BU had to oppose Amaury to stay strong and relevant, but they decided to fight CSW and submit to the French shitlord.
Now, we see the result.. BU members don't care and don't follow what's proposed. I am curious to see the voting results and how many members will simply ignore..
i suspect BU members interested in funding their activities will care.
@cypherdoc identified quite early the rift in BU. the group was composed on the one hand of engineers working on node software and networking, and on the other hand of non-coding bitcoin grokers. time showed that the interests of those two groups do not align. for example, in his post
@theZerg writes:
I have always believed that to be competitive against the first mover advantage of Bitcoin and against the versatility of Ethereum, the blockchain architecture Satoshi left us requires a phase of dramatic innovation followed by continuous improvement.
whereas the non-coding grokers tended to be convinced by the argument that adoption at scale can only come with a stable protocol, and that the bitcoin protocol is sufficient to encompass most market needs.
now it was mostly thanks to the engineers that BU secured its funding. doing so left them in the position to build themselves an ideal environment in which to research and experiment with blockchain tech. they have every right to take full advantage of that, not under the direction of anyone else, let alone BSV's enormously conflictive leadership. however the risk for the path BU has taken is relative irrelevance. even if BU's engineers do achieve breakthroughs, that is very far from ensuring those get any traction. we have seen evidence of this with the BU-BCH node software (which was not adopted by a majority of nodes in BTC or BCH), and the situation will probably be more acute with an eventual BU-COIN (for example, GROUP tokens implemented on BU-COIN might present some novel attributes, but that would only be the very beginning of the battle for tokenization. this becomes clear after following
the development of several token protocols in BSV -- there is massive effort involved in that front far beyond what BU is in a position to deploy, and technical improvements on their own cannot make up for the difference IMO).
at some point i suggested to BU members of the engineering stripe that it might worth considering, in addition to continuing work on protocol development and experimentation, to expand into blockchain services. i think my proposal was viewed with utmost suspicion for me having at some point dared to pronounce the dreadful name 'BSV'. and i didn't make it into a BUIP since there is no point in asking others to work on something they are not interested in working on.
the outcome of it all will likely be the generation of research shielded from market constraints, with corresponding limited impact. not unlike vast swaths of academia, i suppose.
news.ycombinator.com
forum.bitcoinunlimited.info
