• Breaking News

    Tuesday, February 18, 2020

    Home Unlabelled BTC How Bitcoin (BTC) managed to scale:

    BTC How Bitcoin (BTC) managed to scale:

    February 18, 2020

    BTC How Bitcoin (BTC) managed to scale:

    How Bitcoin (BTC) managed to scale:

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 07:49 PM PST

    Mark Lundeberg: "Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately."

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 11:59 AM PST

    Currently the voluntarily Monero CCS has ~200.000$ worth of projects in WIP being funded

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 10:31 PM PST

    Following the current situation and I still wonder, why the Monero solution still is not the soution the community explicitly wants. It doesn't interact with the protocol itself, it is completely open source, it is (at least at Monero) reliable, it pays you when work is done (and not for Hopium).

    Here it is, look for Work in Progress to see what is funded currently: https://ccs.getmonero.org/work-in-progress/

    Developers SHOULD be paid for good work. And if you deliver good work you get paid well. You should definitely give it a go.

    Open source repositories can be found at the bottom.

    submitted by /u/Flenst
    [link] [comments]

    If we grow adoption by 1000%, price of the coin will also rise substantially. The problem with funding development will solve itself. No need to rush it now and take big risks. ABC will work fine until at least 20MB+ blocks, which will be years from now.

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 03:04 PM PST

    Everyone agreed 2y ago our focus should be "adoption! adoption! adoption".

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 02:44 PM PST

    Everyone agreed 2y ago our focus should be "adoption! adoption! adoption".

    Now I see people desperately shouting our one problem is "infra! infra! gotta fund infra!"

    I've been mostly away since the BSV fork. What changed?

    Some questions I have for pro-IFP people to understand their side:

    1. Do you really believe e.g. LTC is not super thriving just because of lack of maintenance?
    2. Will BCH just stop working in 1..2y because we let ABC code "rust"?
    3. Will adoption to say 1..2MB blocks be hindered if we just keep one node client as it is now?
    4. And adoption to 15MB blocks?
    5. If a well funded infra was indeed the secret ingredient for success, how come Dash or BSV are not #1?

    People are willing to mess with the protocol and governance for this, but I fail to see the super bright future ahead just because of a few millions for maintenance and new protocol features.

    submitted by /u/rinexc
    [link] [comments]

    BitcartCC - your open source solution for everything Bitcoin Cash

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 09:59 PM PST

    AMA request for Greg Maxwell about the time he physically attacked a software engineer at Blockstream's SF office.

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 08:21 PM PST

    Greg, I heard a rumor you physically attacked another employee at Blockstream. Can you tell us your side of the story?

    submitted by /u/MemoryDealers
    [link] [comments]

    Why Peter McCormack Is Dead Wrong About Medium of Exchange vs. Store of Value

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 09:02 PM PST

    Jay does a lot of business with North Queensland's Jim Challons Auto Service that also accepts Bitcoin BCH - closing the loop

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 03:45 PM PST

    Bitcoin.com and Roger Ver has already announced a $200 million USD development fund for the BCH community. This IFP proposal is coercive, reminiscent of terrible things that derailed BTC, wildly unpopular, and is clearly not about the money.

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 05:14 PM PST

    The title says it for the most part. So in 6 months, this IFP was to initially raise $6million USD at 12.5% taxation, also known as theft.

    So now we are at 5% on the modified, yet still coercively taxed (theft is a synonym of tax), highly controversial, poorly dictated, easily exploitable by flip-flopping SHA-256 bad actors towards BCH, which would yield...what? ~$2.75 million USD over 6 months to fund, as the IFP proposes to the least able, most inefficient, arbitrarily and nepotistically selected "whitelisted" of developers? Who exactly dictates this whitelist, and what are their credentials? Some anonymous corporation in Hong Kong? I've got nothing against Hong Kong, and a lot of respect for their population in their ongoing struggle against Beijing, but is this really how we spread the message of p2p cash for the human race?

    Bitcoin Cash is true to the Bitcoin white paper and needs very little more "dev" work after Cash Fusion is consumer ready. It only needs adoption. It is consumer-ready.

    Roger and company and Bitcoin.com are bringing $200 million to the table in the near future for dev's to contact them, pitch the plan, and be accepted for funding or not, which is not quite 100 times greater, without coercion, completely benign, and avoiding potential hard forks.

    This is how free markets work. Not tyranny of the slight majority leading to inefficiency, divergence, and failure, but individuals acting in the interest of others, because that is in their personal, highest self interest.

    This IFP is a disaster any way you look at it.

    submitted by /u/bolognapony234
    [link] [comments]

    yeah, rewarding companies who "needs" it, is a terrible idea. Companies will be incentivized to be needy all the time. (See: publics schools or any govt entities)

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 02:23 PM PST

    Just saw on the latest proposal that money will be sent to whoever needs it more.

    As someone who has ties in the public school industry, this is a terrible idea. If you give schools (or any govt entities) 1m for the year, they will figure out how to spend 1m. If you give them 2m, they will spend 2m. And so on and so forth.

    ​

    Why?

