I am in Bitcoin(Cash) since 2009, exactly because I can see things before they happen. If I couldn’t see things before they happen, I would not have predicted that Bitcoin(Cash) will be popular.
Just calling it now to say “I told you so” here.
Ah, intuition.
Thank you for the clarification.
This is all pure manipulation and lies, you have no support for any of these arguments.
Another thing is that I have known you on reddit for a long time and let’s say your interests are aligned with government’s centralized fiat money, not with cryptocurrency.
I guess you are quoting a comment of mine from reddit.
Just want to clarify my sentence here. For all intent and purposes Andrew as Lead Dev officer is the only one that have write access to the BitcoinUnlimited client code base repository. This is the way things works as per the Articles of Federation (AoF).
Actually I also have write access to the repo as a backup in case we need an urgent fix and Andrew is not around. This write access has been grant to me by @AndrewStone precisely to cover the scenario I just described. I dunno if others BU devs have write access to the repository but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case.
Moreover AoF states that the owner of the repository is the president, in this case the elected president is @solex.
That said even thou @solex is the actual owner of the repo/project on github/gitlab he never had commit anything to the repo itself.
It is useless to say that the President as owner have the “ultimate” power over the repository.
Hope to have clarified this point.
1 Like
I guess that the fact that donations that came in before August 2017 are not in BCH is something no one can do anything about.
The reasons why they have not be converted to BCH has been touched multiple times in the past.
Regardless the fact you consider that a potential COI, I think that it is fair to state that everything that has been donated to BU in BCH has to be used for BCH only, unless stated otherwise by the donors.
2 Likes
In fact, the majority of our spending is in BTC to developers working on BCH since we prefer to hold our BCH. And in the past month we have also been dollar-cost-averaging some of our holdings from BTC to BCH, as authorized by various BUIPs.
Note, I added a section to the BUIP detailing other cryptocurrencies that appear to benefit from the relationship proposed here. So if you are following this topic, you may want to go back to the OP and read it.
If we distill the arguments opposing this BUIP down to the fundamental principles the truth will reveal itself to you.
BU split when it sported a tyrant and a self-imposed dictator who used politics and bundled a bunch of unnecessary protocol changes into a single, you are with me or against me, package, that split the network. (pushed by @freetrader) and then demonized those who opposed his authority.
Most BCH fanatics are living a lie. BCH is now controlled by a reference implementation that is managed in exactly the same way BTC core is managed, with all the same problems.
if you want to put your money where your mouth is, don’t mine with BU, - OH look nobody is mining with BU.
I will simply ignore whatever you are saying. I advise everybody else to do the same.
Nothing positive or constructive can come out of discussion with such ultimately toxic and destructive adversarial enemy agents as you.
2 Likes
You will just have to trust me when I say "I’m very disappointed " if you don’t like my opinion drawn from assessing facts, please don’t conflate it with yours.
1 Like
BU split when it sported a tyrant and a self-imposed dictator who used politics and bundled a bunch of unnecessary protocol changes into a single, you are with me or against me, package, that split the network. (pushed by @freetrader) and then demonized those who opposed his authority.
I never supported CSW / nChain. Our recollections here vary enormously, but you’re veering off topic to shill your narrative.
Also, I explicitly encourage mining with BU and other implementations. That’s why I (and also the rest of BCHN) support the BitBalancer effort by Software Verde.
I would like more mining diversity in BCH, and have said so often. So you are misrepresenting the situation here, probably just to be divisive.
if you want to put your money where your mouth is, don’t mine with BU
These are your words - I wonder what you meant by them. Or if you are just trying to put them into the mouth of others.
In my opinion, this action will have very serious repercussions, including but not limited to, BU becoming a zombie project in 2-3 years.
My suspicion is that your real motivation is actually to get rich using premine/instamine and speculation, there is no other logical reason not to do Flipstarter and a huge testnet instead (assuming you want technological progress, not money).
Few extra millions for a new car, new house and wife’s plastic surgery is always nice, isn’t it?
Future will show what are your real goals. But by then, it will be too late to reverse this action. BU as we know it today, could be gone.
The donations before August 2017 were presumably there so BU can make a difference in the big block movement - if I give it the broadest and most generous interpretation, instead of narrower interpretations that BU would’ve already failed. I don’t think anyone who donated back then had in their minds that it’ll go into a playground to satisfy the personal whims of BU developers and harm an actually relevant big block chain in the process.
In fact, there is a very clear path forward to “innovate” however you like without harming BCH: Build a sidechain that uses the same coin. SmartBCH has already showed it can be done, to great fanfare. There is even a very clear indicator, if “competition” is what you want: As more coins are transferred to your sidechain, you gain importance, and all this is only good news for the community of holders and users. The only reason one will choose to make his own coin instead of a sidechain, I’m afraid, is they do want to harm BCH.
