As I said before, the miners run the network and as such they are responsible for the software which runs it. This only makes sense that they fund development. Since it looked for me that they were in agreement to donate the %% of their mining profits to the development fund, I was very happy to see that they came together for a common goal.
Until someone pointed this paragraph to me:
To ensure participation and include subsidization from the whole pool of SHA-256 mining, miners will orphan BCH blocks that do not follow the plan. This is needed to avoid a tragedy of the commons.
If that sounds like an abuse, that's because it is:
- First off, this is an unprecedented move for "big guys" to bully minority. Completely in poor taste too. If it looks like a gang taking over blockchain, that's because it is.
- If the development tax is mandatory, then as rightfully pointed out before, why does an entity controlled by specific people receive the funds? Who they report to? What's their responsibilities are? Who oversees that entity? If they embezzle the funds, who goes to jail? I don't think this was well thought through. Forcing every miner fund the entity they didn't choose is dictatorship.
- Lets imagine, plan succeeds. What next? It would demonstrate that miners could successfully come into collusion to 50% attack the network. That means network is no longer bitcoin as per Satoshi's whitepaper. The vision behind the bitcoin was that 50% attack is not easily attainable, in out case 50% attack becomes a commonplace.
- What happens when a government entity takes notice that miners can work together to fuck up the network? For example, what prevents SEC from requiring that protocol is altered to undo the transactions they deem illegal, or what if a court mandates that certain funds must be moved despite no private key? All of this becomes now possible because the miners provably have majority, organizations responsible for development and mining are clearly identified, and easy to find.
- So, this plan allows for gaining a little more funds by making an unethical move. Sure there will be more BCH collected, but how much that BCH will cost once the price plummets? And plummet it will because who wants to use the tainted blockchain.
That would be a disaster. BCH community must take a stand that 50% attack is NEVER EVER EVER acceptable.
All of that is also aggravated by the fact that the 50% attack is completely unnecessary. If majority of the miners are already on board with the plan, what prevents them from executing it without 50% attack, and make the fund a voluntary thing? There will be a little less funds, so what. If more that 50% hash rate is already secured for that plan, then at minimum half of the funds would still be available. And all of that would be done without any dick moves.