Join 67,069 users and earn money for participation

A story of how Amaury's broken difficulty adjustment algorithm came to be

44 693 exc boost
Avatar for micropresident
Written by   318
11 months ago

The topic of the current Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) is up again. It's both being discussed in terms of algorithm changes, but also in terms of the history of how we got the current DAA.

First, I want to say, moving forward with technical advancements is paramount. Anyone who is concerned about the DAA and has the skills to be working on it should be participating in writing requirements, specifications, simulations, and ultimately the C++ code to be included in Bitcoin ABC. The working group for these changes is here.

Given that the history of this change has come up repeatedly, I think the Bitcoin Cash Cryptocurrency Investor Network should have all perspectives available to them. So, I am writing here for a collective record and to inform people who are not reading Slack messages.

And, when reading this account, keep in mind that it is now three years later from the events being discussed, and and there is still no solution that is agreed upon, has a specification, and a working C++ implementation. We don't even have an accepted list of requirements.

At the time of the DAA, I was newly involved in the Bitcoin Cash project. I had some past history with Amaury, and was aware of his communication style from working with him on past open source projects. Part of the difficulties people have with him are due to English being a second language, the fact that he is French, and becoming impatient and frustrated with himself when he is he is struggling to convey his meaning in a way that can be understood. Attempting to bridge communication gaps was one of my considerations in choosing to get involved in Bitcoin-ABC. I had no prior experience working with any of the other developers involved in Bitcoin Cash protocol development to cause past history to taint current communication.

Amaury Sechét made an error the community needs to be made aware of.

My perspective and experience in working with other Bitcoin Cash developers on the DAA is by no means fact. It is the truth insomuch as it is my experience, and my feelings - just as all the other statements about this history are also true feelings and experiences.

However, these feelings are not fact and it always takes two to tango. When I was still working on Bitcoin-ABC I saw an environment where mind reading dominated. Developers failing to practice egoless programming, allowing their feelings to be hurt. There was also a general lack of understanding around how criticism in code reviews come across to other humans. Good faith was generally never assumed. Nearly, every developer in this space, including myself, is guilty of one or more of these behaviors.

Now, regarding the DAA flaws. ABC was aware of the potential for resonances. I even came up with my own algorithm that was easy to implement, but it ultimately wasn't implemented. Amaury was even very amiable to it. However, it was after the release was already in flight -- it had taken too long to come up with an adjustment.

The reason the release needed to be done at the time it was, was to be ready for the S2X hardfork of Bitcoin Core. There would have been three major contenders for SHA256 hash, with major price changes between all of them. Miners would have been switching chains continuously, and result in even worse problems for the existing EDA on Bitcoin Cash.

However, other developers continue to say this:

Freetrader claims that Amaury could have chosen Tom Harding's algorithm and did not for some unspecified reason. From context, it is unclear if Freetrader thinks that Tom Harding's solution should have been implemented. However, other developers, within the context of three years, have continued to assert that Harding's DAA was not implemented due to Amaury's insistence on only using his own solutions. I don't believe that was his motivation. I was involved in the selection decision and signed off the choice.

And the fact that this is still being talked about, rather than acted upon by the people who are talking about it, is indicative of a real problem.

Amaury made the rational choice between alternatives. Getting a reasonable DAA out the door before things became even worse should have been a priority for everyone. Perfect is the enemy of good, and complicated solutions have more surface area for fatal errors. The DAA as it stands is extremely simple, but there is a lot of room for improvement.

For those not aware of the history, the Emergency Difficult Adjustment algorithm was performing terribly. The EDA was written by Amaury with input from other developers who did not want the original Bitcoin DAA changed at all; but it was not his preferred solution. Had Amaury listened to the consensus of developers at that time, the August 1st 2017 Bitcoin Cash hardfork event would have resulted in a blockchain that was dead-on-arrival.

The #1 reason we went for the EDA mechanism is that many actors were opposed to any change to the DAA at all, and EDA was the bare minimum possible change that could ensure the chain's survival in face of a hashrate drop at the fork point. Not because it is the best solution. Not because it even is a good solution, because it is what people were ready to accept. It is clear by now that more is required, and it would be a shame to not leverage all the great work that people working on alts have done. Some will call this copyright infringement, I on my side, call this science.

