@noise
Bitcoin Cash is nobody's project, a response to micropresident
I read micropresident's recent post The Cryptocurrency of Theseus and wanted to share my thoughts on some things I take issue with. https://read.cash/@micropresident/the-cryptocurrency-of-theseus-what-is-our-identity-and-why-are-we-fighting-16ff0d1b His post is pretty long, but the TLDR is that Bitcoin Cash is Amaury's project and if we disagree we can take a hike. (While writing this small response, @mtrycz had already published one, which I am in complete agreement with.) https://read.cash/@mtrycz/a-humble-response-to-the-cryptocurrency-of-theseus-8f8c22f6 Bitcoin Cash is a protocol not a single piece of software The main problem with the argument is that micropresident asserts that Bitcoin ABC is Amaury's project, which is hard to disagree with, but extends it to mean that Bitcoin Cash is Amaury's project. Essentially he's making the error that Bitcoin ABC **is** Bitcoin Cash. But this isn't true. Just think about it. What would happen if suddenly all users, exchanges and miners stopped using ABC? Would Bitcoin Cash stop being Bitcoin Cash, and a new cryptocurrency be created? Of course not. It would continue functioning *exactly the same*. But if ABC really defined BCH, this wouldn't be true. Who defines Bitcoin Cash then? Micropresident himself touches on the answer: So that is to say, Bitcoin Cash is the thing which the users agree is Bitcoin Cash and can be used as currency. Nothing more, and nothing less. It's tempting to try to drill deeper into the definition and to figure out exactly what users would agree to be Bitcoin Cash. Micropresident says that thinks that Bitcoin Cash is defined by whatever data ABC produces. But that has absolutely no relevance if others don't follow the same definition. What if they would define Bitcoin Cash by whatever data Bitcoin Unlimited would produce? They've been following the same consensus rules, so what happens if they would differ in the future? Instead we could try to find something that *most* users could agree with. For example: Bitcoin Cash is whatever chain most exchanges assign the BCH ticker to I don't really like this definition either, but I'll bet that it's more correct because more users would agree with this definition over micropresident's. I'll even wager that most people who buy Bitcoin Cash don't even know what Bitcoin ABC is! There are many other definitions you might use, such as defining Bitcoin Cash as the longest chain starting from the split from Bitcoin or as whatever Faketoshi says it is. We might even face a situation where two significant groups disagree about "the right chain", which of course was a big part of the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash split. To the agitation of engineers everywhere I think it's impossible to find an objectively true and detailed definition of what defines Bitcoin Cash, because everything is subjective. (If you'd like to learn more about economics look up the Subjective theory of value which is related to this concept.) https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value Monero fired their benevolent dictator Micropresident argues that we **cannot** kick Amaury, as in we cannot because it's impossible. Yet Monero did exactly this when people disagreed with the direction of the project, and a new team took control of the project while firing the old team. See this stackexchange answer for some history. https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1011/monero-inception-how-did-bitmonero-become-monero Impossible? No, it's just difficult to get the community on board. Unthoughtful and ignorant, stupid or malicious Although the article is heavily arguing that ABC == BCH (as all ABC supporters seem to do), I do appreciate micropresident writing the article. But I do not appreciate this remark: The people who continue to battle over who gets to be “in charge” can reasonably be assumed to be: unthoughtful and ignorant, stupid, or malicious. I will be referring to this letter in all future discussions that draw into question Amaury’s right to lead his own project. Those of us who want to move forward cannot endlessly spend time debating people who are willfully ignorant, stupid, or malicious. Here he's essentially calling anyone who disagrees with him "unthoughtful and ignorant, stupid, or malicious". This is the same type of argumentation that BTC maximalists, flat earthers and anti-vaxxers use to dismiss anything that goes against their opinions and it should have no place in our mission for p2p digital cash. It's something only someone who's unthoughtful, ignorant, stupid or malicious could write.
27 comments
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't believe anyone should be in charge of BCH. We need to all work together as a team and grow the BCH community. I am here for peer-to-peer electronic cash.
"Should be" is not a statement with any practical meaning. It's an ideological position.
I generally think that the word "should" is an ambiguous, detrimental word to making a point. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have practical meaning. It just means that it's impossible to tell what practical meaning was intended. It's pretty obvious, given the comment that you're replying to, though, that the intent is something along the lines of "I think BCH would be better off without any one person in charge", and of course then you have to get into what they mean by "better off", and what metrics they think are valuable in that assessment... So a reasonable response would be to ask *what* practical meaning they think is behind their statement, not just to assert that there isn't any practical meaning.
