BCH Dev Fund: A Response from an Opposing Mining Group (SEE UPDATE INSIDE)

55 3363

EDIT: We have taken notice of Bitcoin.com post here. We trust Bitcoin.com are going to be able to convince the rest of the signatories to severely amend the IFP. We are therefore standing down and will not start our competing pool for the time being and will continue to support the BCH pools instead.

We would also like to thank the community to be able to have such a civilized discussion over this issue.

An Introduction First

You will need to excuse ourselves for the tardiness in this reply, unlike the group of mining pools, we did not get time to prepare articles in advance and whip up our troops!

We are a group of North American and European miners representing, at this point in time, 1.6 exahash/s. We will represent 2.5 exahash/s come May 2020 due to expansion amongst our companies.

We are staunch Bitcoin Cash proponents since the first days, and have been Bitcoin supporters and Big Block supporters for a very long time. Unfortunately most of you do not know us, we are mostly inactive in BCH social media groups, preferring to hang out with our fellow miners in mining discussion groups. Unfortunately, we must remain anonymous at this time due to fear of retaliation from the four signatories of the proposal.

We want to preface this by saying that we are empathic with protocol developers lack of funding, we are not opposing paying developers for their work appropriately, and that it is imperative that this issue gets fixed long term.

Note: we will reply to Jiang Zhuo Er original medium post before being edits, available on the wayback machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20200123082358/https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoer/infrastructure-funding-plan-for-bitcoin-cash-131fdcd2412e

A Cultural Problem

The proposal made by BTC.TOP's CEO Jiang Zhuo Er totally miss the mark on optics over several points. The citation of Chinese Communists Party Deng Xiao Ping philosophy as a guiding precept for Bitcoin Cash is definitely not well received in our rank.

While we don't have much issue with the citation of "Cat philosophy" and "River philosophy" which we interpreted as mere cute Chinese poems, we definitely have concerns at the inclusion of the "Non-Debate Theory".

Mr. Zhuo Er claim that "this debate has been long enough, instead of continuing this pointless debate [...]". We are quite surprised at this claim since as far as we know this is the first time this has been proposed. Who was Mr. Zhuo Er busy debating exactly? Definitely not us, or any one that we pooled.

Mining Pools Are Not Miners

Mining pools are not miners. Some mining pool happen to also own hashrate that they use on their own pool, we call that "self-mining". It usually amount to a fairly low percentage of the actual pool. A mining pool is a service offered to real miners, in exchange for a small fee. At no point in time are they free to act with this hashrate as if it was their own. The history of Bitcoin is littered with dead mining pool that tried to do exactly just that.

We are all customers of the signatory pools. No one in our group are actually using other pools as we preferred to support BCH proponents. It is totally unfair and unethical that our mining pools uses our hashrate, after charging us a very significant fee to use their services, to force us into a tax.

It is even more unfair that these mining pools are not going to contribute at all. Beside BTC.TOP that has a large amount of self-mining, the other pools are NOT self-mining BCH, they will therefore NOT be affected by the tax and will not be contributing to the fund themselves.

Bitcoin Cash Is Already Under Attack

We can not spare any hashrate at this point in time. Bitcoin Cash difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) has been gamed for the past year or more resulting in very unreliable block times and a lot of suffering for the actual users. We are not switch miners, we currently send between 20-50% of our individual mines toward Bitcoin Cash, the rest is used to mine Bitcoin until Bitcoin Cash price recovers. We do not switch our hashrate between the two currency and we do not use any auto-profit algorithm offered by the pools.

After we lose half our hashrate as we half our block reward several weeks ahead of Bitcoin, and lose another 12.5% hashrate on top of this, we worry about the viability of the currency. Almost all pools in existence and about 20 mining farm will have more hashrate than the Bitcoin Cash network at that point. The network is in a very precarious position and we worry that our opponent will use this to destroy our currency.