Amaury Sechet via Bitcoin-ML

It became apparent that the EDA would be a problem in August. There are an abundance of posts on the bitcoin-ml from Amaury about it, as well as others. Indeed, there was civil conversation there, initially, but no actual consensus on anything. Freetrader claims there was almost agreement on this issue. I don't know how he has any better mechanism for determining this than myself, or anyone else; which is to say no mechanism at all.

That being said, I would like to be proactive rather than reactive, so I worked on the problem to make sure we can deploy something if/when we think it is needed.

Most implementations are basing their mechanism on the block time, however, this data is extremely chaotic and can also be faked to some extent by miners. In the ideal world we want to estimate hashrate over several blocks and then use this estimation to recompute a new target. Because the input data is very noisy, we need to either do that over long timespan, but then we adapt poorly to violent hashrate swings, or quickly, in which case the difficulty output ends up being chaotic and may not be stable. Ideally, we'd come up with a solution that rely on individual block time as little as possible as this is the least stable data we have.

Amaury Séchet via Bitcoin-ML, Aug 25th 2017

However, these discussions devolved quickly when, in mid October 2017, Amaury decided to start implementing a DAA himself. This first iteration was ultimately abandoned due to feedback from Neil Booth, and others. Neil Booth came into an ABC development chat - seemingly upset - to point out that the newly proposed DAA would be incredibly difficult for SPV wallets to implement. I explained to him that nobody was trying to break SPV wallets, and that we would do whatever is necessary to ensure that didn't happen. The situation was temporarily de-escalated.

Then, Tom Harding and Neil Booth both started working on simulations of various other algorithms. Amaury was also doing the same. Their repository is here, and was an effort I actively participated in. However, my feedback was repeatedly dismissed by both Tom and Neil. Tom Harding believed I was working for nChain and could not be trusted -- rather than looking at the content of what I was telling him.

If we almost had agreement then, why are debates about difficulty adjustment algorithms still ongoing now - 3 years later? I'm glad we haven't been stuck with the EDA for 3 years.

This kind communication only got worse from there. Both algorithms that were proposed had major flaws by my estimation. Neil Booth's algorithm was asymmetrical and thus unsuitable to the problem space. He persisted until he decided Tom Harding's algorithm was better some time later. Tom Harding was continually asked to show that his algorithm responded reasonably to selfish mining. Freetrader admits that Tom's response was: "I want Amaury to prove he doesn't beat his wife" -- these kind of remarks derailed all attempts at any productive collaboration. ABC developers did indeed review all these proposals, Antony Zegers even provided a detailed write up about Tom Harding's proposal.

Meanwhile, Peter Rizun was arguing publicly against changing the DAA at all. Claiming that leaving it in place would "cause a death spiral that would kill off BTC" (paraphrased). Assuming it were possible, that would have been absolutely disastrous for the entire cryptocurrency space. Tom Zander (the maintainer of Bitcoin Classic) was still advocating for a reverse-EDA, which would have not helped the situation involving S2x at all.

After the new DAA was incorporated into ABC, Neil and Tom went into various public chats, private chats, and direct messages, to claim Amaury was being rude, strong-headed, ignoring feedback, and ultimately implemented his solution because of his ego. Many people, without any other knowledge, and trusting these two developers, took what they said at face value.

However, this was not my experience when interacting with these three individuals in trying to develop a new DAA. These public allegations have become a running theme, over the last three years, with nobody seemingly remembering that it takes two people to have an argument. The ramifications on the progress of Bitcoin Cash have been substantial.

A well known friend of mine, and software engineer, told me privately something to the effect of, "Can't Amaury just merge someone else's solution so people will be stop complaining?" Network protocols are not about people's feelings, and merging poor solutions to placate people is not a good precedent to set. Since that time, despite the claims about Amaury, he has merged a lot of code from other people.

Given Freetrader's renewed interest in development processes, and evidence-based development. There's another aspect to consider when he says that we were near agreement at the time of the DAA being implemented.

How does he know this? How does he come to this conclusion? Who was involved in this agreement? Are we simply exchanging one set of people as decision makers for another? Do we implement solutions by voting? Who gets to vote? Who gets to propose things for a vote? What is the actual consensus mechanism that Freetrader wants to see?

There is some history that might shed light on to Freetrader's mechanism for development. He was participating in ABC up until December of 2017. He ultimately left shortly after Amaury went ahead with implementing CashAddr in Bitcoin ABC.