BUIP166 directly harms BU’s reputation (it’s already doing that, you don’t need to give me any benefit of doubt on this), harms BCH’s recovering reputation (“well here we go, they’re splitting again” is a common theme I’ve been hearing) and further reduces BU’s impact on any practical matter of any economic importance. There is likely no legal or other ways to hold anyone accountable here, but I’ll again urge the officers in this thread to consider maintaining some respectability instead of doing what they’re doing right now.
2 Likes
We did not choose to go the sidechain route for a few reasons.
First of all, somebody or group of people needs to be financially responsible for the BCH coins projected into the sidechain because fully trustless solutions have not been invented. In the US, these people would need to be registered and regulated by the SEC and FINRA. This registration and accreditiation process takes time, so would delay the deployment of this sidechain, probably infinitely, if you consider how likely these government agencies are to to accredit an individual with this intention. These requirements and the ongoing activities and risk associated require compensation. In addition, loss of projected BCH due to a bug or problem with the chain is in a sense loss of very real provable value, whereas loss of this crypto’s native coin is the loss of a very speculative asset that was very recently nonexistent (similar to how a startup’s stock options have a “par value” of $0.0001 even though they currently would trade for, say, $10).
Second, building that sidechain infrastructure would be a lot of work that has no technology-transfer (into BCH) value, further delaying progress.
Third, Its easy to suggest a “merge-mined” but BU has minimal to zero hash power. So how will that happen? Getting miners interested in merge mining this would be harder than getting them interested in just running BU, which we have been unsuccessful at due to the fears of deviation from the hash power majority.
They’d have to run a BU node of course to produce the merge mined block.
And one big purpose of this is of course to NOT compete for miners with BCHN. Internal competition in that way does not help adoption in any way. It is just internal squabbling.
SmartBCH has a huge advantage there because it is coming from someone highly connected to the mining community. It also has no technology transfer ability, so it naturally can only ever run on a sidechain, making that technology investment necessary.
What we are doing is very different. We want to encourage technology transfer. In a sidechain, new technologies could languish forever because now BCH “supports it”, with the federated signers on the hook for greater and greater BCH value projected into the sidechain until one error happens and those people are financially wiped out and/or mired in lawsuits. I’m sorry but I am not that altruistic!
I find it regrettable that with BUIP 166, Bitcoin Unlimited has sprung a proposal on the BCH ecosystem that produces a massive level of uncertainty.
Based on private communications that I received from @AndrewStone , he is aware of the resulting risk of disinvestment and reputational damage that could set back the joint accomplishments we all have worked on in the last few years in Bitcoin Cash.
As an individual who holds the success of p2p electronic cash very dearly, I want and have always wanted for BU to carry one of Bitcoin’s torches. Unfortunately, I think the current course has led to a collapse of faith in BU as an organization. However I see a way to reset the situation.
- Withdraw this highly divisive BUIP 166.
- Make confidence-building efforts to keep BU financially aligned with BCH.
- Build your proving ground chain on BCH as a valued sidechain, in the same spirit that SmartBCH has done.
For that, I would strongly support and push for sidechain enabling improvements in BCH, for example op_count_acks, to facilitate your proving ground chain and all future chains.
Obviously, BU officers have no obligation to choose this path.
It is just an idea from someone who wants to see BU succeed.
2 Likes
We have carefully timed this BUIP to minimize the damage to BCH’s reputation. Given the current lack of price movement and the existence of this same architecture in other successful cryptocurrencies, it is your fearmongering that will result in the very damage you seek to prevent.
This can and will be a tremendous benefit for BCH, if the BCH community chooses to leverage the technologies that this chain proves.
(I addressed the sidechain idea in my previous post)
Sidechain was never needed.
The only thing you really needed was Flipstarter and a huge testnet.
Nothing more is necessary to test new technologies.
No amount of talking and skipping the point can change this.
1 Like
There’s some ludicruously absurd points here.
fully trustless solutions have not been invented
Drivechains exist, prototypes have already been built, and there were even very fleshed out improvement proposals that I’m sure BCH folks will happily accomodate that makes it easier, despite not being strictly necessary.
would be a lot of work
That work has already been done for you.
Merge-mine hard, don’t want to compete for hashrate
It’s quite a cynical way to misrepresent what merge-mining is: Merged-mined chains do not compete with the host chain for hashrate. Nobody complains about Dogecoin “competing” for Scrypt against Litecoin.
1 Like
Group tokens and other tech has been on nextchain for over a year. We do not need flipstarter money. We do not need to “test new technologies”, we’ve already done so. We need to prove their value. The only way to do this is on a blockchain with value. It is not enough to prove the value of conceptually similar features or tokens on ETH would have dont the job (and should have done the job) years ago. It is necessary to prove the value of specific features, and the safety of specific implementations.
The very first line of @imaginary_username link is: “This BIP describes the new opcode OP_COUNT_ACKS that adds Bitcoin drivechain capabilities as a soft-fork.”
OP_COUNT_ACKS does not exist in BCH. So this technology is not viable for BCH.
I am surprised at how easy it is to refute these arguments. You are grasping at straws because you have no substantive argument.