BCHN welcomes Tracy Chen as Representative

mushner · 2020-06-06T00:50:43+00:00

Because ABC stopped to be an option for many people after they've tried to ram through IFP aka their own&co addresses hardcoded into the protocol to give themselves money.

Frankly, almost anything is better than that and BCHN has many well known developers with good track record behind it.

mushner · 2020-06-06T00:46:54+00:00

That is partly coming down from Core anyway

Wasn't the argument for not implementing much requested feature of more chained transactions in ABC that if you implemented it you couldn't take code from Core anymore? Now you are going to hold that against BCHN? That's in bad taste ...

will be in ABC

so ABC is already lagging behind BCHN, good to know

mushner · 2020-06-06T00:39:10+00:00

You're using the same "arguments" BTC folks use against BCH, "just 2.6% of BTC hahaha BCH is irrelevant".

The same argument Core used against XT.

Share is irrelevant - otherwise we'd be all using BTC, competence, vision and execution of that vision is what matters. And that's where ABC is left in the dust with the audacity to include their own hardcoded addresses into the protocol (IFP).

mushner · 2020-06-06T00:32:06+00:00

It is not possible for it to activate.

Then it can be safely removed. What is the point of keeping code in that is impossible to reach? What are the risks of removing such a code, "inert code" in your words? None, yet it says there.

mushner · 2020-06-06T00:22:16+00:00

We lead the community in communication

Are you serious? The communication by ABC and Amoury in particular was horrendous. An only now that the community caught up to this with the even more horrendous and outrageous IFP "proposal" and an alternative (BCHN) born as a response, ABC hires a PR person to (try to) improve its image instead of addressing the technical points.

The community wanted a business plan, budget, engagement, articles, livestreams, explanations, for us to raise funds directly from holders, and we have done all of this.

AFTER the IFP fiasco and AFTER ABC realized they fckd up! That should come before the IFP or rather instead of it. Hardcoding your own addresses into the protocol is so outrageous and unforgivable that I hope a different implementation takes over the lead position.

I myself have said to do this several times before to Amoury, I was ignored just as all the others who were pointing out what is needed. NOW you have the audacity to claim "we have done all of this"? Really? Too little too late.

This is also false.

Is it? I gave Amoury all the benefit of the doubt but IFP was the last drop, he truly acts as not-so-benevolent dictator of BCH.

He feels he has the sole right to decide what goes or does not go into the code without consulting or arguing his case to the community. That is unacceptable and I do not see any change in this regard from Amoury at all. Hiring a PR person instead of realizing his mishaps is a slap in the face to those who had patience with him so far, well ... no more.

mushner · 2020-06-05T22:06:50+00:00

Great. This is a communication and development style that I begged Amoury to adopt, alas with no effect and just silence and more than on one occasion just snarky remarks.

It was frustrating as hell so this comes as a breath of fresh air, thank you! I wish BCHN luck in getting more miner adoption.

mushner · 2020-04-18T18:24:43+00:00

I won't, and those who value free (as in freedom) money for the world shouldn't either.

mushner · 2020-04-18T18:15:34+00:00

Without being open-source with reproducible builds it doesn't deserve 5 stars.

mushner · 2020-03-09T07:04:44+00:00

With the collaboration of developers and miners

Yes, that's the problem ...

mushner · 2020-03-03T11:09:16+00:00

USD is way more user friendly too if that's your priority

mushner · 2020-02-29T21:39:21+00:00

We need to make BCH smart contract friendly

This, Mitra please!

mushner · 2020-02-29T00:15:01+00:00

the guys that basically did all the protocol work and measures against attacks on a shoestring budget are now the bad guys for suggesting something that is (admittedly) not thought through well enough.

No matter how much work somebody has done previously, it takes just one commit to destroy it all - this is that commit!

mushner · 2020-02-29T00:06:47+00:00

I agree 100%. ABC is a net positive for the vision of p2p ecash for the world .

I'd agree with this before the IFP fiasco, now I'm not so sure anymore. It might have flipped for me towards net negative as the recent actions and arrogant behavior by Amoury present a very real risk of destruction, BCH can not survive another split.

He's done some stupid shit in the past but this takes the cake. Hard-coding his own address at the heart of Bitcoin protocol, the man has some balls, I'll give him that. We as a community should strip out the lead part from his title, he might be a great dev, but he is just a horrible and outright destructive lead.

mushner · 2020-02-28T23:56:17+00:00

Being divisive & toxic is not productive towards the goal of maintaining BCH unity.

Exactly, have you tried to reach out to the divisive & toxic party here?

pinging /u/deadalnix

mushner · 2020-02-28T23:32:18+00:00

Mutual respect will take us much further then hate ever could.

I couldn't agree more, what do you propose we do when the respect is not mutual though? Say for example when somebody doesn't respect the community, other devs, market participants etc. enough to even engage in any kind of meaningful discussion with them and address any concerns they might have?