"Other Mining Pools" are most of the time a single miner

We also need to point out that BTC.TOP have been one of the main culprit of the attacks on DAA since its inception. They were the one that started that trend, even if they were replaced by another miner since then. They have profited plenty from these attacks, and the users have suffered through unreliable block times.

One of numeral BTC.TOP DAA attacks.

Undue Influences

We used to have a long paragraph here but we find Peter Rizun article better than explanation, so we urge you reader to go read it after you are done reading our article.

https://read.cash/@PeterRizun/the-best-of-intentions-the-dev-tax-is-intended-to-benefit-investors-but-will-corrupt-us-instead-012f5dbd

It's Not a Tax

It is absolutely a tax.

It is a compulsory charge, levied by a group in position of power (the signatories along with Bitcoin ABC) in order to fund various public expenditures. A failure to pay will lead to block orphaning.

We would agree that it would not be a tax is the consensus layer would not be changed and miners actually agreed upon themselves to do this. It would be sound game theory indeed.

The problem is that the consensus layer will be changed in a hard fork on May 15th 2020. Therefore even if miners disagree with that measure and the proposal never reaches 51% in support, the disagreeing miners blocks will get orphaned. The exchanges are going to run the new ruleset and will follow the taxed chain, even if it has way less hashrate than the tax-free chain.

This is therefore, a group in position of power coercing another group into a tax.

What Are We Going To Do?

As we noted a in the prior paragraph, we have our back against the wall and the four signatories will not debate this totally unacceptable proposal with anyone.

We will start withdrawing our support for the signatory pools and move to other pools for the time being. We will in the short term launch a competing BCH pool to offer a voice to miners that disagree with the proposal. We will voluntary donate a 1% of our income to development teams while offering a voice to our miners on how to donate it.

Assuming the proposal is not withdrawn, or modified to be acceptable, we will continue to mine up to the hard fork, which will create our own chain after the fork due to the consensus rule change introduced by the signatories. We definitely plan to obtain more hashrate than the signatories can muster. The market will need to decide in the days following the fork.

We hope the signatories will see the light and remove their "non-debate" clause.

EDIT: If the signatories would decide to reconsider their non-debate clause and take in consideration the comments made by the BCH community, we hope that the BCH supporting pool will implement a way for their miners to donate voluntary like we have suggested here. There exists also several ways to make the BTC.TOP proposal acceptable in our eyes, they must do better.

EDIT2: A list of other BCH miners who disagree with the proposal, in one form or another:

$ 2220.63
$ 2000.00 from @ancient.stone
$ 100.00 from @MarcDeMesel
$ 90.87 from @HeKaz
+ 27
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

Any updates?

$ 0.00
1 week ago

I expect many social engineering agents and miners who are not really pro-BCH to make these often-repetitive arguments while claiming to be Pro-BCH. I accept that truly pro-BCH miners cannot safely admit to that stance due to the massive powerful forces that oppose peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. So, this could be a fake friend of BCH or a real one. I believe most who print articles opposed to letting miners fund BCH developers are not really pro-BCH.

I agree the original proposal would benefit from a lot of improvements including letting miners (instead of pool operators) make the decision(s) and not sending the donations to a single censorable depository. I suggest creating or designating pools for miners to join as a way of showing support for the funding mechanism. I believe there are many truly pro-BCH miners who would be willing to sacrifice/donate less than 1% of their mining rewards to a fair BCH developer distribution system.

I assume most miners are not serious BCH supporters who see the long-term value of providing significant support for BCH development very soon. I am OK with their opinions so long as they are not allowed to control BCH's ability to achieve the original dream of Bitcoin. I believe there are many miners who DO understand the importance of getting scaling on BCH quickly and would support such pools. If I am mistaken about BCH having serious miner support, This could also be a way to show that we should cower at the demands of the less friendly miners.