Freetrader wanted to throw out a public community survey to gauge support on this matter; tacitly expecting people to come to him. Amaury wanted to reach out and have direct communication with parties that had relevant experience to provide useful feedback. He ignored Freetrader's surveys in favor of the data he had already collected from direct contact with businesses in the space. Even one of the Copay developers preferred the CashAddr specification. Fixing the address format was an important change to make happen as soon as possible. Significant amounts of money was being lost by sending to the wrong addresses. I tried to on-board multiple friends and lost funds when they sent me a BTC address.

In fact, this issue should have been resolved by the time of the fork, and a suitable address format already implemented. The draft CashAddr specification was 7 months old at the time of the fork, and some kind of resolution should have happened on this issue. Would the BUIP vote sufficed at a community survey? Maybe, but BUIP037 was never even brought to a vote within BU.

People believed so staunchly that Bitcoin Cash would take the BTC ticker and name. They refused to do the work on necessary features to ensure the survival of Bitcoin Cash if their beliefs didn't work out - they perpetually failed to consider any alternative than their own visions; they failed to gauge that social consensus was not actually on their side.

Now, implementing another supported address format was totally within the scope of Bitcoin ABC. This was not a network consensus change and did not require anyone else to implement it. It could have remained unused by the rest of the ecosystem. The rest of the ecosystem could have coalesced around any other address specification. Amaury did not force it on anyone, and yet there are still people who believe that Amaury somehow made people implement this.

Loads of these sorts of comments can be easily found via google. It has not been my experience that the legacy address format was easier to type.

Nevertheless, shortly after CashAddr was incorporated into Bitcoin ABC, Freetrader disappeared from participating in ABC. He can speak for his own motivations, but it seemed that it was in regards to how the survey was disregarded. He is still doing community surveys. But neither surveys, nor their results, imply that there is broad community support for anything. How are people genuinely notified they need to participate? How does someone know people haven't participated more than once? Who collates the results? When community opinion conflicts technical requirements, who gets to make the final decision?

It ultimately amounts to a system were Freetrader would end up making the final decisions, and he would show his survey as evidence that his decisions had community support to dismiss critics. But this evidence isn't evidence of anything at all - just like BUIP votes from Bitcoin Unlimited are not representative of the businesses and user base of Bitcoin Cash.

Another complaint lodged by Freetrader is about making decisions using unpublished data: However, the data was circulated between individuals but never prepared for publication due to prioritization. Freetrader either had access to, or could have access to. If it was his priority, where was his write-up to formally publish it? There was a severe shortage of hands at this time to do everything necessary, a significant number of people complaining, and almost no volunteering to do any of the work.

When Bitcoin Cash finally came on the scene, there were already three forks of Bitcoind: Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Unlimited. None of the lead developers of these codebases could get along, that is why they came to be. If these developers were capable of getting along in any meaningful way, there would never have been any need to fork Bitcoind multiple times. Amaury Séchet was not the source of their inability to collaborate - it clearly preceded him.

And again here we are, three years later from the events around the DAA and no solution that everyone agrees upon has been specified, coded, and released. We don't even have an accepted list of requirements.

From my perspective, Amaury's primary "sins" have been to:

  1. Having the fearlessness to make decisions when others would not, and deal with the possible consequence of his client forking off.

  2. Dismissing individuals who are more interested in debating solutions rather than solving problems.

  3. To have little patience leading him to speak harshly to others he deems to be wasting his time.

  4. To sometimes erroneously assume that some people are no longer worth working with.

  5. And to generally be terrible at giving meaningful feedback on code reviews, instead expecting mind-reading, or attempting to use the Socratic method in lieu of giving clear constructive criticism. Attempting the Socratic method with someone who didn't sign up for your class is almost always seen as condescending.

Amaury has made fearless executive decisions on what to include, or not include, in Bitcoin ABC. And he has been short with people who wished for him to include something. However, nobody has ever been entitled to have their code incorporated into that code repository. People have always been free to run, or not run, the Bitcoin ABC software.

For whatever reasons, people have continued to do so. It is asserted that he has the power to force his changes on others, but who gives him that power? He only has the authority to merge code into Bitcoin ABC. Where does the public outcry over changes to Bitcoin ABC come from? If I make a Bitcoin Cash Node that has protocol changes that people do not want, would anyone care?

