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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.