$ 0.00
1 week ago

we will see what will happen

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Compulsory fees do not work because there is a high risk of tax consequences. Funding must therefore be voluntary. Transparency and an open culture of ideas are essential: 1. Public collection and evaluation of all ideas 2. Directory of all developers including compensation

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

This world was whatever it was if it wasn't for the competition. And if we all agreed on something it would be a world...

The Proposal opens an interesting debate about an objective contribution, which has been done subjectively, every company that develops bitcoin in all these 10 years has given enormous contributions to developers, and I think this debate will attract a big solution for a kind of distribution of resources to add more developers and also the market is shown in a more positive scheme.

$ 15.00
3 weeks ago

"We will voluntary donate a 1% of our income to development teams while offering a voice to our miners on how to donate it."

Is this a joke? You, as a miner, are ok with the Devs struggling for money? The proposal is made such that everybody wins long term. Miners pay the Devs by selling 12.5% of coinbase to users in order to support the network as a whole.

If you cared about the long term viability of Bitcoin Cash you would see this donation as an investment in a network you support, but from what I'm reading all you are is short term gains. Go mine something else for 6 months if all you care about are short term gains.

$ 10.07
3 weeks ago

Why do you feel entitled to someone else's money? They are mining your coin and helping make it secure, and you are telling them whether this is a joke because you want them to do MORE for you for free?

The proposal is made such that everybody wins long term.

This sentence has been used to support every single central plan in history.

How about you take the risk of being wrong about this claim? Take a loan from the bank, pay the miners that 12.5% that they will be donating to the fund, and they will pay you back the same money plus whatever extra they make when the plan starting making everyone richer. But if the plan fails to make everyone richer, they pay you back nothing, and you are left with a debt. If you really think that the plan is brilliant, you should be able to do this. Just ask some big holder who is pro-fund-plan to loan you the money.

In fact, why aren't those who view the plan as good investment already doing that?

$ 5.50
3 weeks ago

You're not making any sense. You don't understand how Bitcoin works, but this doesn't matter anymore.

If the community cared about BCH we would have enough funds for the Devs. Sad day for BCH!

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Your avoided to answer why you, or anyone or your side, are unwilling to take the risk that you want to force the miners on my side to take. You said that the plan is a good investement for everyone, yet you don't seem to be willing to take that investement yourself.

If the community cared about BCH

No version of Bitcoin has or had a committee deciding who to give the block reward to. In fact the whitepaper already says who should be getting the block reward, and you think it is a sad day that the community is trying to stick to the whitepaper? We care about BCH too much to allow some miners to force their plans on the rest of the network. We care too much to risk letting it slowly turn into Dash. We care too much to do weird experiments with soft-forks after splitting from BTC partially because we wanted to avoid a soft-fork per se. And you care about BCH enough to be willing to try all of the above to secure development funds. On both sides, people care about BCH so stop accusing people of not caring.

we would have enough funds for the Devs.

And less funds to do other things. You are stating the obvious. The questions are: 1) Whether a committee is even able to decide correctly about how much funds should go to development instead of going to other things like security, marketing, tool development? 2) Should we allow miners to collude and form a committee to punish other miners for not helping enough? Cause even if they are just mining, they are already helping. 3) Is this the first step on a slippery slope that will turn BCH into Dash without even doing a hard-fork to allow us that disagree with it to split away from it?

Sad day for BCH!

There is nothing sad in discussing important things and there is nothing sad with people honestly disagreeing over radical changes to the coin.

$ 10.00
3 weeks ago

Actually we are suggesting a long-term funding plan to developers instead of a 6 month stint that is going nowhere. 1% of income represents 1.2M$ per year (after halving, at current valuation). This is a far cry from "struggling for money". I respect your opinion that you prefer BTC.TOP plan, however it is pretty sad this is the only point you have understood here.

"Go mine something else for 6 months if all you care about are short term gains."

I am sorry, that's not something we are able to do, despite what you have been convinced by pools. Pools are not miners and they don't know what mining entails. When we invest and prepare plans for years to come, we don't assume the rule will change in the middle of it.

