Plenty of good reasons against the IFP has been given at muliple occasions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not the full spectrum of socialism, but it is CERTAINLY an element.
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.
Sorry but that is complete bullshit. Fundraising is not charity. It is the market investing voluntarily to improve the value of the asset.
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.
You clearly have no idea what a market is.
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
Also, ZCash is the best example of how bad an investment it has been.
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.
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.
That is not how it is implemented. I read the code.
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.
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.
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.
Also, their whole not invented here bullshit towards ASERT by doing their own crappy/sloppy version (Grasberg) as politics play was both pathetic & dishonest.
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.
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.
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
..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.
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
get funding in the market because they have burned most of their bridges.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
