I was recently asked by Shadow of Harbringer to answer questions about the IFP, because I disagreed with him about what happened. Many people are still making assertions about the nefarious nature 👻 of the IFP - that ABC (read: Amaury Sechet) is unilaterally co-opting Bitcoin Cash. (This is ironic given that the complaint supposes its own problem. That is to say, Amaury must have already co-opted Bitcoin Cash if he has the power to unilaterally co-opt it.)
Now, I was not involved any any of the decision making process regarding the IFP -- except that I initially proposed developer funding from the block reward in 2018. A proposal which was originally accepted -- until nChain started a propaganda campaign labeling it a tax. In reality, the motivation was that development would be funded independently of them, preventing them from becoming the next Blockstream -- and they would be unable to capitalize on their patents.
However, questions that Shadow Of Harbringer cited do not require me to be familiar with the inner-workings of the IFP in order to answer. In fact, anyone can answer them for themselves. Fundamentally, I disagree with the framing of the questions as a whole, and my answers seek to obviate, rather than answer.
As a group of libertarians, voluntaryists, anarchocapitalists, and pragmatists (myself being the lone wolf in this final category I suppose). I hope we can examine the implicit framing in these questions, and see past them to market-based solutions to supposed problems that stem from a desire for democracy and collectivism.
I will also state, again, that I don't like the exact mechanism of the previous (and now defeated) IFP. Yet, I do believe that some form of funding, from the Block reward, is necessary if Bitcoin Cash is to succeed.
Here are my answers to the questions:
Presumably, some people looked around at all the projects providing useful products. Ascertained if they were in fact a "public good" (by the technical definition). And then added them to the list, which then Amaury added to the code through a commit.
How do you think it should happen? I wrote in depth about what I think should happen.
The transparency audit is on the blockchain. If miners aren't comfortable with the information the organization is exposing, then they shouldn't donate to them. Not every one of these things needs to be solved through complicated processes -- market incentives are enough to drive it.
Social petitioning, just like was done to stop it from being done in the first place. If you have the power to stop it, you can change it.
This list is intended to fund public works. Why would you add other stuff? Presumably you could through the same mechanism as above.
Why do we need a formal committee when market incentives are enough to result in a pragmatic solution?
The framing presumes that these things are needed. I don't want such a system. I want a system where funds go to trustworthy individuals - individuals who are experts on what needs to be done, and are distributed accordingly. They'll likely produce transparency reports. If they don't, miners won't continue to send them funds, and users won't continue to use Bitcoin Cash.
The same one that was used to block it from being implemented in the first place.
Yes, by not using BCH. Vote with your feet. Stop pretending to be powerless.
What if your country makes cryptocurrency illegal? 🙄 You're asking the wrong people, and if your country does, move or stop using it.