$ 1.12
3 weeks ago

I'd rather we all take a hit for 6 months, but we accomplish something we could do in 6 years...

Said every single person on the planet who supported a “temporary tax.”

Ask the people of Illinois how their “temporary 1-year toll on roads” turned out. It was only 20 cents to drive on the tollway for “only one year“ — to fund “very important things”!!

Here we are, 50 years later, and you can’t even drive a few kilometers without paying yet another $5.oo to keep driving. Yes, $5.00 every few kilometers.

This is just one small example out of every single example in human history.

$ 10.60
3 weeks ago

By your calculations it would take 6 years for something we could accomplish in 6 months. I do not support this plan. I'd rather we all take a hit for 6 months, but we accomplish something we could do in 6 years...

I also respect your opinion, this is why I am replying to this post. I prefer the BTC.TOP plan because it's a good plan. I am not affiliated with anybody. I, as a user, read what a large % of miners are saying and realise it's a win win for everybody. Even if I take a hit on my $ value of my holdings, I care about the next decade, not the next 6 months.

Regarding your pools statement, these large pools that came out with the BTC.TOP plan also own and run large mining operations. They also invest and prepare for years to come. This plan is an investment in the future of the network.

I hope not to lose you miners from BCH, but you can't deny, that while we are all taking a hit for 6 months, the ROI is going to be huge for us as a whole. So again, short term we all take a dive, but long term we are all winning.

$ 0.50
3 weeks ago

Yes, 1.2M$ (at current valuation) is PLENTY for our scale to ensure competing team can be well funded. What is great is that the funding scale with the valuation of the coin, helping it to sustain when growth finally comes with the funding they need for that specific size.

With 6 million, you get 6 million dollar, forever. When it is gone, it's gone, and the only way to get more is to go through this, yet again. We don't even know how the Hong Kong company plan to keep the funds in. They might as well sell for USD and have a very large tax bill to pay.

We propose a durable funding that is a win/win solution for everyone involved and do not put anyone in position to have undue influence on the network. A solution that assure the network will be able to pay for the developers it needs at the scale its at.

To answer your point about pools mining, we know for a fact that Bitcoin.com, ViaBTC and Bitmain are not self-mining BCH, two of those don't have self-hashrate at all, the other is mining BTC. Yes BTC.TOP does control a reasonable percentage of their pool in term of self-mining, however they do not use it primarily to do switch mining with the problem we highlighted. They are simply not miners.

To answer your point on ROI, money do not guarantee return on investment. It doesn't even guarantee that developer will work at all. We think it is a unreasonable assertion to say that there will be extraordinary ROI since no plan at all was proposed on what to do with the money, no budget was proposed, no timeline, and no way to evaluate success besides "more money means good". Well BCH just pumped 125% or so in the last few weeks and there has definitely been no development done.

Glad the community can have reasonable discussions.

$ 1.01
3 weeks ago

I would also like to thank you for having this reasonable discussions with the community.

Regarding ROI, we can never be sure about what happens with the money, but this being done by the largest miners on BCH, we can assume they have the best interest of the network on their mind. I am of the opinion that Bitcoin is still an experiment and we are still learning how to deal with everything. We saw the Blockstream and nChain model and I think we can both agree that this is not something we want for BCH.

I agree with you that they need to work on the way funds are going to be allocated. But I also believe these funds will be used to work our Roadmap: https://www.bitcoincash.org/roadmap.html

Saying otherwise means the community is not listening to what the Miners and Devs are saying.

Now, you say you will donate 1% for the next 6 years. What happens when your pool doesn't mine anymore because of insert excuse here. You say you want to provide 1% for the next 6 years, but we have no assurance that you will even be relevant in 6 years. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? This is why I don't like this plan. It's for too long in the future.

That's why I'm OK with the BTC.TOP plan. All major players working together for 6 months NOW. Not in 6 years. NOW. That is a short term plan we can all get behind. We don't know what the future holds, but we can know that for 6 months we are all working together on this plan.

