Create account

34d
With futures trading, CoinDays voting, miner signalling & most businesses signalling, it looks like the IFP (on ABC) will be rekt utterly come November.

#BCH #BitcoinCash #IFP #ABC #BCHN
replied 34d
BCH along with it sadly. Without the IFP there is no sustainable funding plan. The charity drive model is absurd.
replied 34d
It is not charity. It's market feedback.
replied 33d
Considering how it tends to be a few large donations its horrible. The IFP was the best way to prevent a blockstream style problem. What's next Red Dwarf marathons? Is this PBS or BCH?
replied 33d
Amaury is clearly the smart as developer and it sucks to see Community rejecting. I don't see much of a chance for Success without him sadly.
replied 33d
There are many that are just as smart...and more productive.
replied 33d
No. It is still market feedback. Whales investing is a good thing. Only socialists see that as negative. Few whales is problem, yes. But that is also market feedback. That can improve.
replied 33d
The problem is people trying to tie this to political ideology in strange ways. It is not socialism, or a tax. Trying to paint the IFP as such was just meaningless FUD.
replied 32d
I was referring to you and other "ABCers" critique of the Flipstarter model.
replied 32d
Irrelevant to me then since I see socialism as evil.
replied 33d
No one ever gave a good reason to be against it other than analogies to irrelevant ideas. Vague ideas of market forces which they are not. A few large dinars is not market forces.
replied 33d
I think it was FUD that seeped in from outsiders who wanted the community to fork again and destroy its perception from the outside. Seeing it happen again for little to no reason.
replied 32d
Sure there might be some that will try and play that card. But considering ABCs recent behaviour I am no longer that afraid of a fork, esspecially since most of the network is no-IFP.
replied 32d
Plenty of good reasons against the IFP has been given at muliple occasions.
replied 32d
I keep hearing that, but no one seems to be able to give any. It's all either untrue, or irrelevant ideology and poor analogies of the IFP. Essentially strawmen arguments only.
replied 32d
Third, I have zero confidence that things will improve just becaue they will money thrown at them from the coinbase. They don't listen to the market & play politics on Twitter.
replied 32d
I do like the idea of the miners paying for the development of the software they use, instead of having community fundraisers from the users. The users already pay fees.
replied 32d
What if miners use their own software, should they still pay ABC? That is how this IFP works, and that is how socialism works. Redistribution of wealth involuntarily.
replied 31d
If they use their own software then they could direct IFP funds to the burner address. They could be added to the whitelist and have funds go to their dev team.
replied 31d
Could, would, should...
replied 31d
That is not how socialism works, and it is very ignorant to hand wave the term socialism as if it was relevant. The IFP has nothing in relation with socialism.
replied 31d
It is not the full spectrum of socialism, but it is CERTAINLY an element.
replied 31d
The current models seems to share more with socialism than the IFP would. We currently have user charity drives to fund the development of software the Miners use.
replied 30d
Sorry but that is complete bullshit. Fundraising is not charity. It is the market investing voluntarily to improve the value of the asset.
replied 30d
The fundraising is absurdly stupid, and unsustainable. A couple larger dinners is not a market. Having the community pay for the software the miners use is closer to socialism.
replied 30d
You clearly have no idea what a market is.
replied 30d
I do, and you do not. A few people do not make a market. Even worse having so few contributors means people can put financial pressure on devs. The IFP was the best way to prevent that
replied 29d
replied 29d
Also, ZCash is the best example of how bad an investment it has been.
replied 29d
The IFP won't prevent that, it will just introduce a new problem. Funding inefficient development and in this case some that directly control the fund address.
replied 29d
What a strange assumption. Did you ever actually look at the IFP? It would let miners decide which dec group to pay. If a group didn't perform they would not get paid.
replied 28d
That is not how it is implemented. I read the code.
replied 28d
It's how the first proposal was made, that people rejected. If they have changed it since it is likely due to frustration with the constant attacks based on FUD.
replied 30d
As with everyone else you can't give a reason the IFP is a bad thing. The arguments against it were absurdly weak, and based on lies and misinformation.
replied 30d
Funny, I was about to say to say the same about your arguments. Weak and no grasp of what a market is. Also, you keep ignoring why ABC are the only ones that can't get investment.
replied 32d
Also, their whole not invented here bullshit towards ASERT by doing their own crappy/sloppy version (Grasberg) as politics play was both pathetic & dishonest.
replied 32d
That was a flip a coin decision. Seems ABC didn't even mind using ASERT. Either way was good. It really didn't matter too much.
replied 32d
It was a political test.and it was sloppy work. And this is not the first time either. Stone-walling is their pedigree. This is why I no longer feel bad if they fork off.
replied 31d
Well hopefully you remember this after the fork when the BCH value gets cut in half again. Another fork will be horrible for BCH, and the petty squabbling over the IFP was not worth it
replied 31d
..it is a shame overall, agree, since it is not about disagreement of the mission, but lack of colaboration. Luckily there is a lot of collaboration in the rest of the BCH eco-system.
replied 31d
Cut in half. Hardly. Yes, I wish ABC would start to be more collaborative and less lazy as well, so that we could avoid a split. But I think they are hellbent on IFP since they can't
replied 31d
get funding in the market because they have burned most of their bridges.
replied 32d
Second, ABCs performance has been lazy and obstructive for the last year and they have managed to burn their bridges hard. No wonder noone wants to fund them proper.
replied 32d
Arguments and burned bridges suck. Their performance is okay considering a lack of funding. I just wish people had rational reasons, and that it wouldn't lead to a damaging fork.
replied 32d
The single biggest argument against the IFP is ditect funneling if money directly into ABCs pocket, just they "feel" entitled to it That is wrong on so many levels.
replied 32d
I don't know if it has changed, but it was a list of projects a miner could choose what team to support. Not just ABC. I think it even had a burner option of paying no one.
replied 32d
The only legitimate point I saw brought up wasn't so much against the IFP. It was just how to add more teams to the whitelist. The rules for being added to the list seemed fine.
replied 32d
LOL ok.
replied 34d
Wrong.