Some comments on Jonald_Fyookball's report from the miner meeting
I wrote this originally as a comment on Jonald's report, but then I noticed he's set a ridiculous $20 fee for comments (to avoid criticism?). So I thought I might as well make a new post instead.
Thanks for the report. Here are my opinions on some things (quoting Jonald):
When pushed, nChain was unable to give objections to OP_CHECKDATASIG,
I think the burden of proof when adding new stuff should be on the ones who want to add it, not on the ones who oppose it. BCH should be made stable by locking the protocol.
stating that they had not investigated it enough or that the people who could explain were not present.
This is exactly the reason for locking the protocol. Should devs always waste their precious time and energy investigating whenever someone is willing to inject something into the protocol?
The burden of proof should not be on the ones who oppose change.
There was little to no attempt to compromise from anyone. I posed the question to nChain if they would be willing to accept some of the ABC changes if their op codes could be given more priority; the answer was essentially "no".
Here's what Ayn Rand had to say about compromise:
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
Talking about "compromise" is trying to make this about persons and politics, when there's much more at stake, Bitcoin itself and its future. Just one harmful change might endanger it.
One does not "compromise" by adding only half dose of poison into his food. If I know food is poisoned, I don't eat it and I don't care if that displeases the chef.
"Some had said that there is a difference in philosophies (locking down the protocol vs improving it in order to scale), but based on the fact that everyone had similar goals, my main conclusion is that this battle is really about influence and control over the protocol."
This same misrepresentation keeps getting repeated.
Who is in control if the protocol is locked? No one.
And that's why it should be locked. If it's not, then there's always this question of control and politics. Which was something Bitcoin was supposed to avoid.
And I don't say this stuff because I support nChain. It's the other way around. (Does this really need to be stated? Some people try to make into some kind of "tribe"/"follower" thing.) If nChain ever starts pushing unnecessary changes to the protocol, I will oppose them too.
2 of 2 reviewers say it's worth paying for
0 of 2 reviewers say it's not worth paying for