What I don't like about BUIP143 is that some BU devs want it to give them "carte blanche" to do a soft-fork against donation addresses.
I'm not at all sure that's needed, or a prudent countermeasure.
My thoughts
1/
I know the IFP proposal seems to be losing support, but let's examine theoretically if BTC.top & others went ahead and set up their plan & code in ABC to pay to a HK fund address.
2/
Now imagine BU sets up their code using BUIP143 as justification to soft-fork in a rule which orphans any blocks containing the "HK fund address(es)" advertised in ABC code.
3/
A lot has been said about "optics" of the IFP proposal (tax-like, non-debate theory etc).
But what about the optics of adding a address-based blacklist to BCH (BU) code?
Not good!
4/
If we want to keep a "tax free", non-discriminatory incentive structure on BCH, I'm not for such a blacklist, and I am contemplating putting up a counter-BUIP to express that.
5/
Blacklists don't work well.
"The cartel" could make their code have a flexible mechanism, distributing "approved" donation addresses among their members (pools, exchanges etc).
6/
One possible BU defense would be a further SF to restrict CB outputs to a address, but I'm sure you can see how that would be another bad move (think existing donations & optics).
7/
As I see it, such soft-forks would work against the ideals of BU to bolster and not to degrade the existing p2p cash system.
8/
I opened another BUIP, it would ask to release a May version that contains any non-controversial updates, but simply not include orphaning based on some involuntary CB payouts.
9/
Finally, another major reason not to go down the road to blacklisting any coinbase outputs:
I believe it would open the door to more requests from regulators / governments. Eeek.
11/
makes sense to make it explicit but to my eyes this come bundle w/ blacklisting. You basically introduce a precedent and remove plausible deniability when it will be most needed.