Anyway, I wish we all get our shit together and work as a team. Bitcoin Cash needs all of it's participants working together, or else we are doomed to fail.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Again, they are not a miner, they are a pool. They are not invested in BCH or mining (not to the extent of their pool size anyway). Assuming they have the network best interest is a stretch, and totally against Bitcoin ethos.

As far as working on the roadmap: yes maybe. We believe other stuff are more important at this point, like improving and maintaining Bitcoin ABC, as well as a ton of other software around Bitcoin cash like Electron Cash, Cashshuffle, all the other nodes that no one talk about, we would like to say BCHD in a advanced state that can be used to mine, etc. As far as the roadmap goes, there are several items in there that we do not agree on, if our money is to be used I believe an oversight should be allowed.

The plan is forever, there's not "too long in the future", it is recurring forever and anyone can participate, even you!

BTC.TOP is an incomplete plan with giant gaping hole. They have not even been able to quantify for how long will that 6 millions be used and on what. 6 Millions for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 6 years, 25 years? There is actually no plan there, you need to lay out the plan BEFORE you ask people for money. There plan is current, BTC.TOP force people to do something promising they will eventually stop (we doubt that), BTC.TOP gets the money in their company in a country where legislation is excessively hard to do, BTC.TOP control the money and how it is spend therefore control BCH development. We have a particuliar big issue with the fact that they will not contribute nowhere close to the amount required to control a company under any other circumstances. They actually use real miners hashrate to do their bidding, without putting money where their mouth is.

No matter what "hashrate percentage" they represent, we refuse to let them dominate BCH like that. That's not what Bitcoin is about.

$ 0.11
3 weeks ago

I guess it doesn't matter anymore. I'm glad we had this conversation, but in the end we are just going back to not having enough funds for Devs.

Sad day for BCH today!

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

wrong.

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

I think it is excellent, I have a lot of confidence in BCH, in the short time that I have been in this world, a few days ago I was asking how it could be done to give publicity for the adoption of BCH in my area, I am in favor of the fact that the more we are the ones that we contribute more ideas we are giving developers and better future will have BCH. BCH the currency of the future!

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

thanks for writing this! first opposing miner opinion I have heard. very important

$ 2.05
3 weeks ago

I see everyone seems to have a common understanding and working toward on a way to fund for development, the only different is how, which certainly can be solved if there is a will... and the more I see how this is evolving, the more I am confident on the future of BCH!

$ 2.05
3 weeks ago

Yes, we agree a strong funding for BCH development is a must. However funding also means to go beyond the protocol only, there are lots of open-source software around a cryptocurrency that are not full node. We also need to invest strongly in companies working on BCH, like Roger Ver did for BTC in the early days.

We need more than protocol developers and miners to make a strong ecosystem.

$ 0.09
3 weeks ago

funding also means to go beyond the protocol only, there are lots of open-source software around a cryptocurrency that are not full node

Glad that people understand it. Electron Cash, CoinFusion, BobTail research, Avalanche, reusable addresses, there's so much stuff going on that probably might use some more funding...

$ 2.00
3 weeks ago

Sounds great that you will challenge the proposal, since something this drastic should not pass unchallenged. I hope you will still activate the other non-controversial consensus changes in May.

$ 2.05
3 weeks ago

We really hope that we will not be forced to go there.

If it has to happen, we will absolutely activate the other rules for this hard fork.

$ 0.12
3 weeks ago

You miners should talk and vote with hashpower.

I've created the safest public voting system ever build.

https://bmp.virtualpol.com

Only miners can talk here.

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

Fantastic..glad to have reliable miners on board. i and many others are grateful to have sound hash to secure the chain. To see BTC.top gaming the daa is distasteful. and now the forced donation tax puts me at a loss for words. Thank you Thank you Thank you! as a community member i would gladly help developers and the apps built on-top of BCH with donations. I hope for the best outcome from all of this.

