While I have been thoughtful about writing on the issue, and decided not to at first because I did not want to be accused of being lenient to one side or another, I feel pressed to express my thoughts about the whole mess this proposal has caused. First, I must express that I think the idea behind the proposal is great: while the development process Bitcoin Cash has followed until now has produced a top 5 cryptocurrency booming with activity and innovation since last year, implementing Schnorr signatures and launching a booming token environment as SLP, the truth is that this model was reaching its limitations.

Until now, the Bitcoin Cash development costs have rested into the shoulder of big bag holders and companies like Bitcoin.com, that have made the financial effort of pushing this ecosystem forward. Acknowledging this does not make me "Roger Boy," the numbers are out there. Bitcoin Cash, aiming to be peer to peer, uncensorable electronic cash, as its motto claims, needs to be independent and self-sufficient, not having to rely on donations of individuals that may or not be available to do these contributions in the future. Where would Bitcoin Cash be without Bitmain's or Bitcoin.com support?

Self sustainability is an important part of the lifecycle of any software product. Software that's not self sustainable it's doomed to die sooner or later, and peer to peer cash must be infinite in time. Devs are pivotal instruments needed for software product to mature and change its characteristics for newer and better ones. However, in Bitcoin Cash, some devs must pay to work instead of being paid to. An example of this is the statement Shammah Chancellor made via his Twitter account.

Is making miners pay the best way of achieving self sustainability? That's a tough question indeed. Miners do benefit from working in the blockchain, but their action serves to secure the network and process transactions too, so there is a coexistence relationship between users, bagholders and miners. However, the imposition of these precepts on them in also a tough pill to swallow.

There is much to think about how this proposal will be carried out and who will have to burden the cost of securing the future of Bitcoin Cash, but the best thing is the discussion is already taking place, and the debate is flowing. Some people are for it, some believe the proposal is good, but the execution and some details are muddy, while another part of the community thinks this is detrimental for the future of the currency.

In any case, all opinions should be respected but the illogical ones. While some community members have started to claim that "Roger is CIA" and "BCH is now Amaurycoin," these members are a sound minority, and the vast majority of the community is debating this matter with extreme maturity, as it should be. While still vigilant of what the future might bring to our great BCH community, I think this process is being beneficial for all of us, given that we are one of the only cryptocurrency communities discussing and taking on this difficult matter.