Can you not read the part where I said “BCH folks will happily accommodate” and "not strictly necessary? Why do you insist on making increasingly absurd attempts at misinterpretation, followed by patting yourself on the back?
I also need to explicitly point out the fact that Paul Sztorc’s Drivechain prototype was built without needing op_count_acks. So there you go.
Let me get this straight:
that I’m sure BCH folks will happily accomodate
First of all, you feel authorized to speak on behalf of the entire BCH community on the matter of including OP_COUNT_ACKS so no further process or CHIPs are needed?
Second, even though the community consensus seems to be May 2022 for the next hard fork, you’ll fast track this for me?
Third, even if you won’t fast track this, you can guarantee it’ll go in in May 2022 verses all the other ideas under debate?
Drivechains exist, prototypes have already been built
Fourth, where is this technology deployed? Where is it implemented for BCH? Surely you aren’t asking me to base the entire effort on some prototype technology.
What you are proposing here is that I commit time and energy to a big project, with the earliest deployment in May 2022, so that I can then commit time and energy to the projects that are important to me, and that I think have some chance of increasing end user adoption. And once that is done, these projects will be deployed on a sidechain (not really BCH) and miners will need to run a custom client to determine the “algorithmic proxy custody” basically for transaction fees (which is essentially for free in BCH since we have a philosophy of low tx fees). This is silly.
Uhm, “prove value” ? You can’t be even serious now, surely you jest.
Have you seen the crypto market lately where:
Is that really the market you want to “prove value” to?
TOP100 of coins is a fantasy. CoinMarketCap is a lie.
The only real market is the adoption market, real people with their real needs in real life, using BCH to pay for real things. People who need working money. Everything else is but a fairy tale.
Consider the most extreme case where you want this next month. You can already do that, no need to wait for anyone. Paul Sztorc’s implementation was built without op_count_acks, which obviously does not exist on BTC. You can just take it, change a few things to make it read BCH instead of BTC, and it’ll work today.
The only reason I brought up op_count_acks, which is a quality of life improvement that, more precisely, I personally observe that the BCH community should be happy to accommodate, is because I wanted to further show you there is goodwill to accommodate sidechain projects. You don’t need to believe that, you don’t need to believe anything from my mouth. The code exists, and it’s not dependent on goodwill from me or anyone else.
where is this technology deployed?
BTC, of course.
Paul has already ported a BCH-lookalike to it
Sideshift actually traded both sides, and it has been deployed since 2018.
Much more complex chains like Zcash has been ported too.
with the earliest deployment in May 2022
Why do you continue to misinterpret? Op_count_acks is not strictly necessary. It might actually be more work to use it than not, you can deploy in a week with some parameter changes from Paul S’ project.
Everything is as off-the-shelf as they can possibly be. I’m not sure what else you can ask for here - for BCHN or some other team to do the last leg of parameter-changing for you?
Ok @imaginary_username, @ShadowOfHarbringer, and @freetrader, I call you out.
If you are so certain of a sidechain solution, I will modify this BUIP to allocate a maximum spend 50000 USD (billed hourly at the same rate that BU pays me) towards the implementation, CHIP process and deployment into BCH of such a feature. This is FIVE TIMES what is allocated towards this experimental cryptocurrency, and should be significantly more than needed if this technology is as mature as you suggest.
You can choose the engineer to implement it and manage the process. One caveat: As required by the BU Articles, the work must be done in the Bitcoin Unlimited full node. But of course the BU node and the BCHN node are similar enough that you can easily port from one to the other.
In return the three of you will vote for this BUIP.
Surely adding the ability to have sidechains in BCH will be a massive advantage, far exceeding any damage a tiny new crypto will cause – most likely I won’t even be able to launch a genesis block before you’ve delivered this.
If you don’t take this challenge, you demonstrate that your arguments are not in good faith and that you won’t even stand by them.
Why do you need someone else to manage the process? The entire featureset is of your choice, of course you’re the natural person to manage it. It’s not likely to be possible for anyone not familiar with what you want.
Puzzling demand/allowance(?) that other people make your sidechain for you aside, I’ll gladly vote for a reasonable proposal that does not involve a new coin - as I mentioned to you in messages, that is my personal line. Launching, maintaining and pushing a sidechain to economic relevance can be quite expensive, and I’ll happily support initiatives that allocate even more funds than $50k. Hell, I’d even drop some personal funds into it, as insignificant as it might be.
On the other hand, since the primary damage to both BU and BCH comes from the fact that you’re launching a new coin - not whether a sidechain exists or not - any proposal or package of proposals that do not involve you canceling the new coin will likely be pointless.
I do not want you to make my sidechain. Your designate’s task is to build the infrastructure to enable any sidechain on BCH. You don’t have to add any features to the sidechain.
I suggested that you pick the developer and manage it to give you maximum lattitude to see the project through as you see fit.
The entire point we’re talking about this is to satisfy your wants to “innovate” or “fail fast” without damaging BCH. I don’t have any particular preferences as long as you’re not making a new coin. Why would I be the person to “see the project through as I see fit”?
Readers, get a load of this guy! Bock, bock bock, what a chicken.
As I suspected, he’s not willing to stand by his suggestion and compete to deliver the most awesome pipeline to safely drive new features into BCH, even if I literally give him the money do to so!
Done patting yourself on the back yet? You still haven’t mentioned whether you’re canceling your new coin, in any case.
