BUIP 166: Launch a Chain for Proving Next Generation Features

I probably mustn’t reply to this particular post because is not on topic IMHO, can’t help myself thou

agreed.

also agreed on that one. by the same token (no pun intended), we could claim the same for BCH thou.

I think that anyone who donated back then would have hoped that the big block movement had won. That said I see every further speculations related to the matter at hand far fetched and not relevant to the current discussion, especially if you consider that those “money” could have been long gone if it was not for the wisdom of BU members (back in Aug 2016 the value in USD of the donation was around 500K USD, that could very well have been eroded significantly before the Dec 2017 ATM).

Competition is not what I want and I don’t want to do harm to BCH either. if I want to do the the latter I would go the CSW/ABC way, this is something that is not happening for two main reason: 1) there’s no adversarial split, actually there’s no split at all, 2) because BU will remain committed to BCH by continuing to release a compatible client and contributing to the development of the protocol.

This could very well be the case, but I have more at heart the harming of BCH

like I said already there’s no split at all.

I dare saying that the market will always find a way to make everyone accountable, but just the mere fact that you use the word “legal” has left a bad test in my mouth, I’m sure this is not that case but I almost had the impression that if a “legal way” existed someone would have taken the time to pursue it…

if you think that this proposal has to go through a vote and that even if passed it is not even sure it will be implemented/deployed (like has been the case for a lot of other passed BUIPs in the past), speaking of “legal way to hold someone accountable” is pretty much out of place IMHO.

1 Like

There is more alternatives. One could vote NO now, then either vote YES for the same proposal in the next voting period after it has had more discussion and it’s better understood, or set up other BUIPs that brings this forward.

This BUIP is not a be-all end-all of activity.

1 Like

I believe other points have been addressed ad nauseum, but this deserves a reply, even if off-topic.

I don’t think BU’s mission is “to preserve that initial pot of money ad infinitum” either. Under the “wisdom” of the very same officers, BU became increasingly irrelevant as time went on, trust in BU from the community fell, adoption among miners went from tiny to nonexistent, and got itself in such a predicament that the formation of BCHN was practically necessary to save BCH from the coinbase tax, despite BU sounding like a natural alternative at that time. Was that wisdom? Is BU meant to preserve a pot of BTC as pension funds for its officers to pursue creative endeavors without making an impact in the world?

The BCH community is quite generous when it comes to funding. If BU took a different series of decisions and approaches, perhaps those BTC being depleted would be just fine; it would’ve got more fresh funding. Perhaps BCH didn’t have to fall so much in the first place as BU stands to be a viable moderate alternative in a world full of lunacy. Perhaps…

…but those are all speculation, there are no "if"s in history. My point is the “wisdom to preserve value in BTC” is really cringey to hear, and it needs to be put in context.

1 Like

wow, the notion that this potential project is ‘competition’ to BCH, and that its ‘harming’ BCH and the network effect of BCH reeks of desperation to control others.

Seems to run contrary to the goal of bringing peer to peer cash to the world to hold others back to support ones personal bags.

If BCH is so great why would anyone involved in BCH seek to control the output of others?

BU is de-facto BCH-only project. Or rather, was.

After BUIP166, BU will be a separate coin and project. So, competition.

Why compete when we can unite?

Crypto ecosystem is super fragmented. Want to make it even more fragmented and achieve nothing? Go ahead.

Calling it now: In 3 years, BU will be completely dead.

Bitcoin Unlimited used to mean something. After this, it will be just , yet another coin out of thousands, merely a husk with nothing remaining of its former glory.

You could say BU ends with BUIP166, in thunderous applause.

1 Like

fair enough, though I found “legal way” even more “cringey”, guess everyone has his own taste when it comes to this sort of stuff, but I can see your point.

that said, the wisdom I was referring to was exclusively related to the preservation of fund value, not the increase of it by any given chosen allocations, and just for the interval of time that goes from Aug '16 to mid 2017.

I raised this point just to remove BU fund topic from the discussion, because I found it a distraction and so that we could discuss the matter at hand pretending that there’s no such a pot floating around.

Never the fact that BU members’ wisdom would be “all mighty”, “all knowing” crossed my mind. I just found wise the decision to avoid any useless spending in the immediate aftermath of the donation (and I assure that that had been many attempts to do that).

‘why compete when we can unite’

we can unite, around the goal of bringing peer to peer cash to the world. its a noble goal.

competition of the sort that this might be construed to be is entirely healthy.

attempting to control the mindshare of others who have expressed clear alignment to the unified goal of peer to peer cash for the world isn’t appropriate

“BU is de-facto BCH-only project.” -disagree, BU was to flippen core nodes and scale BTC.

also, Bitcoin Unlimited used to mean scaling up the max block size parameter to me, something which BCH community has seemingly grown an aversion to.

For that reason, BCH clearly needs more real world competition than this potential project could ever bring, being a BCH subproject as it is.

To the extent the BCH commune makes the incorrect scaling decisions; its network effect ought rightly to be cleaved.

2 Likes

BTC is no longer Bitcoin. It became an abomination.

BCH is Bitcoin now.

If you disagree, then you have a problem. Weren’t you a BSV fan, anyway? I already forgot.

Seems like you are living in fantasy world.

