Thread by @UpstairsAdagio

My thoughts on the current Bitcoin Cash Bch dispute @Bitcoin_ABC @bitcoincashnode #BitcoinCash #Bch #IFP #commucurrency #Bitcoin

I have made plenty of comments on both reddit (u/UpstairsAdagio) and twitter about the current situation.

I feel it would be helpful to layout my full perspective here so as to leave no doubt about my intentions behind those posted comments

On the whole I am not entirely convinced that this IFP is a great idea.

I haven’t seen too much conversation about the current version (for reasons to be dealt with later) and the sell isn’t entirely welcoming

The argument against the IFP is that it is a tax and Amaury is planning an exit scam so he can drink cocktails on the beach with some hookers. That is about as detailed as I can read into it anyway

So where does that leave me?
A big change to the consensus mechanism and neither side is really being articulate on the issue

I need to step back and evaluate the situation with all the knowledge I have in front of me (and know that there is plenty more knowledge I don’t have)

The idea of funding developers for their work on Bitcoin has long been an issue. I may or may not agree that developers should be compensated for their work to the infrastructure, but that is hardly relevant.

Developers feel that way which is all that is important, a sizeable portion (see how many nonIFP developers have campaigns on flipstarter)

A few developers on Bitcoin back in 2014 felt they should to be compensated for their work. They felt they were not getting paid adequate compensation for their work

They also wanted stability in their job as they saw that community donations and business’ building on top of bitcoin donating to them wasn’t secure long term - a startup needs all the money it can muster, let alone funding people who will not directly generate profit for them.

And so Blockstream was formed. The very name generates shrill resentment from many Bch proponents

But the hard truth is that these Bch proponents have failed to address this issue that led to Blockstream’s creation and treated it as the “problem child” i.e. neglect and ignore it and hopefully it will go away.

3 years after a fork that was brought about by newly implemented skewed financial incentives on Bitcoin infrastructure, these Bch proponents still haven’t openly talked about how to avoid this problem rising again. That would be considered smart engineering, right?

The only talk I have seen on this issue is that business’ should fund the developers (which we have proof doesn’t work) or that community donations should fund the developers (which again we have proof, 10 years!!) that is doesn’t work.

I have been in Bch since 2017. I have seen many “community fundings” come and go. Great hype, some money spread around. Then someone comes a little later with a great idea and people are already feeling they have given enough of their hard earned money.

They would no doubt love to help out some cool idea, but can’t afford it. It has happened now 3 times to my recall.

There are a few caveats. BitcoinUnlimited is well funded. True. Who uses them? Are they even a going concern this time around? They showed a good lesson though - if an implementation makes a bad call (their courting of Bsv) it will pay the price with users.

Some of the BchN proponents were actually previously BU

Back to the main point.
If Bitcoin developers had this issue in 2014 can you honestly say something has changed re incentives with Bch that would ensure we not encounter the same issue at some stage? Are you being a little naive with your engineering head?

Which leads us to the IFP.
Business dont need to fund it, users aren’t being harassed on social platforms for donations akin to charities on the street, developers get their money. With the Daa miners don’t even lose out (as far as I have read)

Is it perfect? No
Are there questions to be answered? Yes
Who decides who gets funded?
And how much?
How can funding for someone who is a bad actor or a waste of money be cancelled?
These are all genuine questions.
And Amaury hasn’t answered them.
(More on that below)

I first heard of the thought line that doing something, anything is better than nothing in military terms from.... Amaury (I believe to do with canonical ordering, but can stand corrected). If anyone can find a link to that please reply at bottom of thread

The basic strategy is that in a military situation if you do nothing you are actually at a higher risk of failure than if you do something that is not helpful. Remaining stagnant is an issue. Constant progression is how civilisation advances

With BchN Bitcoin Cash is dead as per this theory. Btc is already dead . BchNoIfpIt is stagnant and cannot *ever* oust it’s competition (Bch, let alone fiat). It is cutting off it’s legs to save it’s (nothing, actually. That’s right a big fat nothing)

Now let’s get to Amaury not being specific on the IFP. Initially there was certainly detail, more would have been required, but it was a starting point anyway. Now, there is nothing. All money to one address. Nothing else said.

For a while I thought it was because he was so thick ignorant at Asert/Grasberg fight. Then after relaxing for a while I came to the conclusion that Abc probably used the DAA as a carrot on a stick.

Whether Asert or Grasberg was used didn’t really bother them, the funding was the issue to get over the line, in any manner. Deal with the hows and whats after, but get it passed

So they relented on the Asert and then added in the bare bones IFP. This really puts onus on BchN now to counter. They are locked into a corner.

The onus is on them to explain to exchanges and miners why they must switch from Abc to BchN. They are the ones who have to shout loudest (have a look at Calin!)

By taking away the whitelist and conditions of the IFP ABC have actually removed all their bartering positions from the table.

Initially this may sound quite absurd, but when you dig a little deeper it is actually a great plan. They cannot bargain, as they have only one chip which is to remain in Bch

Many believe they will walk away. This is absurd. Abc are ingrained with Bch history whether you like them or not. They bring tangible value to the system and are the only implementation which miners and exchanges have a respect for, due to their past conduct. So no, they are not

BchN have many chips to barter with, as they actually have no defined credo at all. Any position can be put through by the “community” leaders. This is their biggest flaw. BchN are standing against *someone*, they are not standing against a value or principle.

That is why their message is so incoherent. Even Faketoshi got that part right.

The flavour of the day changes. Against a tax but want miners to survive long term by people *not* freeloading. Against an individual “taking over” Bch (if an indiviual can manipulate that much he already has control).

Against someone deploying code without considering other people, in a permissionless environment.

All I see is what BchN are against. But what do they actually stand FOR?
What are their principles? Are they going to write them down somewhere? What are their lines drawn in the sand?

Exchanges will definitely want to hear this information. Exchanges tend to care more about their pockets than kumbaya singalongs you’d be surprised to know.

Go to reddit and you will see the BchN proponents spew all those above arguments (and much more) but will not bring to the table anything *new* that will solve the funding issue. Getting people to even agree on a forward looking “community” stance is impossible.

So all in all the BchN stance is really unstable to me and will most certainly lead to even more instability. The ABC stance, which isn’t great, is certainly the better option. Much better.

What do I think will happen? I think exchanges will trust ABC, with a little scepticism. They will try to list BchNoIfp or whatever it will be called but Bch will be the Abc implementation.

BchN is too incoherent for an exchange to give it a billion dollar ticker. Btw exchanges decide this stuff, not reddit or twitter. That’s capitalism looking after capitalism.

I am sure that after the fork we will see much more detail re who gets funding and how to take funding away from parties that aren’t performing. I would assume the miners are being forced into more of a proactive position with funding.

Anyway that sums up how I read the entire situation. Thanks for reading and fee free to chirp in with your take on it

/end