$ 1.12
3 weeks ago

I have proposed that BU also resist this tax: https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/. Please contact me so we can coordinate on this effort.

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

Totally agree. Congratulations on a record amount of donations. You do not have to create a new pool. You can run p2pool node. Or I will be glad to see your hashrate on my zero fee p2pool node (http://p2pcash.kz:9348). I also have servers in Europe, USA and Hong Kong. I really do not want to divide the network. I hope that we will find another solution.

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

I assumed the miners would be against it. Nice to have some confirmation of this. Thank you!

$ 1.02
3 weeks ago

Thank you for posting this on reddit.

$ 0.02
3 weeks ago

I think that as soon as mods visit the post they'll approve your account - there's no reason to keep it removed. It's just a preventive measure, that you've accidentally triggered.

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

After discussing with another user in comment, we would like to highligth BTC.TOP reply in their AMA about the funding plan to show how badly constituted is this plan. This AMA appears to us very low effort, only the softest of all soft ball were answered with very non-committal answers, Jiang seemed very annoyed to have to answer all these pesky question in between him and his plan.

/u/BitcoinXio opinion of the AMA is worth a read: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esoi5s/ama_jiang_zhuoer_author_of_infrastructure_funding/ffc7m53

Q: Who holds this organization accountable and how do they do that? A: These details are under discussion Comment by us: Discussion with who, by who, about what? In discussion between the pools again?

Q: Another question: how will you measure success? A: More BCH users, transactions, total market cap Comment by us: You evaluate the success of the measure based on metrics that can be influenced by 100 other factors? Q: Q: How transparent will this Hong Kong corporation be with where it is sending funds? How will fund allocation be decided? A: We will ensure the transparency and effective use of all funds. Comment by us: Who is we, why do they get control of these funds, how will you ensure transparency and effective use of all funds. That sound like politician answers.

Q: If $6M is enough to make a substantial difference to the state of the BCH ecosystem, why not just raise a fund with a $6M target for this stated purpose? A: Company donation fund neither fair nor decentralized. Companies that donate money may interfere with dev in the long-term (eg: Blockstream & Core). Comment by us: If a straight donation is not good enough, why should a single Hong Kong company hold everyone donations, along with all its potential for undue influences.

Q: Does this proposal create new attack vectors that could be used to split the BCH chain? A: I don’t think so, there is no good reason and no benefit. Comment by us: You don't think so? Shouldn't you be damn well sure of it before proposing it?

Q: What developer groups do you plan to support? A: The funds would be used to pay for development contributions to full node implementations as well as other critical infrastructure. Comment by us: What's with the non-answer?

Q: Who sets the agenda for funded projects? Developers or miners? A: Developers. Comment by us: We have seen absolutely nowhere developers set their own agenda and milestone, this is totally counter-productive.

Q: Is this already set in stone as your article suggests or is it still being discussed? A: Just like I said in the article, it is necessary " To cross the river by touching the stones ". Miners donate to dev is necessary, but how to do it need to discuss and try. Comment by us: 6M$ seems like a LOT of money for miners to lose on some "tests" with no plan whatsoever.

Q: Would you consider proposing these changes to developers as a hard fork rather than a soft fork? A: This is under consideration Comment by us: This is under consideration, Why? What's the logic behind doing a soft fork? What's the logic to change it as a hard fork?

Q: Is that a yes it's still being discussed? Or no, we're doing it no matter what? A: Miners will donate for dev and this will not change. But details may change. Comment by us: Details may change? What details? We have seen no details at all.

Q: How are you so sure you can enforce the orphaning if there's an unknown miner that has over 50% hashrate? A: We have a lot of hashrate on BTC to make sure we can do it. Comment by us: BTC.TOP pool hashrate is totally insufficient to ensure any of it, considering the amount of exahashes that are to rent on the market.