    Say if I own a public school... And I was financially smart, and I cut costs,.. whereby I only spent 700k, instead of 1m (saved 300k) -- I will be punished. Yes, that 300k I saved will be sent to another school, who needs it more. (budget is sent on a monthly basis)

    So say, another school overbudgets, and builds a new gymnasium, and gets billed 1.3m... they are now the needy school who needs an "extra 300k"

    So it is in every school's interest to spend all the budget (and possibly overbudget too)

    This is oversimplifying, but yes, this is how this works.

    ​

    Yes, the schools who can figure out how to overbudget and be needy, gets rewarded. The financially smart (on a govt funded) institution, gets punished.

    submitted by /u/butthurtmuch-
    [link] [comments]

    Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 08:32 AM PST

    One thing I know for sure...Blockstream DOES NOT want us to attract devs with money

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 06:28 PM PST

    Regarding Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 06:20 AM PST

    In response to Roger's recent video, I agree that last bullet point is ridiculous. How much a project is "in need of money" should be an irrelevant factor. If anything it shows how UNsuccessful that organization is.

    A free market doesn't force you to fund poor services. Government laws do this. They interfere with the free market.

    In my opinion this funding is a bad idea as it's too controversial. It opens up the possibility for a split, and there are bad actors who would love to take advantage of this opportunity.

    As discussed, BCH only has about 3% of the global SHA256 hashrate. By creating the option to change the rules of the network with a 66% miner vote, this allows bad-acting miners (BTC or BSV miners) who want to guide BCH in a bad direction an opportunity to use their hashrate for a LIMITED time (just during the voting period) to cause LASTING effects well beyond the voting period. Once activated, it no longer requires their hashrate but the rules stay in place.

    To a bad actor, this is the "gift that keeps on giving" (in a negative sense).

    If I was Calvin Ayre for example, I'd throw every bit of hashrate I had at BCH during this time period to try to derail its decision. It would be worth it because after the vote the decision is lasting.

    Normally, hashrate does not get longterm benefit from short term investments. It gets the benefit of a single block mined at a time.

    If BCH didn't share its hashrate with BTC and BSV this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But it does.

    Fund BCH another way.

    Also shared here: https://read.cash/@ColinTalksCrypto/regarding-bitcoincoms-stance-on-the-recent-block-reward-diversion-proposals-5513abcd

    submitted by /u/ColinTalksCrypto
    [link] [comments]

    Fountainhead.cash Infrastructure Funding

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 11:55 AM PST

    Bitcoin.com CTO Emil Oldenburg shares his thoughts on the IFP

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 11:32 PM PST

    Mid-February BCH Latam Update

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 01:07 PM PST

    Electron Cash now in Swahili!

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 07:48 AM PST

    YAIFPO - Yet Another Infra Funding Plan Opinion

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 03:50 PM PST

    I'll try to keep this short given the flood of these.

    Mark Lundeberg is out, Bitcoin.com is out as it stands, Jonald Fyookball seems out as it stands (his approach seems to have been abandoned).

    I don't have higher respect for the opinions of such people/entities in Bitcoin Cash, so I'm out too. There are many pieces that together form the BCH community. They are not all equal. I believe some are more important to the backbone. Much of what I consider the backbone, with the exception of Amaury, has now officially come out opposed to the IFP, so it doesn't matter what my own opinion on it is. I must follow the backbone.

    My closing remarks are targeted at Amaury. If you've followed r/btc you've known I've steadfastly endorsed having you lead the community tech-wise, and similarly preached the high priority to getting your efforts funded. Perhaps you're unaware, but one thing stands out to me, which is your insistence on having things your way. Having your way regarding the tech is a good thing, because you're a highly competent and crypto movement caring engineer. However, out of that narrow sphere you'll find you will (and have already) run into problems. Perhaps it's French culture. In America, which is rooted in entrepreneurial thinking, we learn quickly personal preferences take a back seat to what wider markets want, if we want to cater to and succeed in those markets. I still believe your efforts should gain funding, and further that there are ways to achieve it with good degree of success, but if and when this happens it won't likely be the way you prefer. If you want to increase the likelihood future funding efforts are successful I suggest seriously deferring to others who may be more helpful, in particular @MemoryDealers, as to the route you should embrace.

    submitted by /u/cryptos4pz
    [link] [comments]

    Devs without miners!

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 02:37 PM PST

    You don't need to hire spies or blackmail insiders of a community to distract it. You just need to fuel the ego of certain personalities and they will do the job for you.

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 04:58 AM PST

    Naomi Brockwell, Chris Pacia on developer funding - BTC, ZEC, DASH, BCH

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 07:55 AM PST

    BTC.TOP Founder Jiang Zhuoer Talks BCH, Jihan Wu, Mining, the Coronavirus

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 08:37 AM PST

    Why developer fund, not marketing?

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 01:21 AM PST

    I see a lot of discussion about development fund. Transaction levels for almost for year stays at the same level. We have technology who works well enough for others to join. I think what we need right now is marketing fund to onboard more users into BCH.

    submitted by /u/JavelinoB
    [link] [comments]

    Crowdfunding Spedning Your BCH

    Posted: 17 Feb 2020 01:21 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment