Let’s rewind the clock a bit… Bitmain conspired with Blockstream and they paid a dev team called Core to enable Segwit on the now inaccurately named Bitcoin (BTC). As part of this deal it was agreed that in return for Bitmain support for Segwit in BTC that BlockStream/Core would let Bitmain and their paid Dev team Bitcoin ABC fork off with another version of Bitcoin that was in fact actually still Bitcoin. The idea was that Bitmain could use this branch of the chain as their private playground. The Segwit coin (BTC), still inaccurately called Bitcoin by most, is now a dead end technology that cannot be used as a digital currency and this has robbed billions of dollars in value and stunted the growth of the entire industry for years.
Now Bitmain and their captive dev group (ABC) seek to yet again fork the real Bitcoin BCH to enable them to take Wormhole to the next level. The economic model of Wormhole is flawed however. Destroying 1 BCH to create another token is counter-intuitive. Nobody destroys gold or silver in return for something else… rather, we sell it for something else. This economic model will cannibalize and kill Bitcoin entirely. Bitmain would then have a Proof of Stake system that they control with the billions of tokens they have already issued to themselves. Though this is existentially bad for miners (sound familiar?) they are lying and trying to get this approved incrementally hoping nobody will see this until it’s too late.
So that is the quick and dirty summary of how we all got to be here in Bangkok, Thailand. Two sets of meetings were called. CoinGeek hosted a number of miner-only meetings (though nChain was present and is a miner and a Dev group). These meetings had representation of well over 50% of the BCH hash and signified a capacity for consensus.
The point of these meetings was for CoinGeek to protect Bitcoin, and the massive investment into Bitcoin mining by making sure controversial, untested, unnecessary and reckless code is not added to the battle-tested Bitcoin Protocol without proper deliberation, and extensive testing. We also want to enforce the original business model of Miners Choice. Miners were originally intended to be the ones driving the platform development roadmap. At these meetings, everyone agreed with the CoinGeek policy platform of Miners choice and locking the Satoshi Vision protocol down so that innovation can explode on top of it. We call this the Internet model as this is what made the internet such a global success.
During the first of these meetings one Miner came with a message that Jihan also supported this philosophy so when we covered our meetings we added this in as we would normally want to work with anyone who supports this kind of simple logic. However, now we hear that Jihan is saying he did not authorize this message to be passed to us.
This has predictably caused some flying feathers on the internet. However, I stand by the accuracy of the article as I was in the room and this is what happened. We did not include any Bitmain hash into our unanimous vote of support for the philosophy of Satoshi Vision and its commensurate Miners Choice component. Meaning Jihan’s protestations have zero effect on our main point, well over 50% of Bitcoin hash supports Satoshi’s Vision and Miners Choice.
The next day after our meetings, Bitmain had a meeting with a combination of miners and three dev groups. Bitcoin Unlimited was there and they signaled that they could support Satoshi Vision and Miners Choice. nChain, of course, supports this. The third team there was Bitmain’s team and they not only refused to accept Satoshi Vision, they specifically and arrogantly lectured all the miners present that they and they alone know what is best for miners. In other words, Miners Choice is bad for miners and Satoshi got this wrong. Close your eyes, pucker your lips, hum Kumbaya and release your destiny to the warm embrace of brother Jihan.
This was obviously not well received as we expected. Miners have already seen what happens when you let special interest controlled Dev teams make changes to Satoshi’s Vision. It kills Bitcoin.
There was a lot of technical debate in these meetings but I submit that much of this, is not a technical issue at all, this is a practical business issue. Miners have two choices. One side wants to submit an untested change that can only theoretically benefit Bitmain and are asking everyone else to assume unnecessary risk for their potential benefit. The other side wants to lock down the battle-tested base protocol and make it easier for Miners to vote for changes that they want. This will organically lead to a Cambrian explosion of innovation that will enhance utility and drive transaction volume, value and importantly, get mining fees up to where it is sustainable after the next halving. The CoinGeek direction allows for the full power of Bitcoin and creates money for the world and an amazingly solid and consistent platform to aim your application development at.
CoinGeek will NEVER support any reckless untested protocol changes, especially on behalf of a single special interest group like Bitmain, and we are calling on all other miners to also work with us to ensure that Miners Choice is properly implemented as was originally intended for the success and power of Bitcoin to be realized. We also think this is the best path for application development and are calling on all application developers to also support CoinGeek in this election.
Bitcoin has been hijacked once before. It would be excessively naive to believe that such an attempt wouldn’t happen again by a company that seeks to promote its niche off-chain solution.
Fool me once shame on you…fool me twice shame on me.