Nothing in Craig Wright’s article addresses the points made in this article. Also, Craig Wright’s article cannot itself be responded to, so I’ll address his claims here:
1 — Craig claims Bitcoin Layer-1 didn’t need any more development than original codebase yet NChain and/or others are clearly paying protocol developers to develop the BSV layer-1. It’s a total contradiction. If Bitcoin was global adoption ready in 2010, why do BSV insiders pay for protocol development? (I’m not referring to infrastructure or rolling back non-Satoshi updates). If Craig’s claims were true, they could simply revert the BSV codebase to 2010 with one git command and BSV would global adoption ready. Yet they’re paying millions for constant development out of their own pocket.
2 — BSV is an example of funding model (3). It’s clear Calvin is subsidizing a lot of the BSV eco-system. They are making some progress in terms of their protocol implementation being global-adoption ready, arguably more so than BCH has managed, but it’s unclear whether BSV will receive wider adoption. The price for having a centralized funding model is the “centralization stench” that repels users, wider investment and hampers adoption.
3 — Craig claims that I’m implying “something being voluntary is all that is necessary for it to be right” but my article says nothing of the sort. Notions of “right” are subjective, not objective. What’s “right” for a criminal cabal attempting to seize a currency is not necessarily what’s “right” for a developer seeking to enhance a decentralized effort, or a user, or a business, etc.
What I am saying is that private property is an actual “legal right” and that source-code repositories are private property of the developers, not a “community” or “miners”.
Also Craig’s statement “such disingenuous individuals seek to change the rules at a whim. To change the rules for all other people, without a say.” presupposes the notion that the source code is “common property” of a “community of other people”. That’s actually socialism. A source code repository belongs to the developers who wrote it or the individuals they transferred it to by gift or sale. It does not belong to anyone else, including miners. Developers are free to change their private property arbitrarily.
What I am suggesting is that to incentivize developers to not constantly split with each other (as they are doing in BTC-BCH-BSV), an in-protocol reward mechanism can incentivize them to maximally cooperate to maximize their dividend value yet retain decentralization.
Certainly not communism or socialism, but pure voluntarism.