After three years of these disagreements, Freetrader has come back from his absence to work on Bitcoin Cash again. His new project exists primarily in opposition to Bitcoin ABC, rather than an effort to move the needle forward on P2P cash. The disagreement, that brought him back, was the infrastructure funding proposal.

Rather than assist with any existing project to come up with a palatable mechanism to do development and handle funding, he started his own project, and his own fundraising. Has this project helped in any way to build community consensus, or to further fragment it? Has progress been accelerated, or diminished?

The purpose of his project is an to attempt to implement a different decision making mechanism about what changes are, or are not, included in a bitcoin cash client. The Bitcoin Unlimited mechanism was insufficient, and the Bitcoin ABC mechanism was insufficient. It would seem that development decision have to be done the way freetrader wants for him to be willing to participate - and who could expect anything else?

But will he, and his compatriots, practice what they advocate and leave Automatic Replay Project in their client due to public dissent? Myself and many others do not want to see it removed. When freetrader becomes lead developer of Bitcoin Cash, will there be alternative ways to to make decisions? Or, will I have to use freetrader's way of making decisions?

And what has Freetrader's project accomplished so far? He's removed code for miner voting, and now proposing removing code for Automatic Replay Protection. What else will be removed, or left undone, based on "collective agreement" - whatever he deems is agreement, despite the fact that I, and many others, do not agree with the process?

If nobody has the ability to make decisions for their own project, how does anything get done? There will always be someone who does not want a change. It is human nature to resist change - change is dangerous.

Many have recently also stated that Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin ABC. It is as they say. Amaury cannot change Bitcoin Cash, he does not have the power to do so since the protocol does not belong to him. So, why are we having so many disagreements about what he chose to do on his software project with his time and energy? Why have any disagreements over what a project maintainer includes or does not include in their software - who cares? How can anyone claim that Bitcoin ABC has unilaterally changed anything about Bitcoin Cash?

Someone always has to make the decision to take the first step in building something. What we have right now is decentralized development. WE are free to do whatever we want and try to get people to run our updates. We are free to deal with the consequences of our software potentially not being compatible with anyone else's.

At what point will we leave the pettiness, over who gets to be in charge, behind and actually work to make meaningful products that we can show the outside world - products that will make people want to use Bitcoin Cash?

80
$ 24.17
$ 10.00 from @Cain
$ 2.00 from @m4ktub
$ 1.87 from @maff1989
+ 18
Avatar for micropresident
Written by   318
11 months ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

BCH 👍👍

$ 0.00
11 months ago

So, if there were competing algo's in the past, is there no better option that could be added to ABC that is being suggested today by anyone? If no one is pushing a better one for adoption, maybe ABC chose the best one anyone has come up with so far back then? Not to rub that in, if so, but, maybe we could focus the bickering development brainpower on the future after we get the history documented by whoever wants to add to that. Easier said than done, I am sure.

$ 1.00
11 months ago

I'd support adding something better. Surely the developer community could have found something that was better in 3 years time!

$ 0.00
11 months ago

You make some very interesting points. Less arguing, and more innovation is what we need. BCH is already a top coin. We need to keep it that way.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

In this article I am not going to try to debate, since I am not a programmer, I leave it to those who know about it.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Amaury Séchet, the lead developer of Bitcoin ABC is a huge part of the success that the BCH has as of now. I cannot totally agree with someone bashing Amaury when all he wants is improvement of the system and make it more decentralized. Take it or not, Amaury will be Amaury and he is a hero who tried to come up with having a faster and reliable crypto currency that the world is using now. As a developer himself, and part of the long run since Bitcoin is on air that time, he has the talent and skills to prove and show to us what is needed to be done. As per Mr. Shammah Chancellor who is also a former developer of ABC he knows more than any of us, that is why I believe and support his claims. Keep aiming the good spot sir!

$ 0.00
11 months ago

please upvote me.I'm new here. please encourage me

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Thanks for this Sir, i just want to support you! And I believe in everything about this article. You are very accurate in giving information and data hence what you say is accurate too in terms of letting us know about the reality of crypto currency.

