Create account

replied 1713d
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 1713d
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 1712d
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 1712d
Could, would, should...
replied 1712d
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 1712d
It is not the full spectrum of socialism, but it is CERTAINLY an element.
replied 1711d
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 1711d
Sorry but that is complete bullshit. Fundraising is not charity. It is the market investing voluntarily to improve the value of the asset.
replied 1711d
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 1711d
You clearly have no idea what a market is.
replied 1710d
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 1709d
replied 1710d
Also, ZCash is the best example of how bad an investment it has been.
replied 1710d
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 1709d
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 1709d
That is not how it is implemented. I read the code.
replied 1709d
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 1711d
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 1711d
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.