There isn't. It's clear for everyone who listens. As long as you won't accept ever changing hollow meanings.
There is. It's clear for everyone who listens. As long as you're willing to accept that sometimes people are vague and not effective communicators but do actually mean something.
I agree 100%
You should avoid conflating flat-earthers with antivaxxers since it's clear you know nothing about the subject and hence you make yourself look very ignorant. About the rest, I agree.
> His post is pretty long, but the TLDR is that Bitcoin Cash is Amaury's project and if we disagree we can take a hike. This is fairly disingenuous. I am, as a pragmatist, warning you that you are wasting your time if people continue on this path. Not that you "can take a hike" but that you "should take a hike" if you value your time and energy. > Just think about it. What would happen if suddenly all users, exchanges and miners stopped using ABC? Would Bitcoin Cash stop being Bitcoin Cash, and a new cryptocurrency be created? I agree with this point, but this isn't the reality of what would happen. *Some* users would stop using ABC, and what then? There is no threshold besides 100% that can change the social agreement as to what Bitcoin Cash is. > Of course not. It would continue functioning exactly the same. But if ABC really defined BCH, this wouldn't be true. This is an incorrect inference regarding the nature of identity. Naming and understanding is always based on social consensus -- something you won't reach. If you could reach it, then my argument would be case -- but as reality stands, you cannot. > Yet Monero did exactly this when people disagreed with the direction of the project, and a new team took control of the project while firing the old team From your own citation: "in conjunction with a name change." The new project did not have the same identity as the old project. Your argument doesn't hold water here. > Although the article is heavily arguing that ABC == BCH (as all ABC supporters seem to do), I do appreciate micropresident writing the article. But I do not appreciate this remark: I don't think anyone else is arguing that but me. And I'm not doing it because I want that to be the case -- I am stating my observations and my understanding based on what I've seen. > Here he's essentially calling anyone who disagrees with him "unthoughtful and ignorant, stupid, or malicious". You are demonstrating your unthoughtfulness with your response. You have been given all the information by someone who used to work directly on the project about how things operate and you are sticking your head in the sand. So yes, now you are being unthoughtful, and willfully ignorant. Nevertheless, I tipped you $5 for visibility.
Alright..👍👍👍
I agree BCH is not equal to ABC. That said, ABC currently makes the final decisions on what code changes are made. This is because the community supports ABC's decisions. The community owns BCH. That is why the attackers are trying to split up the community again. I have no problem supporting a new leader if they have a team that can do all the work and prove they have better ideas for moving BCH forward. Opposing one idea and being willing to fork the coin over it is not the same thing.
I believe this so much the people around a leader can also make him a better leader
# $5 tip for Visibility?. Well, there is always a ideological difference while evaluating a practical scenario but that doesn't mean one is winner and others are ignorant. In fact, if Marx was right, so does Adam Smith. Irony is, both are 'visible' in History and respected in Economy. If someone had given a tip for remarkable work, generally one doesn't mention about it.
the downvotes are ridiculous and ugly. Like everything else coming from this side of the isle.
from there comes from coming, majority. that cantinflas was stupid to try to define the word micropresident, for each one that is considered, that if he is not crazy he is missing little, and that is why the micropresidents are eliminated, to make way to a society where the majority rule.
i agree. thank you for the thoughts i want to hear more from you . good luck anf keep it up
Thank you for this. I've had a good time reading your article. keep it up.
But some of companies right now accepting BCH payments. https://read.cash/@Hiecho/brewdog-in-tokyo-accept-bch-payment-b25438f8
Great, this is enough to convince him on the subject matter. Many people would surely gain from this. Thank you
Again the discussion of BCH ABC is resumed ... hopefully it does not end up triggering a market crash as it was about to happen the last time.
👏👏
Thanks for the info. Bitcoin cash is still kickin
As a student Bitcoin cash is really helpful
Good to know about what bitcoin wants to achieve.
It is important to acknowledge the development team of BCH. for I know BCH communitty is the one who owns the Bitcoin Cash
We acknowledge the teams contributions, yet if someone would "own" BCH there was enterily opposite to the decentralization we were seeking in the first place.
This gives us some info that we didn't really know nor thought about.
Here's my infographic: > BTC doesn't work well Hey let's fork > BCH is faster, cheaper, but not enough funding Hey let's fork ABC == BCH Hey, dictatorship!