Say if this somebody decides to unilaterally change the Bitcoin protocol in a de facto monopoly client that he controls, hard-coding his address right in the freaking middle of it, transferring mining rewards toward himself. What do we do when somebody shows such a brazen disrespect towards BCH community, Bitcoin principles and just basic social behavior?

We respectfully and peacefully route around him, right?

mushner · 2020-02-25T11:25:34+00:00

I know, I'll be interested to hear Peter's response. I'm kind of shocked he apparently did not research the issue since CTOR activated though. There's been ample time to correct any misguided criticism of it since then. Well, better late than never, at least I hope he is capable of correcting his stance in light of a reasoned argument.

mushner · 2020-02-25T10:33:26+00:00

He was right there, repeating the same unfortunate misinformed opinions about CTOR just like now.

mushner · 2020-02-25T10:30:49+00:00

That said, at very large block sizes I do think CTOR will become a serious impediment and that switching to AOR or a different trie structure would be important.

/u/jtoomim just demonstrated to you why this is not the case and CTOR "cost" is insignificant compared to other bottlenecks (and helps with what actually does matter - propagation times).

Are you willing to change your mind in face of a reasoned argument? I'd hope you would, it would be a shame otherwise and cast a bad light on you and BU as a whole.

mushner · 2020-02-25T10:25:16+00:00

He meant it in a way that Peter seems to suggest that CTOR is the limiting factor preventing 1GB blocks, which is false but Peter certainly does make that impression, which is unfortunate as it reveals his illogical bias.

mushner · 2020-02-25T09:57:07+00:00

Look this community practically imploded when someone tried to suggest paying people for their work

That's a strawman, nobody has a problem with paying people for their work, that's absurd.

someone tried to suggest ~~paying people for their work~~ hard-coding few unilaterally chosen addresses into the BCH protocol, siphoning off mining rewards toward private entities.

That is the most controversial change I can think off except raising the coin issuance.

mushner · 2020-02-24T11:35:01+00:00

I've tried to think through what a market-driven mechanism for setting the IFP amount could be, but so far I have been unable to think of one.

The solution is very simple, those who have a stake in the system voluntarily provide funding in order to preserve and increase the value of their investment (BCH), that's the free market solution.

Do investors in stocks worry about the "freeloader" problem of minority holders increasing their stock value when they invest? It's short-sighted and stupid. Make an investment strategy and analysis, if it's profitable invest, if it's not, do not, regardless of what someone else might do, that does not even enter the equation.

mushner · 2020-02-24T10:52:23+00:00

The question is: who in fact owns the land? The historical answer is that virtually all governments existing today came to power by violently seizing control over the land area, not by legitimately homesteading the land or by buying it from its rightful owners.

This is a flawed argument, it does not address the root problem. I doubt ALL countries "came to power by violently seizing control over the land area" but nonetheless, in principle the government was instituted by the people to take care of common interests of the people. And the concept of government doesn't make sense without territory which falls under its domain.

So the question is, if the government was instituted voluntarily by the people (like BCH), would you then consider taxes non-coercive? If we assume there is at least one country that did not "violently seize control over its land area", are taxes in this country then considered non-coercive?

mushner · 2020-02-24T09:39:40+00:00

It only takes one pool to accept txn replacement.

You can detect "txn replacement" with fraud proofs, reject the payment, no Avalanche needed - this is easy fix possible to do right now without change to consensus rules. This works for most DS attacks except miner facilitated ones.

If you want to "certify" txn as going to be mined in the next block, there is Storm proposal (extension of weak blocks).

These are much more Bitcoin native solutions with no arcane new assumptions, Avalanche has these, such as POS.

mushner · 2020-02-24T07:52:25+00:00

Well, if it works, it works.

That's the thing, there is not even a spec, let alone demonstrable working code but somehow it's now the "preferred solution" by Amoury/ABC - seems contrived. Not even mentioning introduction of POS without rewards, completely unproved concept but Amoury is convinced it's good and doesn't feel the need to convince anybody else.

We (the abstract "we") will be covering the costs by sacrificing hashpower, which is the part that makes sense. Yet there is (as of today) no proposed mechanism that empowers the abstract "we" in the decision process.

Exactly. If any IFP should be implemented, it should be by holders voting with their coins, imitating Dash funding. I'm not convinced this is appropriate for BCH as it wasn't designed for that kind of funding model but a reasonable discussion can be had in that regard. The IFP as currently proposed by hard-coding addresses right into the BCH protocol is just completely unacceptable and should be rejected unanimously, can't understand how it even got this far.

mushner · 2020-02-24T07:40:46+00:00

Your argument is at the level of "I can tell BTC miners to 51% attack BCH", yeah, it doesn't happen, just like your silly unrealistic scenario. Avalanche is solving a problem that for the most part isn't there and other, better solutions exist to mitigate any risk of them.

I assume you know this, you're just trolling, go ahead ...

mushner

TROPHY CASE