BUIP143: (passed) Refuse the Coinbase Tax

[TierNolan]

A less aggressive way to do it would be to only invalidate blocks that takes it over 66%. If the vote is 10% for the change, then there is no point in triggering a chain split over those who vote in favor.

A block is invalid if, in the current voting period,
- at least 100 blocks have voted for the IFP
AND
- at least 66% of blocks have voted for the IFP

I wonder if a potential compromise would be if miners were allowed opt-out of the payments. Essentially, they could add a "Pay to OP_RETURN" as a mandatory whitelisted address.

This means that miners could choose to send funding to a whitelisted project, or if they feel the whitelist is being abused, they can just pay to OP_RETURN. If they don't pay, they are effectively reducing minting inflation.

 

[cypherblock]

Re potential compromise: Yeah I saw someone previously mention a black hole address which would be similar to OP_RETURN. But why even suggest such an idea, IFP is total crap so is being forced to burn coins.

Re: invalidating blocks taking it over 66%: Yes that is less aggressive, but also less useful. Goal, just get everyone off this whole IFP nonsense ASAP. Don't wait for any votes.

If 66% of miners want to donate, let them DONATE now. No need for any consensus change. They can put up a web page showing who's contributed the most and who isn't contributing any as like a way to shame people into giving.

 

[Roy Badami]

It's hard to see what the right thing to do is. I think maybe manual activation of a fork if/when it becomes clear that non-donating blocks really are being orphaned. (Automatic configuration is dangerous, because ti's difficult to ensure it doesn't get accidentally triggered by a normal block race condition.)

 

[digitsu]

Just immediately invalidate any block that votes for IFP. No blacklists. Launch on same date as their release. Any BIP9 version bits that vote for IFP are invalid blocks. Done.

Don't need to launch the same time. Launch before.

 

[Gaddis]

BUIP143: Refuse the coinbase tax
Submitted by: Andrew Stone
Date: 2020/01/27


Background

A part of the BCH ecosystem proposes to enforce a percentage of the coinbase mining reward being allocated to whitelist addresses. Eventually, any mined block not making such an allocation is to be orphaned in order to ensure 100% compliance on the most-work chain. Hence, this allocation becomes involuntary and can be considered a “coinbase tax”.

In this BUIP I am asking you to make the most important decision in the history of Bitcoin Unlimited. I am asking you to vote to disallow any coinbase tax in the Bitcoin Unlimited full node with the effect of forking from any blockchain that requires such.


Why should we do this?

Philosophically, a mandatory tax undermines the voluntary and capitalist principles of Bitcoin. The practical effect of this tax will be to introduce fiscal policy to Bitcoin Cash, and indefinitely sustain a power structure, effectively a BCH government, that is answerable to no one. This, essentially political money with no clear disbursement process, will go to people who are excellent at politics and social media presence rather than those who are rewarded in the capitalist system. History is replete with examples of how such funds are inefficiently utilized or misused to the detriment of the host societies. In contrast, those who practice sound capitalist business and engineering practices succeed and therefore do not need such a tax in the first place. Personal tax advisor near me link on site Your Books On Time. Applying this philosophy to BCH, this tax can be used to indefinitely sustain inept development or no development whatsoever since payments are not ultimately earned through the production of real value. In contrast, multiple systems can and are used to solve this problem in existing successful projects today. For example, a system similar to other open source communities, and/or an entrepreneurial system where start up companies fund development and maintenance of features can simultaneously be employed.

Rather than sustain a regime through taxation force, the Bitcoin Unlimited and BCH community should deny the creation of a centralized and opaque power structure, instead allowing the capitalist process to do what it does best -- reward success.


Technical Implications

By passing this BUIP the BU developers are authorised by the membership to release a BCH full node client which prevents the enforcement of a coinbase tax. The risks are accepted that a new and persistent BCH fork is a possibility. The responsibility for such an outcome, damaging to network effect, lies with those who are beneficiaries of the coinbase tax.


Budget

No extra expenditure is envisaged above pre-existing funded development.

2/17 edit & formatting.

Interesting topic

 

[Cd19221]

Buying cryptocurrency and holding is old news. With copy trading, you can profit from the experience of seasoned traders by copying their moves. Learn the ropes of the market without the stress of making every decision yourself. Click and start copying their trades to earn profits. Interested to know more? Comment below and let's discuss. Remember, investing in cryptocurrencies carries risks, which is why it's always important to do your own research and consult with a financial advisor if needed. C d 1 9 2 2 1 @ g m a i l . c o m

 

[donald26]

HOW YOU CAN RECOVER YOUR LOST CRYPTO/FUNDS: Lost hope in a crypto scam? I got my $394,330 back! I invested $430,000 in a bogus crypto site. Big returns promised, withdrawals blocked, extra fees demanded – it was a nightmare. Feeling trapped, I even considered the unthinkable. My family helped me through it, and my niece suggested HACKERSTEVE911. They'd helped her with grades, but I'd never thought of them for this. I contacted them, expecting little. But within four days, they recovered $394,330 back to my wallet! My hope, my life, was back. If you're in a similar situation, don't lose hope. Contact them on hackersteve911@gmail.com