Anyway, I am outta here, BUIP166 was done deal from the start, any discussion is irrelevant. Andrew will do what he wants to do, no matter what is the public opinion about it.

“BCH is Bitcoin now.”

…?

goodbye

I specifically said “there is likely no legal or other ways to hold anyone accountable”. There have been many people who want to sue each other in Bitcoin history, you think me saying not to pursue that route is somehow an equivalent?

As far as I can see the only person who insist on butchering other people’s words out of context in this thread was Andrew, it would be nice if other people at least don’t stoop to his level.

’ My point is the “wisdom to preserve value in BTC” is really cringey to hear, and it needs to be put in context.’ -imuname

the relevant context:

2 Likes

and this is what I responded the first time you use these words:

I dare saying that the market will always find a way to make everyone accountable, but just the mere fact that you use the word “legal” has left a bad test in my mouth, I’m sure this is not that case but I almost had the impression that if a “legal way” existed someone would have taken the time to pursue it…

hence I was triggered by the fact that you brought up the legal angle (or the lack of thereof), because it somewhat implied that if a legal way was there someone would have probably pursued it.

I don’t think this is “butchering other people’s words” and I have no intention to put words in other people’s mouth. If you thought this was that case I can assure it was far from my intention.

2 Likes

From what I have read I think the main concern that people have can be summed up with a single phrase.

Conflict of Interest

I would find this discussion more productive if people suggested ways to mitigate this conflict of interest or find a civil compromise. Here are some of the risks and benefits I see from this proposal, much of which has already been said.

Benefits:

  1. Playground for new features and ideas to be explored. Better than a test net because it would create its own economy and possibly its own funding mechanisms.

  2. A way to prove how much the crypto market desires a new feature that BCH could take into consideration. Similar to how ETH proved DeFi and smart contracts have strong market demand.

Risks:

  1. Moving resources away from BCH into NextChain. Developers, businesses, and the user network effect may have their time and resources divided between the two coins.

  2. BCH stakeholders do not benefit from the direct success of NextChain’s coin if it appreciates significantly in value.

Possible Solutions:

To address risk 2 my solution would be to have NextChain coin be airdropped to all BCH stakeholders so they can benefit from its financial success.

Addressing risk 1 is more difficult but my gut feeling thinks it won’t be as problematic as we might think. I think most developers, businesses, and users including myself would treat NextChain as more of a sandbox to try out new features that will be ported over to BCH if they gain strong popularity.

My analysis of the risks, benefits, and solutions are far from perfect but I would love to see less fighting and more productive efforts spent on finding either a compromise or a suggestion to modify the proposal that keeps the benefits while mitigating the risks.

3 Likes

I think there is a fundamental conflict of interest between BCH protocol activists and the goal of bringing peer to peer cash to the world.

I think its the investment in BCH they have made which creates said conflict. They have become vested in a project (BCH) that due to its design choices cannot become peer to peer cash for the world and it prevents them from being open to the possibility of other projects making it happen, even BCH subprojects like this proposal.

A lot of the whinging that goes on about the BU coffers and whether or not BU will load up on cheap bags of BCH evinces this.

‘load up on bagz please we will donate to u’

woe is me lmao

the conclusion made by the majority of participants here that ‘BCH has the greatest potential to bring peer to peer cash to the world’ is clearly false and will remain false.

Everyone has an altcoin. Trying to stop someone from launching an altcoin is like trying to eliminate household bacteria. BU’s democratic structure should not cause it to be denied something as cheap and universal as making an altcoin.

Apparently, some fear the Groestlcoin will gain value, but that’s ridiculous.

If Groestlcoin gains value in the market, BU may have shown the ideas behind it to be valuable, something it has had trouble doing in the past. Those ideas can be incorporated BCH.

If Groestlcoin does not gain value, who cares?

BCH holders and supporters like myself should support this idea, or just ignore it and not make a big deal out of it.

3 Likes

Where did this conclusion come from? I haven’t seen a project better suited for being the best electronic peer-to-peer cash than BCH.

2 Likes

As I already wrote in the mother of all BU threads, Polkadot/Kusama is very successful with this mother/child concept. A concept where the child experiments non-stop, inspires his mother and keeps her busy.

I would give my vote to theZerg’s BUIP but I cannot vote because I’m not a member. I never tried to become a member because I think that anonymous accounts shouldn’t be members with voting rights. Only real persons should be allowed to vote and I think all anonymous users should refrain from voting.
It was @Norway who requested it once upon a time and then got attacked by anonymous accounts, which could be users, organisations, companies, or longtime BU enemies and infiltrators like @ShadowofHarbringer, who tries to hijack the thread.

1 Like

I shouldn’t drown out this thread too much on the tangent of whether BCH is the best choice for building upon peer to peer cash for the world…

I suppose the most concise explanation is that it is a developer restricted peer to miner to peer cash system- the self imposed restrictions have kept it from being ‘for the world’ (in this case protocol decisions were made to actively exclude individuals from development consensus) and the wide spread lack of peers transacting directly with other peers makes it a ‘peer to miner to peer’ cash system at best.

It’s not a path of greater inclusion to repeatedly fork away from individuals, nay, each time bch activists cleave individuals the chances of accomplishing the goal of peer to peer cash for the world is reduced.

There’s even a subgroup of abc now apparrently, I wish them the best.