Extract from a Slack chat log.
After the last two days events it's pretty evident to me that Amaury Séchet is a liability for Bitcoin Cash. If he stays around in the influential position he is in now, the only sane action for me is to gradually remove my exposure to the system.
Details below. Some names have been blanked out for privacy reasons.
----- October 31st, 2017 -----
user1 [11:03 PM]
Hi
@deadalnix since you're online... can you provide @erik.beijnoff and others some context as to why the EDA change must be urgently deployed _before_ 2X forks? What's wrong with two weeks later, so the community has more time to test the various algorithms, code review and get a binary release ready? What's driving the timeline? Thanks.
---------------
deadalnix [11:12 PM]
Nobody was exited about solving the issue for 3 month. Without a date set, nobody would be taking care of the issue today.
Really, there is only one cure for what we are seeing here, it's called anticipation.
---------------
user2 [11:13 PM]
But that doesn't really explain why not 5 days later?
Why before 2x, and not after?
---------------
deadalnix [11:14 PM]
Because nobody has any clue what's going to happen with 2x, and EDA only adds to the incertitude
anyway, got to unplug, it's getting late here.
---------------
erik.beijnoff [11:39 PM]
This is a heap of crap coming from someone sacrificing network health to be able to keep a position of control.
The real reason is that Séchet saw that general alignment on a proper solution were two days away.
It's not a coincidence that the press release came when it did. Final alignment was at the same time
happening on the bitcoin-ml list.
This is underhanded tactics and I can only consider Séchet and ABC compromised as long as he is in control there.
Furthermore, I can only assume that this is due to that he has a direct but obscured relation to one or several miners. This makes him subordinated to them and a systemic danger. This is also not the first time we are getting indications of this type of hidden agenda from his side.
Actively staying away from open discussion and putting the network in front of a fait accompli with no possibility to change the forced decision is all part of a very deliberate system manipulation.
Saying that no one was addressing the shortcomings of the current DAA is also a blatant lie. There were lively and well-informed discussions going on.
May I also remind of who implemented the EDA, ignoring warnings about the risks of the asymmetrical properties of it?
The EDA was, by the way, forced in a similar manner. This seems to be turning into a modus operandi of Séchet. One that I'm not particularly comfortable with.
---------------
solex [6:21 AM]
This is really not an issue for people to fall out over. It was known from the first week that the Bitcoin Cash EDA would have to be improved in the short term. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Any of the proposed DAAs which retarget per block, and in two directions, will suffice until the next scheduled HF. If what is being used needs refining then it can be done at that time.
There are many other improvements for Cash which have been mentioned already on the ML. Let those be hammered out in a collegiate fashion across all involved developers. A lesson can be learnt from the less than ideal handling of the DAA. For the sake of preserving momentum and public solidarity for Cash, it is best to press on. The next major development issue will be a much better indicator about whether decentralised development has a prospect of functioning how we would hope.
@erik.beijnoff Any BU member is welcome to submit a BUIP about taking a different approach than the default of adopting the DAA used by the majority of the Cash network. However, all development BUIPs need 14 days for member feedback and consultation _after_ the BU Lead Developer opens it for such feedback. A BUIP will be too late to pre-empt the announced HF date and would need to apply to the BU implementation retrospectively. The next vote is late-Nov / early-Dec. However, I do doubt that a BUIP to reject the functional DAA would get many "for" votes.
---------------
erik.beijnoff [7:57 AM]
@solex thanks for the feedback. I am of course not arguing that BU should rail off in a direction that no one else in the network supports. But there is a difference in just submitting beforehand to a hostile subversion attempt, which this is, or accepting that the network did get subverted.
Currently this is just a proposal from a network client gone rogue. I'm assuming that this change has been ordered by one or several miners. The ramifications of just accepting that type of hidden deals carte blanche are pretty grave. Until it is clear that the network do change in this direction, I definitely think that no action should be taken from the side of BU.
