btc
UnknownEssence

An open, neutral, borderless cash protocol should not have a privileged account that gives a central entity the ability to extract money from the protocol. [Read]

Once's the large miners are in control of this privileged account which has the ability to extract money from the protocol, mark my word, it will never go away.

Comments
A fully functional DAO on Bitcoin Cash is most probably not doable, but a smart contract / developer tokens / OP_CHECKDATASIG solution or a combination of these would be wise.
Sending money to some shady HK corporation in an unstable political jurisdiction is not a very good idea.
You are right of course, but like all roads to hell it starts with the best intentions.
This is not why I got into Bitcoin. Giving a central entity the ability to extract money is encouraging corruption. Just like taxes or the Fed, which also had the best intentions from the start.
I can't believe libertarians like Roger Ver supports this. Even if this propels BCH to number 1 (which I doubt), this is not the Bitcoin I signed up for and it will not make the world a better place. 12% of mining rewards will be a huge sum which will only be increased and morphed into all kinds of evil, especially if BCH becomes a true reserve currency.
If your incentives for developing BCH is only monetary, then maybe RIpple or BTC is a better pick. We want money that makes the world better, not Lambos and moon. Of course developers should get funded, but it should be through donations or seeing their assets grow because they did a good job, not taxes.
Only on a controlled blockchain would hard coding an address for new money even be considered.
These guys are in so deep, and so convinced of their own righteousness, they cannot see the hypocrisy and failure represented by this idea.
Who gets the reward? Not the most hashrate, nor the biggest holders, nor the best developers, nor the worthiest causes.
The guys with the key. That's who gets the money.
Great post
Was this some drunken decision after a night out at karaoke? It really isn't a libertarian thing to do at all.
Has anyone done a welfare check on Roger Ver? Has he posted video evidence that he's still kicking about? I'm only half joking.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
 If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (
You know part of the reason why this is such a bad idea is because you could imagine the headlines: The corporation behind Bitcoin Cash has been transferred to the Hong Kong/Chinese state. The destructive impact doesn't come merely from such incidents, but the amount of effort put into the system over time leading up to a scandal or crisis of a similar nature.
There are plenty more plausible headlines as well, from skimming money from the fund/lack of transparency to a security breach where the coins are 'lost'.
That will look real good for the credibility of the protocol... that was sarcasm. These are all more likely as a result, so even if you think this is a good idea (which it isn't IMO), you have to contend with the damage to reputation that comes with this particular risk.
Miners help ensure that transactions are written to the blockchain. They do work, they get a reward for that work. They're not freeloaders. Creating a cartel would give undue influence over development to the cartel by granting them money without effort or work, which can in turn be used to give more influence to the cartel. It's slippery slopes 101.
If someone thinks that the current status of the protocol is lacking in some way, then it is on them to do do something. Adoption, funding, clarity. You need all three and it may feel like an uphill battle to develop in each area, but you risk decimating all three areas by proposing to upend the functionality of a crypto for something other than a security correction.
And the first issue is always maintaining security. Second is ensuring that the protocol reflects the goals. If the crypto is meant to be money, then it must display good money characteristics, such as usability. When considering changes that impact usability these require long and well evaluated discussions. A few people signing a pact with vague intent looks very hostile.
They figured out that they wanted to set up a corporation and a wealth redistribution mechanism on-chain to their advantage, but left so little in the way of articulating how development gets funded that it makes it look like the developers were an afterthought.
What can we do to stop it?
Gain more hash
Fork.
A group of BTC miners could collude together and make the opposite threat. "Pay us 12.5% of your reward instead and we won't orphan your blocks"
Realize the truth. If the project was truly decentralized, this would be happening in the first place. You wouldn't be asking that question.
Vote.
You can UASF and make a rule that says the coinbase must go to only one address in it's entirety. If not, that block is invalid. You can preserve the status quo by using full nodes and make your voice heard. Hope you understand users have the power in Bitcoin!
The Veto model of UN is time tested and coupled with OP's suggestion of community approval, a system can be made - You can designate 5 veterans of BCH community from 5 different countries as Veto seat members (P5 or something!). Any dev who needs funding has to get approval from community, and one of the P5 members could still "Veto in" and cancel the funding if they feel its improper. This way, there will be enough checks and balances in the system to prevent centralization of power.
