Roger Ver, one of the biggest BCH supporter, and Amaury Sechet, one of its lead dev, have been engaging in public exchanges over what appears to be a question of money.
“We need to be hiring more people, and that requires money, but it’s only one part of the equation. The second part is more of a cultural shift. We need to project that we want 10x people and that we’ll treat them well,” Sechet said last year.
That was followed by a show of support, with quite a few BCH donated to the development fund at the time.
Just how much and when is difficult to see because Roger Ver’s mining pool sends a small amount to the dev’s fund for every block they mine.
That mining donation amounts to $4,000-$5,000 a year according to Sechet. In total the address has received 1,251 BCH at the time of writing, worth circa $700,000, with only 153 BCH left on it, worth around $40,000.
So they have no money, basically, although we don’t know what happened to that $700,000, but by comparison the Ethereum Foundation burns through $20 million a year while Blockstream raised some $100 million or more.
Roger Ver has announced a $200 million BCH ecosystem fund, but that’s more a plain Venture Capital equity based investment in startups focused on BCH.
While where BCH devs are concerned, well they’re basically starving figuratively speaking with Sechet stating last year:
“We can go on with what we have, but we can’t do the required work to make world money happen. We haven’t been able to do any serious work for the past 2 years, mostly low hanging fruits.”
Amid this crunch, Ver apparently asked devs to make a considerable technical change in regards to a 25 transaction limit that has very specific use cases in mainly kind of micropayments like services.
A good explanation of it would be calling it the opposite of batching. So instead of condensing multiple payments into one, chained transactions don’t wait even a second.
The limit for these chained transactions has been set to 25 for numerous reasons, including potential DDoS vectors and other potential attack vectors.
Ver has seemingly asked for this limit to be changed to 1,000. So a Bitcoin Cash supporter asked Ver:
“You want to remove the chained 25 transaction limit on BCH, so I’m wondering why not invest that same $1.5M you had offered OpenNode to Bitcoin ABC to have this done the right way?”
Ver’s reply was to say he has donated about $500,000 to BitcoinABC, the BCH client led by Sechet, over the last few years.
Sechet said he is “not aware of these 500k.” Ver then a few days later said ABC is dragging their feet in regards to development, with Sechet publicly stating today:
“Roger has repeatedly amplified people who push a message of ‘ABC is bad; they are Core 2.0, etc’. I won’t name names here as that wouldn’t be productive, but I can assure you that I am not alone in this opinion.
There has been pervasive gaslighting (bordering on abuse) against ABC that has been allowed to go on for years, ever since Bitcoin Cash was created. The $500k issue is relevant to this pattern as now it is Roger himself who is either knowingly or unknowingly creating a similar narrative.”
Finally, Ver’s reply was to state “I still think the 25 tx limit is one of the biggest road blocks for BCH at the moment… I’ve ordered an accounting of the funds Bitcojn.com has used to support ABC and will release it shortly.”
It is probable few care about such accounting that has been promised now for weeks or months if we are not mistaken, and even less care about the 25 tx limit, with the obvious problem here being there’s no money and someone has to pay up or the protocol development of BCH falls to a standstill.
BitcoinABC obviously is not the only implementation, but a lot of confidence in BCH derives from the competence of ABC devs.
That said Litecoin is running out of money too, but Litecoin isn’t doing great, so there’s a serious problem here and begging for donations might not be the right way of solving it if BCH is to really compete.
That’s because no one has to donate and thus probably won’t donate with that reality leading to some bitcoin devs co-founding Blockstream.
It so happened those devs had certain ideas about scalability and prevailed in the end because they went the Red Hat model.
Alternatively ICOs can be a way of getting some running money, but that ship has sailed for BCH.
So they’re basically reduced to “no u” proxy discussions that condense to: there’s no money for BCH protocol development.
In the short term, donations may solve the problem for a bit, but really Sechet needs to think of a more sound strategy and if they’re already being called Blockstream, well, Blockstream did win in the end because they had the resources so their business model might not be too bad.
The problem with Blockstream, where BCH supporters are concerned, was their ideas about scalability rather than that they found a business model to support devs – although some do criticize the fact Blockstream took VC money from certain companies.
There may be plenty of other solutions as well, but instead of arguing and instead of engaging in proxy debates, perhaps everyone needs to sit down to address this problem of no money and to come up with a solution for it.