Q: Who is going to manage the money held by this HK company? A: There are no definite management rules yet, but it will be managed by main pools and miners of BCH Comment by us: This seems to us like the most important point to clarify before trying to coerce a network. Again, pool are not miners and should not act is if their miners hashrate are their own.

Q: What do you say when other crypto calls us Taxcoin? A: This is not important, what is important is to develop better, serve more users, and obtain a higher total market value Comment by us: Actually this is very important, public perception is the base of everything in crypto and drive the market price. No amount of "deving" can outrun a shitcoin.

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

wow, first @MarcDeMesel upvoted another article with $1000, now @ancient_stone upvoted this one with $2000. This escalated quickly.

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

It was about time that someone in the miners community would spoke against this tax and the way it is being pushed into BCH. It makes one wonder if the proposing actors are not simply trying to kill BCH.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Wow! A $2000 tip! I'm speechless. BCH community is very passionate about this issue.

$ 0.02
3 weeks ago

Everyone saying BCH governance is centralized should see this. Most of our leaders support the IFP proposal, and yet a significant portion of the community is saying "no" and will not accept it.

There may be a lot of trolls and fake accounts, but I know at least some of the opposing parties are real.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Unfortunately people has accused us of cheating because of that tip and this weakens our message.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Wait, what? How can you cheat with the tip? Do they mean like to get a better visibility? You can actually do that for $1 using "boosting", it makes no sense to cheat with $2000.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

They assume that it's a form of signaling for social worth.

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

Frankly, for miners I don't think this "proof of social media" even matters. Miners vote with the hash rate. That's the only thing people should care about.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

I agree, that's still overall bad PR, to no fault of read.cash at all though.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

I can understand the non-debate theory: as Bitcoin is a permission-less system, they can try to make this proposal to happen. If someone disagrees, Nakamoto consensus will take care. The question is: Can we stand a hashwar? I don't believe it. We need more people like you, to put the debate over the table before it's too late and we end on a hashwar or even worse, a split.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

The issue is that Nakamoto Consensus will not prevail. Even if the miners that disagree would win the amount of hashrate, the full node will never follow that chain.

Prominent BCH developers have said that the Bitcoin ABC nodes needs to be patched for the new rules as it would be too dangerous to do this only with "miner enforcement". This a bona fide hard fork, the amount of hashrate held by the signatories is totally irrelevant.

It is literally "our way or the highway"

$ 0.01
3 weeks ago

wayback machine says link is not archived

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

Yes we have remarked this too. There was 5 snapshots yesterday when we wrote this article together and today they have been wiped from wayback machine.

His quote are still there as originally written in Jiang's Chinese language version on Weibo (link at the end of Mr. Zhuo Er post), so it can be verified there.

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

This is rather ironic indeed

$ 0.05
3 weeks ago

Yes!!

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Looks like Google Translate to me: https://i.imgur.com/acAoFeh.png

$ 0.10
3 weeks ago

It is noticeable that he use google translator a little, but not in its entirety, I have read the article and I have managed to understand it perfectly, it has a few errors but it is a good translation. Congratulations.

$ 0.50
3 weeks ago

Thank you for the review!

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

It is different my dear Read.Cash, Review the verbs.

Es diferente mi querido Read.Cash, puedes revisar los verbos y conjugaciones.

$ 0.50
3 weeks ago

Yes, I noticed that the first paragraph was modified. But recently we have an influx of people using Google Translate + minor edits and claiming it to be a good translation to get a few cents, so that's makes me suspicious of any translations using Google Translate.

As I can't assess the quality of the whole translation, I'm just warning people to the fact that it is mostly Google Translate.

Frankly we need some better way to deal with these people (doing that thing I described), but so far we have no idea how.

$ 0.00
3 weeks ago

Fell free to be suspicious by that, you can review all my works. Thanks

$ 0.50
3 weeks ago
About us Rules What is Bitcoin Cash? Roadmap Affiliate program Get sponsored Self-host
hello@read.cash (PGP key) Reddit