Very well said. Clean and concise.
If BCH implements this mindless taxation (=theft) then a chain split is bound to happen. Or worse, the hashrate will drop so much, BSV will be able to 51% attack it.
I had respect for the BCH project, and a respect for Roger, but if this centralized tax fuckery passes, I'm moving my interest elsewhere.
How is it taxation or theft? They're not charging fees to the end users, they're taking their own profits from the block reward and donating it.
Well said.
tippr
UnknownEssence
^^How to use
If the miners want to support development why don’t they simply fund it themselves? It seems insane to include this in the protocol.
[deleted]
Is there any other way they can force other miners to pay? I'd like to hear.
tippr
UnknownEssence
^^How to use
Outside of maintenance, bug watch and such, is there a big need for new feature development?
And what if it's upped to 25% at the next next (fall) upgrade "because the fund is working so well"?
Why? Why would they voluntarily lose more money to give it to the devs?
It's pretty clear that most miners have been operating on credit and have absolutely no discretion over where their mined coins go. And it's pretty clear that this arrangement was financed through Hong Kong.
Bwahahaha you realize that this cut would be what they donate to the fund, in other words, such an operation would be neutral for the miner?
“Give me a cut of what I just gave”
BTW Dash’s Dao has been mired with mismanagement of funds lately, it sure isn’t a model to follow.
I was thinking exactly this. Since the money is coming from the block rewards I was surprised that all the miners agreed to it. It would be like all the internet giants (to be clear I'm thinking Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) collectively agreeing to donate x% of their profits to open source. It could be great, but personally I don't see it happening. And they could pass on the cost to their users, to a degree, miners can't at all.
The block rewards are limited and will end, so, even if the miners wanted to keep donating funds to development, there would be an end. If you don't like the miners having the power to decide who their donations go to, too bad. It is their donation to distribute as they wish.
It appears to me this controversy about funding BCH developers is being used in an attempt to divide the Bitcoin (BCH) community again. The trolls and anti-BCH side are pretending they represent the majority of the community and they are posting the most comments. This is how small blockers were able to fool the real Bitcoin community into thinking the small blockers were the majority of our community. Many still think the small-block position had a majority of community support back then (and now, lol). BSV tried it also but failed because we can now see this attack vector better due to past experiences. Don't fall for it. The real community sees that miners supporting BCH development is a great thing.
That said, the approach is not perfect at all and many do have legitimate reasons to dislike it strongly.
=================
Bullshit. This change in the protocol is not supported by the majority of the community. However you'll see, if this shit will happen, than a lot of hash power will flee from this "new bitcoin that pay the devs" and we all will lose.
Also note how op was gilded so fast.
chaintip
How about direct licensing (miners) and tipping (users) to the developers built into the wallets/node software?
https://read.cash/@nghiacc/tipping-system-to-bch-developers-de26dded
This
Keeping in mind human nature, in that the account might never go away is good. But that devs want stability is also reasonable. Maybe the community doing donations and some kind of contract system is a good idea. Some kind of voting structure seems best. A system to first present ideas/a call for proposals. And then a way to vote. it's not perfect, but that seems the best way for making decisions among a large group of people. Should it be one person, one vote? Vote based on amount of money held? Well now it turns into fundamental questions that we actually haven't answered for how to organize society..
How
I think that BCH should be crowd funded.
If every BCH user would give 10 dollars every month, it would be more than enough. (my lame calculation)
No, this won't work.
Every user won't give such money to anybody. The most important reason is that most users will just pay for coffee and will be completely unaware of political circumstances and needing to fund developers.
But instead wallet developers could add an optional (opt out) donation to each wallet - this would probably work. Most people wouldn't oppose giving a small percentage of their transaction to devs.
Its fine to not like it. But it is what it is, the miners have far more power than the users, by design. What's important is to remember why we're here, Peer To Peer Cash, and to stick together on one chain.
That's where your wrong. The miners can mine whatever they want but if nobody uses it, its worthless. The miners have nothing without users.
This will lead to a split and than to an hard fork. This is wrong.
absolutely wrong
Congratulations, you win the prize for most useless comment on this post. Have a reddit potato.
Oh wow, never thought about it like that. Thanks for opening my eyes.
