Amaury is irrelevant, until he isn't

I stopped mining bch a while back when the network failed to mine a block for hours.

Anyway I hope something changes soon.

https://blog.bitcoinabc.org/2020/07/23/announcing-the-grasberg-daa/

So Grasberg is a modified form of ASERT? That seems to be a nice compromise. Unless Toomin and ABC team were shouting in those debate videos.

All I remember was that everyone was very cautious about accepting it with the prediction that in fact was about to come through: No submission of the code for ABC to review in time. So instead of 'gatekeeping' or whatnot, Amaury again 'compromised' like he actually always does while hating to do it, in light of 'the community' expecting it from him, he simply went on to come up with a proposal that actually can be implemented in the next update.

There might be a few technical issues for other devs, like Silverblood pointed out, and it is important to commuinicate and clarify them. But again 90% of the rest is creating dramatic narratives. Focus on the 10% real issues raised and connect to ABC.

See where it goes. Pretty sure it's possible to come to a conclusion.

Roger Ver is in no way in charge of BCH. I must say it is eye-opening to see so many people in the industry, even BCH miners, that do not know the lead dev of ABC who created the BCH fork in the first place or think for whatever reason, that Roger has any more than marketing and investment influence, which any other person with capital would have as well. I think many people dismiss BCH as well on these grounds, because they hold grudges against Ver, justified or not, which is also a huge issue for BCH. I am thinking about big players like Paxful. I can only speculate, but it looks like decisions to support BCH next to BTC are tainted by CEOs that think its 'RogerCoin', while it actually would fit their intended use case much much better.

Facts. I literally thought Roger Ver and Jihan wu run BCH, I'm going to do more research about the devs but they really need to show their faces and build a community of users as read.cash is the only site I've met other users using BCH no one even talks about it on twitter anymore.

People like you.

Holders of Bitcoin Cash are not investors. That would imply they made an investment in some team that is doing work. They have not. ABC does not issue coins or profit from them.

so because the programmers working for Apple dont issue tokens, the AAPL shareholders are not investors?

I do have feelings regarding Amaury. I don't have feelings FOR Amaury. I'm happy dating a lovely woman.

Ok then

It is not a better proposal, and we've been over this. I'd be happy to engage you in a public, formal, written debate.

Part of the divide is that you believe many of these opponents to ABC are actors of "ego done wrong", but others (myself included, to an extent) believe some of the issues raised are reflections of "ego done right."

I don't agree with assessments like ego done wrong. I don't think there are wrong emotions. Frustration is a secondary emotion, just like anger -- though they often appear together. My assessment should probably have included frustration as in "anger or frustration." My oversight.

There have been very good contributions by people from the community.

I agree.

he has not given them the open mind and collaborative spirit that is expected of someone so influential in the space

I agree.

Amaury can't keep touting himself "benevolent dictator" of anything if the adjective is just a catchy part of the phrase.

I have told him many times that "benevolent dictator" is not a title you can give yourself; although he has. Benevolent dictator is a title given to you by the people you work with.

Is this an unpopular opinion?

There is certainly a huge divide on the topic. See the responses to my previous article: https://read.cash/@micropresident/the-cryptocurrency-of-theseus-what-is-our-identity-and-why-are-we-fighting-16ff0d1b

And the reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/hi5eo3/the_cryptocurrency_of_theseus_what_is_the/

That being said, expecting that someone "should, or should not do, particular things" is not blasphemous

I'm not arguing that it is blasphemous. I'm arguing that it's not practical. You have a 35 year old man, whom you have observed for 3 years, and still expect him to behave as if he is someone he is not.

I hope not. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't even think most of the "opposition" really want that either. They just want Amaury to understand the responsibilities of his position to it's full extent, including the less attractive aspects of it.

I think that depends on the individual you're talking about. There is definitely a cohort of people who think that the decision making mechanism needs to be replaced. There are comments all over telegram chats, reddit, and various slacks.

the fact that the Grasberg DAA was published so quickly, officially and matter-of-factly feels disingenuous at best

The Grasberg DAA was published so "quickly" because it was being actively worked on for weeks prior. It seems to me, that any time ABC publishes a proposal it is immediately met with criticism -- criticism that they even published something.

I think the problem is that it came with a matter-of-factly statement; but that's not what people complain about -- including you just now. At some point, something has to be published.

Try and see the same people you've become frustrated with as potential other versions of yourself.

Is this advice to me? I'm not at odds with any of these individuals, but I am tired of the behavior of constantly trying to replace the decision making mechanism without a clear plan for something else workable.

It's constant drama, but no real plan to succeed. I will continue to point that out until they create a better mechanism, and take steps to make it real.

I don't want this to take over the comments, so i'll try and be brief in my responses:

I don't agree with assessments like ego done wrong. I don't think there are wrong emotions. Frustration is a secondary emotion, just like anger -- though they often appear together. My assessment should probably have included frustration as in "anger or frustration." My oversight.

My point wasn't that there are wrong emotions. I was trying to explain the merit of those emotions relative to the stated goal. As a third party, I think it is good to "step in" from time to time to try and understand why things got to where they are now and where they may be going (that includes emotional responses).

There is certainly a huge divide on the topic.

Asking "is this an unpopular opinion?" was a bit playful. I'm very aware there are some people at the extremes with others that support a "change in power". Even still, I think there are enough in the silent majority that this is not reflective of a huge divide. I'll admit that I do not have numbers and I could be wrong.

I'm arguing that it's not practical. You have a 35 year old man, whom you have observed for 3 years, and still expect him to behave as if he is someone he is not.

That would be the point of "social pressure." It doesn't have to be toxic. In fact, I would urge people closer to Amaury, not further away, to be those who criticize him as they'll be the most practical and most effective. Not to "change him", but to give him more perspective on things as they are.

I missed your linked article, but I read it now and it's very good. I read the Reddit discussions from time to time, but cannot say i'm aware of all of them.

The Grasberg DAA was published so "quickly" because it was being actively worked on for weeks prior. It seems to me, that any time ABC publishes a proposal it is immediately met with criticism -- criticism that they even published something. I think the problem is that it came with a matter-of-factly statement; but that's not what people complain about -- including you just now. At some point, something has to be published.

Isn't this a part of the issue? Working on something for weeks that is by default incompatible with other node implementations? Why was this not brought up before, or even during the DAA developer meeting? It feels like a "don't show the cards in your hand until you're ready to play them" move, one which the DAA meeting was trying to make irrelevant, amicably. Further, it only strengthens the view of some important people that George's "You do you. We will do us." is less about healthy meritocratic competition and more about categorizing and alienating.

The matter-of-fact statement IS part of what I was complaining about (but yes, it is amongst other things).

Is this advice to me? I'm not at odds with any of these individuals, but I am tired of the behavior of constantly trying to replace the decision making mechanism without a clear plan for something else workable.

No, it was addressed to "Developers, maintainers etc." from the line before. It was a general comment about clearing heads and regrouping.

It's constant drama, but no real plan to succeed. I will continue to point that out until they create a better mechanism, and take steps to make it real.

As you should. The vast majority of us really do just want a better future through BCH. Healthy public discourse is essential to that.