Please read the article once..

Myth #3: “ABC Has a Proven Track Record. No One Else Is Technically Competent Enough to Lead the Protocol!” This rationalization for ABC’s behavior is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, it does not matter how technically competent a team is if they are not creating the right product. This was the entire reason for BCH’s existence. The BTC Core developers were not technically incompetent; they merely were building a different product than what we desired (digital gold instead of P2P cash).

In other words, the technical proficiency of ABC is irrelevant if they’re going to destroy the sound money properties of Bitcoin Cash by inserting a ruinous surcharge into the protocol.

Secondly, the technical competency of ABC is overrated. Yes, It is true that ABC has a track record for keeping the network stable and producing a quality product. They successfully forked away from BTC and beat BSV in a hashwar.

But what has ABC accomplished in the last year? Schnorr signatures -- sure. But that was mostly the work of Mark Lundeberg, not Amaury. Mark is now with BCHN and against the IFP. The other accomplishments include the “minimal data” malleability fix and Sig checks (again both heavily involving Mark Lundeberg), and a small-scope op code, OP_REVERSEBYTES, coded by Tobias Ruck.

More miners are switching away from ABC to BCHN, not just because it doesn’t include controversial code; it is actually faster and more efficient for mining.

ABC is Proving, By Demonstration, Why IFPs Are Problematic I had made the point in the past that any IFP, no matter how well designed, will inevitably create issues as humans fight over money.

ABC’s version of the IFP (if you can even call it that) is so poor that the issues are surfacing even before it is released. Take myself for example -- in the span of half a year, I went from being someone who Amaury wanted on his 2 of 3 multisig to a political enemy. The project I maintain (Electron Cash) went from being “essential infrastructure” that was included in the first IFP to a project now demonized by an ABC supporter.

The only discernible reason for this change of position is that I am now an IFP opponent rather than a suporter. This is what happens when politics are invited into the protocol.

Amaury’s Plan Can Be Barely Even Be Called an IFP I don’t want to get caught up in a debate about “IFPs” in general. But for arguments sake, even if an IFP can be an acceptable idea in some situations, the way it is being executed by Amaury/ABC will end in disaster if allowed on Bitcoin Cash for the simple reason that it is done without oversight, without accountability, without debate, without checks and balances.

I don’t know where the line is between “responsible Infrastructure plan” and “blatant cash grab”, but clearly ABC’s implementation falls on the side of the latter. The fact that ABC alone controls the keys is sufficient to establish this.

BCHN and the Decentralized Revolution Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) is a fork of the ABC software that was created during the first IFP as a drop-in replacement. It is now set to become the de-facto replacement for ABC due to ABC’s over-the-top behavior.

Bitcoin is a resilient system and is proving that indeed -- the revolution will not be centralized. As soon as anyone tries to make themselves the king and take power that isn’t theirs, the system will react and accordingly route around them, like water trickling downhill.

It is also important to remember that there are six full node implementations in Bitcoin Cash (BCHN, BCHD, Flowee, BUCASH, Knuth, and Bitcoin Verde). It is not ABC vs BCHN but rather Amaury Sechet vs Bitcoin Cash.

In summary, Amaury’s actions amount to little more than a thinly veiled attempt to extract money for his personal benefit, and/or to intentionally create a fork of Bitcoin Cash. And, very few sane developers or investors will support his efforts.