What Séchet is doing here is using network value as a trading tool to stay in a position of control. Worst case scenario the network splits in two and fades into obscurity. Best case scenario it has just been proven that the whole network is being used as a bargaining tool for purposes external to it.
What I wrote above applies equally to the algo chosen and the forced hard fork date. None of these are chosen because they suit Cash the best, but for purposes external to the network. This is a huge value drain, it clearly proves that the network is being controlled.
If the relation between Séchet and the miners had been declared in the open, it would be a completely different matter. Then investors and other participants could deem if this is a desirable trait or not and act accordingly. The current situation equates to a severely manipulated market and a corrupted network.
My faith in the Cash experiment is severely damaged. I'm going to reduce my investment in it to a large extent until it can be shown that Séchet, who only can be considered an agent of unknown forces, does not hold influence over it anymore.
---------------
solex [8:27 AM]
I think your perspective is understandable, but at the same time is overstated. A new network is not going to gain traction without some level of co-operative dialogue between developers and miners to bootstrap it, in the face of an already large network effect. Until difficulty is fixed this is still a bootstrap phase. At times the Cash chain is <50% profitable as the segwit chain. Miners who mine at a loss in that scenario are definitely looking to an improved future state.
The Cash chain is 7571 blocks ahead of the segwit chain. Aren't you more concerned that this is amounting to a pre-mine? If the EDA remains then this block count will only keep growing and the coin price will spiral downward. Once a better DAA is in place it should reduce the scope for manipulation.
Unwisely a HF was announced before the new DAA was agreed by all parties. This is the error. Time has run out and either confusion and loss of face occurs by backtracking on a HF date, or the debate on the DAA is drawn to a conclusion so that binaries can be built. (edit typos). (edited)
---------------
erik.beijnoff [8:32 AM]
This is not co-operative dialogue with miners. This is one party, Séchet, using every network participants value as a bargaining tool. Put it frankly, it’s a smash-and-grab. I was also clear with that if this co-operation had been done in a public way, it would have been a completely different ballgame. A public statement saying what the relation looks like would have been enough.
I'm getting pretty damn tired of developers who are clearly not up to the task, neither with regards to skills, nor ethics, are playing scheming games with other people's money. Currently there only seems to be one developer of that kind in Cash. There where quite a few more in BTC.
---------------
solex [8:39 AM]
I certainly think this could have been done a lot better, but "smash-and-grab"?
There are 1131 cash nodes on bitnodes of which 897 are ABC nodes (79%). I suppose the measure of the damage to development decentralization will be seeing whether that percentage has increased after the HF.
As far as developers are concerned, there are a lot of good ones in Cash. I do agree that a similar forced-decision scenario for the next major software change will be very bad for Cash.
I see your view. It's just that on a practical level the HF date is widely publicised. There will be major damage to Cash if it is not successful. I see the ABC client is ready. On this matter other dev teams need to follow suit for the good of the coin. I do agree that if the scenario occurs again then it will be very damaging, and people certainly can and should sell based on their own assessment at any time.
---------------
erik.beijnoff [8:49 AM]
I totally agree that there is an extremely large pool of skilled developers in Cash. Those are currently being driven away by one individual, Séchet, that is completely unsuitable for the role he is in. Furthermore, since the DAA bomb dropped, it’s becoming more and more obvious, by hearing from various sources, that he ended up in that position through the same type of underhanded tactics that we are currently seeing.
I am strongly opposed to implementing any changes in BU to adapt to the new algo until it is verified to be the direction the network is taking. It should be at least 3-4 days after the change happens in the network. I see a forced implementation of the algo at that date as hurting Cash more than if the network gets to sort it out itself. If BU submits now, they will contribute to that network subversion.
Not to nag too much, but the change being pushed through by ABC is driven by network external factors, not by care for improvement.
Success for Séchet in this instance will encourage the behaviour. In fact, that’s probably exactly what we are seeing now; the EDA was pushed in a similar manner.
