I don't think ABC is the devil incarnated. The desire to correct issuance and give proper funding is absolutely legitimate, but it is being mishandled because ABC won't go ahead and throw the baby with the bathwater. Instead, it is going through a toxic debate and that's just wasteful for everybody and creates more damage.
Now the bathwater can be thrown because the baby is out. There is no need for IFP and drift:
1 - /u/deadalnix should consider a random coin burn, or rather, a "coin shrinkage" of 90% of UTXOs in the new chain; this is to solve all problems with governance at once, and point clearly to a brand-new independent direction;
2 - if he doesn't care about retaining the same holdlers, make that a coin burn at random and use a surprise random date over the UTXO "screenshot" for fairness;
3 - the goal is sha256 minting and PoS validation to some extent, but ideally it should be another algo; a new algo can reward brand-new coin issuance, brand-new validators, including ABC that will mint and validate; what is the use of keeping some small percentage of sha256 just to keep one more fork alive? There is no competition for a new algo;
4 - this new algo can graciously replace sha256 in a scheduled second fork after avalanche remaining UTXO validator pool come to be established (so no troll attack from rented hash); (more on the algo in another opportunity)
5 - coin shrinkage won't hurt value per se (only uncertainty does); quite the contrary, a new scheduling brings back collective mining and funds ABC in the most fair capitalist way in a decentralized setup; ABC can, then, establish a proper foundation from the developer point-of-view to distribute funds (even if it is a hard-coded IFP to some extent);
6 - ABC has no chance to win the exchange-ticker game and there is no need for that, the network effect will still be present if we are talking coin shrinkage and not random burn;
7 - hashwar is dumb, although bitmain has mongolian coal oozing from their pores, ABC own goal is to migrate to PoS for validation, so who cares?
8 - bitmain's stash still expected to be about the same % of the remainder of UTXOs after burn, given proper random selection parameters (hashes perfectly good entropy for a one-time random selection), or just coin shrinkage; the difference is that bitmain is not a perennial major validator, it will retain relevance but will need to issue coins (look point 11);
9 - bitmain's stash illiquid the way things are; the market is not valuing bitmain's stash and a too big stash gets in the way of moving on to a form of PoS validation;
10 - To sum up: new schedule, coin burn and new validation is more or less what everybody wants to do but are simply too afraid to do due to fears of missing out network effect. That has been proposed many times in BTC communities as well in one way or the other. I'd say to ABC, just do it now, the alternative is just another fork with another ticker-war and all that you know.
11 - Finally, I'd also take the opportunity and recalculate the haphazard satoshi coin schedule of 4 year halvings :), talk about a good way to push people to alternative projects because they missed out the first 2 years; this also gives opportunity to other individuals and businesses to grow relevance over time, instead of having a single big entity that has too early a too big share of coins;
ps: As for BCH stashes, they will just remain as they were; in fact, embracing a new fork will give more stability to the now-existing UTXOs than some disgruntled hard fork that, again, no one asked for.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/iexmzv/abc_how_to_move_forward_alternatives_to_ifp/
No comments:
Post a Comment