Someone just made a reddit post "Satoshi knows best and CSW is an asshole". For some reason reddit gave me an error when posting my response, so I'm just gonna make it into an article here. Basically the premise of the original post is "Well Craig is rude but the roadmap of restoring the protocol and scaling makes sense, why don't we just support it?"
I'll tell you why I don't support it: What I saw happen is this: There was no drama in July. Then, nChain started to make a ton of noise a week before the 8/15 feature cutoff date. This was a date *generally* agreed on in London in 2017. Certainly there was no objection from nChain last year. So this action (of fussing right before the cutoff) already can objectively be considered a possible sabotage of the protocol development process. Following this, they refused to compromise or try to agree. An emergency meeting was held in Bangkok, where their 'chief scientist' didn't even stay to hear the presentations of other teams and then found an excuse to storm out of the meeting. The other people from nChain could not or would not explain the objections to previously agreed upon roadmap, which they even agreed to themselves as evidenced by their own website.
At this point, for me, major red flags and alarm bells are going off. I'm sorry for pushing the drama and politics but Bitcoin is too important for me not to speak my mind and say what I see. I don't know who is really in control of all this; I have nothing against the people from CoinGeek/nChain personally...but I do not support these kinds of actions.
Maybe they believe they are competing?? But I view Bitcoin as a "coopetition." (cooperation plus competition). When I was in Bangkok at the miner's meeting, I met people with businesses worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. To think these people do not know how to "compete in business" is silly. Yet everyone was open, straightforward, and communicative. If some believe the way to compete is to be hostile and deceptive, then perhaps that works occasionally in the traditional business world, but I don't think it is going to work in the Bitcoin community. I don't support those kinds of actions and behaviors, which means I don't support giving those people more influence than they already have, regardless of what their roadmap is. It is also important to note that essentially everyone in the BCH community wants to scale, wants global cash, wants the original Nakamoto vision...or at least says they do. No one has an exclusive claim on the vision of Bitcoin. So I would prefer to support those who want that, who can work with others, and who are also technically proficient.


7 of 7 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 7 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
  earned $1.00
ABC is just as aggressive as nChain but in a different way. ABC is trying to push through changes not everyone understands or agrees with. They are trying to leverage their connections with exchanges and wallets, their ownership of the Bitcoin Cash website, and their history as pioneers of the BCH protocol to get everyone to adopt their changes. What they haven't done is actually convince everyone their changes are a good idea. The "but we already agreed!" is a really irritating argument - not everyone agreed, their motives and arguments were less clear at the time, and they were the ones who pushed the hard fork schedule and roadmap.
All that being said, I fully support ABC's use of their capital to cause whatever changes they want. They are smart and may very well have identified the correct path forward, even if others don't understand or agree. But they are not innocent bystanders.
Meanwhile, we will be running BU in November because their impartial stance makes a lot more sense for merchants and businesses on the sidelines like us.
   2yr ago
25.0¢ 25.0¢ 25.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 50.0¢
@Ryan , I agree with you for the most part. the "we already agreed" is a tricky one because if we stop the train everytime someone has an itch, we'll never get anywhere. But in this case I think the argument can be made there's enough mindshare to warrant perhaps delaying CTOR activation. Might be a great compromise move forward...Not compromising with SV, but with the greater community of developers and miners.
   2yr ago
25.0¢ 25.0¢
  spent $1.75
1. Why should they compromise or agree if they are of the view that the protocol should be fixed and we move onto adoption? If they are of the view that the original design doesn't need to be modified unnecessarily then why would they compromise? Particularly with block halving approaching and an urgent need for adoption.
2. I do not believe we can say that everyone in the BCH community wants cash or scaling. Does an exchange want cash? I doubt they care. They want transactions on their exchange. They want lots of different coins. Does Bitmain want cash and scaling? There is no real evidence they do. They may care about it they may not. They want profit.
It is NChain that works with Centbee. Clear evidence that Nchain wants cash and scaling.
Can you point to any similar evidence for ViaBTC or Bitmain?
Craig Wright, from the evidence I can see wants scaling and peer to peer cash. This has brought him into conflict with
(a) Exchanges, which want lots of coins.
(b) Miners and ASIC producers who are making money from selling chips and mining many coins apart from BCH
(c) Developers who will be out of a job if the protocol get fixed.
So, I think it is a huge mistake to imagine that all the players want BCH to become peer to peer cash because they profit from the activities which are not fundamental to "peer to peer electronic cash".
When these players prioritse exchange activity or other protocols they put the entire bitcoin experiment at risk, and we are losing valuable time.
   2yr ago
$2.00 25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
@dojistar Bitmain invested in Yours & Money Button. They definitely want cash and scaling.
   2yr ago
  spent $2.00
@Ryan X. Charles. Fair call though I'm cautious as to whether have the same commitment as Nchain or CSW who only invest in BCH. If BCH fails it's not a total disaster for Bitmain (though a serious one considering their holdings), as long as some of the things they invest in succeed.
But , I do retract my claim that Bitmain does not want cash or scaling. Thank you for helping me be more informed.
@Jonald, Can I ask what development you think needs to still happen on BCH? There seems to be NChain saying the protocol was "set in stone" and doesn't need development, and ABC intending continuing development.
Thanks for you time, i always get something valuable form your ideas.
   2yr ago
  spent $1.50
The more I think about Craig walking out, the more I think he was right to do so. This might sound strange but I think that as he disagrees with ABC etc...and has made up his mind, there is no point in trying to negotiate and reach consensus.
This would be the correct path, in a non bitcoin setting, where people must compromise and talk to reach consensus. However with bitcoin hash power is the correct way to achieve consensus and in a way Craig is deliberately making this point.
I hold a lot of bitcoin cash myself, and as long as I know that hash power will decide I can have some certainly about my decisions (whether they be wise or foolish).
I personally feel a lot less comfortable about having a group of people I mostly don't know reaching consensus in a hotel room in another country.
I feel very comfortable that CSW and Nchain will do what they can to get BCH working as "peer to peer cash". I am concerned that Bitmain has mixed incentives, and that ViaBTC is merely looking for what works on an exchange.
I feel that ABC has very good coders, but have not seen any indication they will get adoption happening.
I don't know whether ABC even own any bitcoin cash.
Nothing against them in any personal way, but I would far prefer having Nchain leadingthe way even if Craig may have made his point the way he did.
I really believe he will do what he can to make BCH a success in every way.
Just my view.
   2yr ago
$2.06 25.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
@doji-star, to answer your question: there are technical things needed to scale, plain and simple. The two most obvious bottlenecks are mempool acceptance and the mining RPC, afaik. The narrative of "setting the protocol in stone" is a political slogan because even nChain admits that changes would be made the protocol if necessary (and they are necessary).
   2yr ago
  spent $2.00
@Jonald. Thanks for the reply. Is there a link where is it simply and clearly explained why these changes are. I do consider your opinions valuable
(a) Necessary
(b) Necessary now (if that is the case)
(c) Known possible solutions
Thanks again
   2yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
However these don't fix the immediate bottlenecks I mentioned; they are fixing other bottlenecks, afaict
   2yr ago