And so the army of paid trolls begins...
Bitcoin Cash would be better off with masternode system like Dash. Right now Dash has about 500 thousand a month to direct towards whatever the network wants. Is monero even close? Tragedy of the commons.
and yet somehow the monero community still manages to fund research and development. what's your point? monero has done more interesting things in the last 4 years than dash has done since it was created.
Bitcoin Cash community doesn’t seem to like masternodes for some reason, but miners could take the role of voting nodes that masternodes take in Dash.
And if that turns out to be true which is indeed completely possible, you will have much more evidence on your side than the present situation without it.
They had, and yet it wasn't working for BCH.
I'm sympathetic to this idea, although I'm not sure Dash should be held up as a model. The basic idea however of using a mechanism other than a corporate entity established in a central meatspace jurisdiction is almost certainly a good one.
Because the exact same logic that allows them to make the present proposal and execute it allows a future actor acting upon some other proposal, for example not rolling back the funds collection as initially planned, blacklisting destination addresses, anything at all that is more negative than funding the actual development of the node software, to do the same thing in response.
And more to the point, it makes sense for that party only to split at the time that kind of action is proposed. Let's walk through a plausible scenario;
The present plan works out just fine, six million USD in funds is collected in the six month period at the HK corp, and painlessly dispersed to finance BCH development exactly as planned, and milestone after milestone in the BCH roadmap is hit with more speed than ever before. Crisis averted, right?
Not at all from the naysayers perspective that would object to the present plan based on the mechanism of action rather than the above objective; because this has established a precedent that the supermajority of hashpower can impose a change enforced by hashing power and orphaning in order to do almost any arbitrary thing they like, and there is no doubt at all that states would like to use it to blacklist destination addresses, or whitelist addresses to implement KYC, and all the typical stupidity that states are prone to do. It is absolutely possible they could attempt to use this mechanism to accomplish those goals.
But at the exact moment that they do this, then the dissenting faction also has immediate justification to orphan the blocks of the hashpower that does follow these directives, thus robbing them of the power they would otherwise have. And this time they would be doing so from a position of having the software of the node already enormously improved, and with the support of everybody that agreed the proposed ends were negative, rather than the present situation of the proposed ends being positive but the means being in dispute.
If instead they choose now to split off, they reduce any future impact they have on changes executed by the same mechanism, regardless of how bad they turn out to be, they still have to deal with the problem that afflicts BCH of having inadequate funding to perform the necessary development work, and they don't even get a useful voice in the present discussion as to the specifics of the way in which the present proposal might be executed, for example is 12.5% the right number, is a HK corporation the correct way to do it, etc.
As far as I can see, the game theory works out that the correct strategic move for principled dissenters to make is to wait until a change that aims for negative ends is proposed using the mechanism, rather than a change that aims for positive ones. I'm interested to hear opposing views on that if anyone can see anything I'm missing, but if I am right I would encourage those who are angry and considering taking this opportunity to either leave entirely or initiate a fork right now to consider the effect of that vs waiting until there's more convincing cause to do so. You are not giving up anything by doing so, and you are gaining a lot and acting as a mediating influence on people who don't have your foresight and caution.
This equilibrium works for any future proposal of a negative change at all, including messing with the custody of the dev funds, pork barrelling, incompetence, etc. As long as it's easy to convince the present economic majority of the chain that a given change aims at an undesirable outcome, it doesn't make sense for the majority hashpower to even attempt to try to implement that change, they're just shooting themselves in the foot and have a negative expected return on the action concurrent with the degree to which it's clearly wrong.
If the HK corp does end up going ahead, or some other corporate body whatever the jurisdictional situation may be, I would like to nominate either
I believe you may be overthinking these scenarios.
5 sentences, if you want to make a point and can't distill it to that you 1) don't completely understand what you are talking about 2) will lose people because the average person won't read past the first 5.
Well, put your money where mouth is and become a big miner. Otherwise, you are just trolling.
Not only miners have skin in the game. The users are the ones who give BCH value, and they can easily vote woth their feet. Miners should be very careful before changing the fundamentals of Bitcoin like this.
Remember that a very good portion of hash rate on bch is anonymous. Do you really want that part to leave and make bch weaker?
"become a big miner"?