Responding to mtrycz’s “A humble response to The Cryptocurrency of Theseus”
You define BCH as numbers produced by Mr Sechet's software. I propose a different definition: it's the numbers produced by the BCH protocol. You could claim that it's the same, claiming ABC is BCH. I think it's the source of our disagreement.
I want to clarify a point with regards to the above statement. The claim I was making is that these are numbers produced by the BCH Protocol, just like you say in your article. However, I also argue that the definition of the BCH protocol is defined by what is validated by the Bitcoin ABC software.
I had joined BCH to avoid capture of Bitcoin by a single entity, which for BTC is Bitcoin Core. I thought at the time that decentralised development was unique to BCH and it's strongest asset for the development of a decentralised protocol.
Bitcoin Cash is a decentralized protocol, but this is orthogonal to a decentralized software or decentralized protocol definitions. It is a necessary condition that, in order to have a language or protocol, you must have a shared understanding. Computers, unlike people, cannot coalesce into a shared consensus of language. There must be some organization which sets a strict protocol that software accepts. This is independent of what any of us *wish* to be the case.
This is the nature of Bitcoin. It’s why we had to fork away and create Bitcoin Cash. Nothing has changed in this respect when the fork on Aug 1st 2017 occurred. Had the options we wish for actually existed then, and now, we would use them.
Decentralised development of a decentralised protocol is something that has never been tried before, not that I'm aware of.
Indeed, it has been tried, and it doesn’t work because ultimately the differing pieces of software will no longer be able to speak the same language. This is a Tower of Babel problem.
BCH could have avoided a lot of animosity if development was more publicly evidence-based. And this is the main reason I joined BCHN.
I’m going to refer to a recent article from David Allen to respond to this point.
I think that on the basis of your article you think I'm "willfully ignorant, stupid, or malicious"
It is not my belief that you were willfully ignorant. My point is that, now having been made fully aware of the reality of cryptocurrency development -- in all cryptocurrencies -- if you choose to hold to your ideology, you are being willfully ignorant.
My points of disagreements were twofold: 1) I believe it alters Bitcoin's economic model in a disruptive way and 2) the way the thing was handled by ABC
The “way the thing was handled by ABC” is very vague. How was it handled by ABC? The repeated narrative, and I assume you are pointing to this, does not align with what actually occurred.
Momentum had built up against the IFP, and out of that momentum BCHN was founded. I joined BCHN because I wanted to support that momentum.
I’m glad for that, but your motivation is founded on faulty assumptions. And, you could have joined the momentum around ABC at any point in time over the last three years. The primary point of contention with ABC is that they are not communicative, and not being transparent enough. This has always been due to a shortage of manpower. People have chosen not to participate.
Now, when the time is dire for Bitcon Cash and ABC -- instead of coming in to assist and help -- an alternative project was launched even with many others already in existence. To nearly every outside observer -- given the resentful people that started it -- this is extremely counterproductive.
There is a common misconception that BCHN wants to replace ABC and be “in charge” of BCH, and you argue as much in your article. That's not the point.
I think freetrader, maintainer of Bitcoin Cash Node, should clearly state what his goals are then. It seems only to be there to provide an alternative to ABC in the case where they are perceived to be doing the “wrong thing” again. And in that sense, it is there to become “in charge” of BCH if something were to happen.
But, again, instead of helping and collaborating, it was founded on resistance. The IFP would have never been proposed or needed if the same kind of energy was applied to assisting Amaury instead of what amounts to a rebellion.
I say, let's not have one single Lead Maintainer. The point is a push for evidence-based decentralised development, where multiple teams cooperate on the protocol and compete on the implementation/performance/features.
Firstly, there is an implication here that ABC does not, and has not, been doing evidence based development. That simply does not match reality. ABC was always very methodological in what changes needed to happen, and in what order they are prioritized.
And again, this is an ideological argument, it doesn’t pass the test of pragmatic investigation. What does evidence-based in this case mean? Who decides? Someone has to decide to include code in implementations. Any one implementation has veto power over features if there is, in fact, a spattering of node software in use. Any effort to push forward on protocol changes will result in a network split, and two different currencies.
If you want to be evidence-based, first examine the practicalities of network protocols, software development, and economic and legal incentives for exchanges and miners.
Alternative node developers are anything-but evidence based.
We are all different. But we can try to discuss and come to an agreement, or at least try. BCH has actually no shortage of talent, Mr Sechet, you, Mr Rizun, freetrader, Mr Zander, Mr Culianu, Mr Toomim, and tens of other named and pseudonymous competent engineers work on BCH to make it better. Let's try.
I’m going to again refer to a recent article from David Allen to respond to this point. A tree is judged by its fruit. Good talent yields good, and useful code. Bad talent talks, complains, and does nothing of value. Not everyone on your list provides good and useful code.
Mr. Rizun, Freetrader, and Mr Zander were all invited to developer meetings and refused to attend with any regularity. How can you collaborate with people who won’t show up to discuss anything?
I find it also perfectly possible (reasonable, actually) to disagree or criticize ABC/Mr Sechet without this being an attack. A disagreement or a critique doesn't cancel respect or gratitude for all the work, either.
Absolutely, and I did critique Amaury, and I do disagree with him quite a bit. I’m not discussing people who do as I do, and give constructive criticism. Read through r/btc and you’ll see people outright lying and slandering Amaury.
There is also the idea floating around that BCHN was created to fork BCH again. This is unfounded. BCHN wants to collaborate with everyone for the furtherment of BCH. It also happens that implementing the IFP is seen as sacrificing a fundamental property of what makes BCH what it is on its way to becoming world money.
Nobody is confused about what the stated intent is for the so-called “Bitcoin Cash” Node. Freetrader is not interested in collaborating, he was invited many times to do so. He talks about evidence-based development, but then refuses to follow any evidence-based methodology. Rough consensus is the standard for protocol development, other mechanisms have been tried -- including the polls that Freetrader has tried to use in the past.
And at the same time, he has refused to show up to any development meetings for the last three years. Yet he speaks of wanting to collaborate.
ABC has put out its hand in collaboration with all of these individuals many many times -- I know because I came in as a neutral party and was part of these attempts.