Social consensus can somehow create a big mess and into making us believe that we needed big blocks.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

To keep the block generation time equal to ten minutes on average, both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash use an algorithm adjusting the mining difficulty parameter. This algorithm is called the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA). ... After the change, the Bitcoin Cash DAA adjusts the mining difficulty after each block.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

To be honest, discussions are old fashioned in crypto ecosystem. You are totally free to develop something, crypto enthusiasts are free to invest in it or use it. Though I'm not a developer, I am not competent in terms of the working mechanism that going on with the Blockchain. However, no matter how perfect a Blockchain is, if there is no one supporting or adding value on it, it will eventually left behind.

Developers are to develop, people are to use and support. Some things are quite basic. With endless, and maybe pointless, discussions, we are missing out the point that we are the pioneers of the new era. I think like we are at the beginning of the industrial revolution with unique steam trains with each blockchain. Let's shape the new world better for everyone. Thanks dear @micropresident for your consistent support to raise awarenes. Really appreciated.

$ 1.00
11 months ago

gotta say that I really appreciate the history lesson here .. so much to digest, thank you! 🙏

The purpose of his project is an to attempt to implement a different decision making mechanism about what changes are, or are not, including in a bitcoin cash client.

if for nothing else, THIS is the reason that I currently run BCHN

imo, there is an attitude problem at ABC (and from the majority of its supporters), where they believe they ARE Bitcoin Cash, why? I have no idea .. it's Blockstream 2.0 and virtually no one (except the aforementioned) wants THAT!

The "original" attitude of the IFP was, well since no one can agree, fuck it, we're just gonna go ahead and DO IT! and it's repeated actions like that, which leave you constantly digging yourself out of a ditch, wondering why you're always climbing and seemingly going nowhere.

The efforts of @georgedonnelly have dramatically transformed the communication and transparency post-IFP, but the damage was already done and now only time will heal those wounds .. fwiw, I would ❤️ to see cooperation between ABC and BCHN sooner than later, but I ain't holding my breath..

$ 0.50
11 months ago

imo, there is an attitude problem at ABC (and from the majority of its supporters), where they believe they ARE Bitcoin Cash, why? I have no idea .. it's Blockstream 2.0 and virtually no one (except the aforementioned) wants THAT!

So... you're saying that you're inferring intent?

$ 0.50
11 months ago

So... you're saying that you're inferring intent?

i'm saying that it's confusing as fuck! i try so hard to be unbiased and support ABC, but at every turn I see "the team" (almost never Amaury himself) detracting from others .. imo, completely unnecessary to take down others to prop yourself up .. i have a great deal of respect for ABC, but every time I see this, I pull back just a bit

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Saved for the future. Can you please help me with Information so that I can all these terms from scratch . I know I am annoying but please help

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Can't quite understand you. Please clarify.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Sorry for the mistakes. I meant can you help me with resources where I can learn all these informations from scratch because I don't seem to get the meaning of some words thereby causing me to lose focus.
That is what happens on all your articles you are a man of insight but as for me, a young boy trying to cope with the field. Can you help me with resources to start learning?

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Thank you

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Great points in this article.

On this point: "... they failed to gauge that social consensus was not actually on their side."

Practically speaking your comment is accurate. I just want to point out my theory that we actually did have the social consensus of real Bitcoin fans. Sadly, we fell for the fake claims of an army of social engineering agents who pretended to be Bitcoin fans and told us they preferred small blocks and that they were the community majority. I am saying the real community (majority) wanted bigger blocks, but, the majority was fooled into thinking we were a minority of the community. So, we did have the real social consensus, but, we let the tricksters fool us (including the mining community) into thinking we did not.

$ 5.00
11 months ago

This is precisely why looking at social consensus is dangerous when trying to figure out how to accomplish our goals. Had we ran a survey, as freetrader wants, it would have come back "Don't fork, we don't need big blocks!"

$ 0.00
11 months ago

thats why the surveys need PoW and PoS to prove stakeholding.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

If you could limit it to BCH fans a poll might be helpful. If you let anti-BCH elements vote because they have coin or hash power, I think it fails to be useful information.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

If anti bch elements hold a majority of the bch coins and sha hash rate then the war is already lost, .. Satoshi was wrong in his assumptions

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Well he was wrong in that people who are very rich do not want p2p cash to happen anytime soon and they are willing to game the system to get their way (at great cost). Controlling hash or other voting power for short-term voting power is something I would expect if it was an important vote. When you are a minority chain, the incentives are not so clear if the majority hash and market-cap can vote on your chain if they choose to. After all, buying a lot of BCH is a smart idea in the long run since they are having trouble stopping us and, hopefully, it is only a matter of time at this point.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Great points in this article.

