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.
âload up on bagz please we will donate to uâ
woe is me lmao
the conclusion made by the majority of participants here that âBCH has the greatest potential to bring peer to peer cash to the worldâ 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. BUâs 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 thatâs 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.
Where did this conclusion come from? I havenât seen a project better suited for being the best electronic peer-to-peer cash than BCH.
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 theZergâs BUIP but I cannot vote because Iâm not a member. I never tried to become a member because I think that anonymous accounts shouldnât 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.
I shouldnât 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 worldâŚ
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 âfor the worldâ (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 âpeer to miner to peerâ cash system at best.
Itâs 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.
Thereâs even a subgroup of abc now apparrently, I wish them the best.
In shopping around for self restricted blockchain consensus systems with the goal of global scale there are better options.
If youâd like an example of BCH development activists eager to limit and restrict; look no farther than this thread.
Iâve a hard time with the name âbitcoin unlimitedâ anymore, the âunlimitedâ part isnât even wanted for the project which owns bitcoin unlimited, BCH. Sure itâs bitcoin-like; but its been quite limited.
Officially how are BUâs interests determined and how can you know this BUIP is in conflict with those intrests?
Can you explain to me how your possible solutions benefit the members of the organization?
COINTELPRO 101: Accuse the enemy of what you are doing [first].
I believe you have been banned from /r/btc for years. And for a good reason.
It turned out that the rogue BSV âelementâ such as above was one of the major factors causing the downfall of BU.
In my opinion, Bitcoin Unlimited project will be dead within 2 years.
where will BCH be in two years in your view?
It will keep building adoption and rising its market cap.
Will it flip BTC by that time? Hard to say, probably not yet.
People are too dumb/following for that. The problem is that people do not follow reason, they follow other people, so the crypto market is absolutely, completely irrational, price wise.
Manipulators manipulate and speculators speculate, technology cannot fix it. This is why BUâs launching a next-gen-tech coin will not help at all, but make things worse by increasing fragmentation.
Also, BU as a project has no sense or idea behind it right now. It has become Andrewâs personal playfield, not peer to peer electronic cash.
[BU] has become Andrewâs personal playfield, not peer to peer electronic cash.
BU is still guided by its Articles of Federation and votes like this one.
I made the point that I see this creation of a new coin, which steps outside of the firm control of BUIPs via Andrewâs âwhite ballâ decision power, as something that falls partly outside the scope of the current AoF, and therefore should have required an amendment of the AoF to properly cover it.
There do not seem to be that many BU members who share this view. So be it. I stand by that opinion.
I think as long as BU continues to publish a BCH client that remains in consensus, and as long as BCH in the large remains committed to that vision of p2p cash, BU are participating in p2p cash, no matter what experiments they run on the alternate coin. I just believe it dilutes the organizationâs focus and opens the door wide to conflicts of interest, but the membership will need to accept the responsibility for their decisions.
I agree with your viewpoint that it is extremely difficult to prove features in the current market.
Yes, you are one of the most disgusting censorship enthusiasts of the r/btc PolitbĂźro. R/btc, the playground of bolshewik stalinists who call themselves âanarchistsâ.
I agree and I disagree.
In theory, BU has Articles of Federation and an independent Blockchain based-vote system. And in theory, people should make informed, wise and rational decision. using this system.
However there is significant difference between theory and practice. There is a good joke that illustrates it:
Son asks his father what the difference between theory and practice is. The father says âone second, Iâll show youâ and yells out to his wife âHunny! Would you sleep with another man for a million dollars?â " Yes! " yells the wife The dad then calls out to his daughter and asks her the same question, to which she also answers Yes. " You see Son," says the father âIn theory weâre millionaires, in practice we live with a couple of whores!â
The construct for perfect democracy is all there, but people wonât be using it anyway. They prefer to just follow Andrewâs vision. And there is foreign adversarial BSV element (elephant in the room) that will just vote and support whatever they find is the most disruptive, dividing and destructive option.
Divide & Conquer.
Yes, if limited to the collapsing BCH small block project and prevented from innovation by their voters, it will shrink further together with BCH. While polygon, a new sidechain of eth explodes to 7 million txs per day, BCH is at a tiny fraction of that level, after years of âdevelopingâ. Glad having diversified away from BCH.
256MB is small blocks? Well thatâs new.
What about a gigabyte then? Done on a Raspberry Pi4 (Now in testing).
I hadnât paid much attention to this issue until @freetraderâs most recent post. Even though the intent was explicitly laid out by @AndrewStone, the BUIP does not say what he described so it should be edited.
The current language (the BUIP still has the comma issue I detailed earlier in this thread, i will proceed as if that had been fixed) states:
if I, Andrew Stone, OR you, the voters, pass a BUIP, then the feature will go in
This gives both Andrew or the voters the ability to pass a BUIP to put a feature in. In this sense @freetrader is right, it would require an Articles change because it is adding a second party with the power to pass a BUIP. In this case that second party is Andrew alone.
If we want to keep the current sentence structure and properly align how the white ball approach works with what Andrew explicitly described, the BUIP should say:
if I, Andrew Stone, approve a feature, or you, the voters, pass a BUIP enabling a feature, then said feature will be implemented
This is a bit wordy and probably unnecessary. I suggest the text be changed to read:
To begin with, we will use a âwhite ballâ approach to feature inclusion. A feature may be implemented in this new chain if either I, Andrew Stone, decide it should be included or you, the voters, pass a BUIP to include it (subject to the normal BUIP rules of providing an implementation, undergoing code review and security analysis, etc).
With regards to the concern that it bypasses the BUIP system⌠it doesnât really. It is more or less how things work anyway. When I want to add a feature most of the time it is not required that i make a BUIP. If the feature meets some qualifications and it passes review then the feature is merged. If it is rejected, I would have to open a BUIP to get it included. It depends a lot on what the feature is. The only major difference is with large features that change consensus, quasi consensus or some fundamental behaviour can be included at Andrews discretion where as for the BCH client they require a lot more procedure to be changed.
We are talking here about ANY feature being added to the new coin solely at Andrewâs discretion (if thatâs what he feels like doing).
This isnât how things work in BU, so such a decision process for a new coin launched & maintained by BU should 100% be reflected accurately in BUâs Articles. In my humble opinion.
Very little in this BUIP is being done âby the booksâ - from updating with editorial comments like yours above, to actually setting up the correct process by amendment to its Articles to have the formal process reflect what is has been proposed. That of course, would have required 75% of BU to vote in favor of the proposal.
It is more or less how things work anyway.
Maybe so, but it does not make it acceptable to me as a BU member.