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/In other words, to do on BU what this article is proposing to do with the ABC codebase in such a case:
https://read.cash/@SharkySharkdog/you-lead-and-maybe-i-will-follow-ff38350410/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/Link to Memo poll on whether I should open another BUIP unless BUIP143 is amended.
https://memo.cash/post/05213910f1d09a05b781efaa75f12b1d8352ee99b58db70942c6c33a966845e612/
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.