On this point: "... they failed to gauge that social consensus was not actually on their side."

Practically speaking your comment is accurate. I just want to point out my theory that we actually did have the social consensus of real Bitcoin fans. Sadly, we fell for the fake claims of an army of social engineering agents who pretended to be Bitcoin fans and told us they preferred small blocks and that they were the community majority. I am saying the real community (majority) wanted bigger blocks, but, the majority was fooled into thinking we were a minority of the community. So, we did have the real social consensus, but, we let the tricksters fool us (including the mining community) into thinking we did not.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Napa ka haba nang iyong artikulo, napa ka husay madami akong na tutunan. Ang gandang basahin, disserve mo ang upvote na binigay sayo..👍👍

$ 0.00
11 months ago

great

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Very insightful blog.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

This is nice article which includes theory and algorithm . I try to understand that what you give us. Thank you for your info to let us to know something better .

$ 1.00
11 months ago

We need a unified client that runs on all nodes that are working right now in the same way that we need a leader to be able to push Bitcoin Cash forward, even if people don't like Bitcoin ABC. I do funnily remember that Bitcoin ABC was the first to fork towards Bitcoin Cash, followed by Bitcoin Unlimited.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

I do funnily remember that Bitcoin ABC was the first to fork towards Bitcoin Cash, followed by Bitcoin Unlimited.

You are right. And as it were, Amaury also implemented most of the code that allowed Bitcoin Unlimited to follow.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

It seems we either need to agree to have someone in charge that makes decisions, or we need a blockchain based voting system where stakeholders can directly vote for any change kind of like I'm seeing in compound.finance.

Otherwise we end up in this endless loop of debate, ego, emotions, feelings, history, pain, and thread of splits. And any threat of split will hurt adoption, price, and brand perception.

$ 0.10
11 months ago

Thats awesome and interesting

$ 0.05
11 months ago

You're 100% right. But, I'm not supportive of any blockchain-based voting system, or I'd be working on Dash or Decred.

I'm here because I believe in Amaury's technical abilities -- in spite of him being an asshole.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

I give Amaury massive credit for helping make BCH happen and consistently working on it all these seemingly thankless years.

Why don't you like blockchain-based voting? Seems it gives stakeholders whether by hash, coins held, or some other way a representative vote. Right now in BCH/BTC there seems no good way to vote which leads to endless Twitter polls, Reddit flame wars, Telegram fights etc.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

I am not directly opposed to blockchain based voting systems. I just don't agree that they are always useful. For example, Bitcoin ABC came much later after Satoshi. We had no earily coins with which to fund development. Why should developers listen to someone just because they can sign a transaction from a UTXO holding significant amounts of Bitcoin? The incentive structure isn't workable, and is why blockstream eventually happened in the first place.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Why should developers listen to someone just because they can sign a transaction from a UTXO holding significant amounts of Bitcoin?

hm.. why should paypal developers listen to paypal shareholders? Because they dont want them to dump their shares and make the project dead?

why should BCH devs listen to @MarcDeMesel, Roger Ver, .. ?

$ 0.00
11 months ago

hm.. why should paypal developers listen to paypal shareholders? Because they dont want them to dump their shares and make the project dead?

Because paypal shareholders are PAYING them?

Neither Roger nor Marc ever have paid me. Roger did donate like 20K to ABC, but I didn't receive any of that. And, this is a fraction of what I've personally spent. Big whoop.

nChain at least got me a standing desk when they found out I had three herniated discs in my back.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

oh man. this comment hurts in so many different ways. Reality is a BCH. Surely that's why so many seem to not be willing to get real.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Yeah, unfortunately there's a platform missing where you could ask the shareholders for your salary or standing desk. That said, let's explore this further so we see if we are on the same page. The block reward is an emission of new shares. So far all this budget went to pow security, however people other than miners need to be paid as well. Developers, sales, marketing, HR, ... However the prerequisite for this is that these devs etc are willing to acknowledge that they are being paid by the share holders and are therefore going to do what the shareholders want. For that, there needs to be a platform where the share holders can vote what it is that they want.

$ 0.00
11 months ago

Fair enough. What do you think the incentive structure should be for protocol/node developers?

$ 1.00
11 months ago

Block reward based funding of some sort. It ensures developer success it tied to

$ 0.00
11 months ago