Be Brave Brand
3.5K posts
Be Brave Brand
@Sebastian_SLW
Imagine one public secure blockchain providing equal opportunity in data monetization. #BitcoinSV & #IPv6
If you operate a BSV exchange or node, we have an important update. Chronicle (SV Node v1.2.0) activates ~7 April 2026 (block height 943,816). Nodes must be upgraded before that to remain in consensus. ► Details + support: tinyurl.com/27up3yvp
The big problem with all this, which is also the core reason the Metanet Foundation and every single BSV-based project ever conceived will always be encumbered... is that the restriction EXPLICITLY incorporates NAR by reference, giving the BSVA ultimate authority over everything on-chain. You alone can order all nodes to cut off their fellow chefs, and lock them out of the kitchen. Also... you alone can change the NAR or update it whenever you want. I am not saying that you would, but you could, and that matters. A lot. The problem, and I told you this weeks ago in private... is that the Association alone has the power to decide who gets to participate and cut people off. Ban them. The stated goal is to remove bad actors and comply with law. That's good. That's why I support NAR. But it's very powerful, and it's a weak point. You should recognize that, openly, publicly. In the wrong hands, NAR is exactly the kind of political justification that could be used to co-opt and capture the BSV Blockchain from within, and/or create "mining cartel" behavior. So as the wielder of this power you create a massive liability at the center of the BSV network in your current form. We need to work together to mitigate that liability and make the political weaponization of NAR / "Open BSV" IMPOSSIBLE. And that has to be done openly, even though it is the biggest risk I will ever take. Right now you are, with all due respect, a "weak institution" in the political sense. You have one funder. You do not operate under a public charter. You do not have a board reflecting all the kinds of voices of key stakeholders like miners, enterprise, regulators, and builders/infra. Yet, via NAR, you are acting as a key nexus of control over the network. And via Open BSV, you are implicitly tying all your tooling and applications up with that core problem. That makes us look immature and non-adoptable. It's hurting my bottom line and hurting everyone else's too. It's been hurting all of us, for years, and now it is time for a change. This is NOT just me, not just my company. @johncalhooon, @_b1nary_, @LightBSV, and others know this has been a long time coming. And @kurtwuckertjr said he'd sit on a board with GorillaPool if invited. I've also heard from a few lesser-known BSVers who may be interested in putting some money forward. Again, it is time for a change. Let's keep NAR + Open BSV for Teranode (maybe Apache for other stuff...) BUT we NEED to make the political weaponization of NAR / stewardship decisions in general impossible to achieve, while also solving your resourcing problems. — So that organizations from across academia, enterprise, government, dev groups, and all use-cases are free to become members, as they can with joining LF, CNCF, or W3C. — So that no single donor, backer or interest group can EVER have the leverage to starve the organization of its working capital, team and legitimacy. — So that budgets for work on libraries, overlays, industry standards, hackathons, education and outreach are put forward, voted upon, and approved through public processes, not behind closed doors. — So that NO ONE can change the NAR without input from all stakeholders, and those responsible for signing NAR directives are elected at regular intervals by an Assembly comprising all stakeholders. And, so that EVERYONE in the world can know how these decisions are made, who is in favor, and who against. That's what it means to go from a weak institution to a strong, healthy, diverse, resilient one. So will you at least release some sort of formal public statement acknowledging that this is what we are working towards? And can we find a way to get you some more funds from outside parties, so that we can both re-enlist the help of our friends? And for the reasons I've stated, this can't just be a "go form Metanet Foundation" copout. I wish that strategy could work, but glomming more foundation-style entities atop a "weak institution" foundation of sand wouldn't earn any more trust or goodwill, from anyone. Enterprise buyers are watching right now, and they know that. I hope we can make some stuff happen for the long term. You are very talented and have done more than anyone for our success in a lot of ways, Siggi. I want you to get recognized for all your work, and be rewarded for your worth. We all deserve that. It doesn't happen in a vacuum, and we're going through this growing pain for good reasons. Baby steps. And P.s. for the record: I am not opposing Chronicle...
