jonald Fyookball" If you guys think introducing an ANTI-IFP person without even trying to have someone from the other side invited and then not even at least doing another video with a pro-IFP person, what the hell do you expect? It was called "Keeping BCH Together" ffs. Now I thought you'd be neutral enough and explain both sides, but seeing how you essentially nod away half the things Collin said and even repeat one of the arguments here, I don't see it as "keeping BCH together" at all.

Anyway, let me emphasize: Scaling Bitcoin "introduced politics" as well. With which I mean it gave a cause to some destructive and frankly inveterate people to rally together and be loud to the point of making very unreasonable satetments. And that this was fueled by personal squabbles is self-evident. Even the "success" of all the other nodes is one super biased, super unreasonable investor, who has his own motives and an absolute abysmal judgement. If you are happy you "made" it, with people like him in the back, well then I feel sorry for the low bars you have set yourself up.

This was warned about prophetically years and months ago, before the IFP even happened. Even the first response from Mike in space was a no2x meme. It was very fitting. And it is very clear for anyone, who has a grasp of Bitcoin and stops patting themselves on the back for their "succesfull" decentralization cargo cult raindance, which effectively dropped BCH productivity until one of those nodes manages (if they can) to pull it up again, without relying on ABC (while kicking it's drained out body)

The last sentence of the article is rather grotesk and is very disagreeable in istelf. Their judgement was right. They are playing the infinite game, trying to build BCH and not looking back at arguments, that make no sense or are simply based in biased personal squabbles and which you won't get rid off, while so many of the anti-ifp force is playing the finite game of "wining over" by ousting ABC after 2.5 years of hard work, that still is mostly unpaid. I have no issue supporting other implementations and am happy that this worked out so well for most of them. But I am guessing that a community like this, almost directly trying to drain (even milk) ABC to the point of them leaving, finding all sorts of justifications for that, has lost my confidence in their judgement and I won't be the last one, that leaves that project being appaled and flabbergasted. It's a shame that people don't see it. We can argue all day long whether it was the IFP or anti IFP notion, that has split the community. Making one or the other terminal statement is unreasonable bias.

If "the community" which is frankly not much more but a small and rather arrogant circle in the US, putting themselves higher than the rest of the world, has decided to kick ABC out, then there are still 2.5years of work to be paid imo. 2.5 x 3million so to speak.

If I had someone working for me for 2.5 years on a building and doing actually a great job and if I would decide to end the contract with them right there for personal, ideological reasons or simply technical disagreements going forward, then I'd feel pretty dirty not paying them for the work they'd already done. I mean pretty pretty dirty.

Thank you for shedding light on the difference between ABC and BCHN. I also say kudos for mentioning IFP and its controversial issues which later brought more popularity to BCH. Your work is interesting, inspiring and educative.

I am all for multiple teams writing high quality node implementations. I actually hope both ABC and BCHN can improve, and make Bitcoin Cash the best possible currency it can be. However, the fact that ABC has left in the IFP code makes me question their judgement.

Once it was called off, and it was clear that a huge percentage of the community was adamantly against the IFP, it should have been removed. The fact that it is still there after multiple point releases says volumes.

Thanks for this article. Bitcoin Cash need a stable node without aggressive pursuit of money for their work and BCH Node's professionalism is what needed at the moment.

It's not common for any open source project to force monetization out of a previously free software. Node JS team didn't embed a credit card processing inside their runtime library! They created a side company (NPM) to provide additional services for a cost. That's a model worked successfully for many years in software industry for a reason.

10%+ of the blocks are now mined with ... BCHN

This recent report from freetrader says signaling for BCHN decreased.

https://read.cash/@freetrader/bchn-lead-maintainer-report-2020-03-31-1e0a4c39

You are assuming that signaling means mining.

Coindance says it is 3.8%. What is your source for 10% or more?

https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/summary

As blocks are already showing, there is a migration underway to abandon the ABC client as the main reference and mining implementation for Bitcoin Cash.

What is your evidence for this claim?

You present a lot of things as facts here, Jonald, that are more appropriately identified as your personal opinions, or even just wishful thinking.

People asked Bitcoin ABC to do a fundraiser and we are doing that at https://fund.bitcoinabc.org/, complete with business plan, budget and ample feedback mechanisms.

We look forward to everyone's feedback and participation. Bitcoin ABC is committed to continuing on its mission to scale+adopt for 5 billion daily active Bitcoin Cash users, and materially change the world.

Who's in?

If BCH miners 100% volunteered to run the software with the donations built in, I think this claim would not need to be true:

" It changes the economic policy of the coin, it introduces contention and politics, and it further centralizes development. "

The contention and politics could be designed away by a team effort to make it win-win and automated. Anti-BCH forces will try to make sure it is true, so maybe there is no avoiding such a result when so many BCH fans fall for the deceptions making it seem true. These funds will be paid to miners by the protocol. An IFP that lets the miners determine where some of THEIR funds go does not affect the economic policy of the coin. Only the economics of the miners who earned the funds.

I love Mr Fyookball, but, I have to disagree with this opinion as well:

"... Infrastructure investments are important, but not a critical emergency that demands such a drastic and unpopular change. "

IMO, the ability of BCH to scale for massive worldwide adoption is being developed so slowly we are seriously risking failure of the dream. I see it as a critical emergency problem that is not being addressed. Of course, as I said above, this need not be a drastic and unpopular change. We should be working together to find a better implementation. Instead anti-BCH forces and belligerent BCH fans have successfully split the community and blocked that obvious route.

I agree the IFP, as it stands, should not be forced on the community even if it is a good enough plan to be helpful. With ABC help, the anti-BCH forces have won this round in my view. We will probably not have development funding and may lose important staff/volunteers needed to develop the emergency need for scalability.