Make no mistake, the entire point of this exercise is to satisfy you, and avoid the already-ongoing damage from launching new coin as proposed in BUIP166. Other people cannot know what you want at any level, nor do anything only later to be deemed unsatisfactory by you. All I can do is support giving you the money to do the sidechain to your idea of perfection, and not participate in kindergarten “o reader”'s. Just take it ffs, we all have better things to do.
Hmmmm, something is not right here. This seems like a trap.
You will allocate 50000 USD but for what exactly, an implementation of CHIP process and deployement of what feature exactly?
Also nowhere you said that you will cancel the “Next Generation Coin”. You only said that you will implement certain feature, but your coin will live along the way and compete with BCH, right?
You can rise more on Flipstarter, on BCH chain.
Why do you need a sidechain or a separate coin anyway? Why isn’t testnet sufficient?
The point you are trying to make is not possible to make. Not in this market, not here, not now, not with advanced technology. Technology stopped being relevant years ago. The market now is all clown farce, run by the power of circus.
You cannot “prove value” in such an unstable and highly manipulated + overspeculated market. The market cannot possibly judge your coin’s value.
Why?
Why not just do it in-house, and get funding by flipstarter?
You can do multiple Flipstarter rounds each year and get funding each time.
Actually, I can do better.
I can donate to your flipstarter, if you describe (in the Flipstarter page) what kind of exciting freatures you bring to BCH.
I have donated to lots of different projects previously. I have credibility.
And I always keep my word.
Having caught up with the conversation, I am confused on what role Flipstarter would play in the solution. The disagreement is about BU adding support for a new coin versus starting a sidechain. Any disagreement about funding is a symptom of the coin vs sidechain, not a disagreement in addition to it.
Are you suggesting Flipstarter be used purely because it can also act as a signal for support from the BCH community on this proposal or is there something else I have missed?
This challenge is competition. Its “why not both?”
You and others have proposed that sidechains will enable us to pull features into BCH most effectively. So make it happen. This BUIP will provide the funds. At the same time it will also fund this experimental chain, and we’ll see which one is the most successful at delivering valuable features into mainnet.
If you don’t take this challenge, it seems that you believe that your sidechain technology would be less valuable to BCH than the marginal adoption cost of yet-another-altcoin. But there are already SO MANY altcoins. How can one more make much of a difference compared to adding a feature like sidechains into BCH?
I don’t think you get it, most of us don’t really care about your “challenge” or whatever your preferred feature-pulling agenda is or whether there is a competition according to you or what your idea of value is. The thing to do is simple: Your proposed new coin is hurting BU and BCH right now , and at least I’m personally willing to support a lot of related and unrelated things if that’s what it takes to get you to stop.
Things that do not involve you stopping this coin isn’t interesting to anyone.
Personally, I like the new take on PoW, so it is interesting to me, I would like to see it evolve, it’s clever to use ASIC innovation to mitigate scaling issues.
Interoperability or a Sidechain on the other hand is not interesting. adding more hops to quench supply and demand created resistance and hampers human progress.
We don’t need competition. Nobody needs it right now. Well, maybe except you for some reason.
Currently, the crypto market doesn’t even need new technology, do you realize that? There is already too many coins and the confusion is too great.
What the market needs, is unity. And adoption of the best available solution (BCH) in real, non-imaginary usecases.
The crypto market has become insane, trying to launch a new coin, and counting on the new coin to “prove worth” of the technology by the market valuating it high will fail.
At best you will prove that you are good at marketing and/or speculation, but you will not prove that the features you proposed are better than what BCH, ETH, Monero or BTC has to offer.
Actually, perhaps by accident, but yes.
Flipstarter will give you larger amount of “confirmation” that your new features are “worthy” than launching a new coin will.
It’s because the market is completely irrational. Having better tech does not mean anythijng in this market. The market is not a good judge. Flipstarter is certainly better.
I don’t know what the “disagreement” is about, what I am talking about is that there is no need to start a new competing coin when BU is essentially a BCH project.
Starting competition or even a sidechain to test and prove worth of new features is completely unnecessary (and ineffective) when it can be simply done on a testnet.
I would like to propose that this BUIP is rescinded at least for now and an ‘emergency’ in-person developer/stakeholder meeting is organised where BU can be brought back to the table to engage with other developers to find a path forward.
This conversation is rapidly devolving and it seems to be everyone’s goals with this BUIP happening or not happening are becoming less likely to be achieved.
Having people meet and discuss in person for a few days could go a long way to everyone getting what they want. And if not then a bit of money was ‘wasted’ but at least an attempt was made to achieve an outcome that more people are happy with.
(I should add that I still support the goals of this BUIP)
Edit: it seems that most countries have significantly increased their travel restrictions even for business travel. This means an in-person meeting would be difficult. This leaves a well organised virtual meeting as the only option unfortunately.
For some reason it quoted andrew even though I was the one that asked the question you responded to here.
That makes sense. I have always considered Flipstarter a weak signal that indicates community support for the project raising funds. Seeing a lot of community members contributing to the fundraising goal always inspires good feeling, regardless of the amount contributed.
For clarity, I say weak signal because there are those who support projects but do not always have extra coins to donate.
A side note:
As the world is becoming a global prison cell, neither crypto market, fiat market or goods & services market is stable right now.
Nothing works right, humanity is going deeper and deeper into chaos. Separation and fragmentation by launching new coin? This will only lead to even more chaos.
We need unity more than ever.
BU is a BCH project. We should work together to improve BCH, not separate every time somebody wants to test some new tech and make some extra money while doing so.