Certain Things in Bitcoin Are Sacred
Lately there has been chatter that by raising the block limit, or discussing doing so, we are opening up the gates to later have a discussion about making other major changes to Bitcoin.
It’s even been suggested that by letting this block size limit raise go through, we are opening the door to the possibility of a coin limit raise. Which is just ridiculous on the face. Under no circumstances could such a change be made to Bitcoin. It would be the ultimate betrayal of even an average Bitcoin holder, who believes he is holding a limited supply asset. Such a change must, therefore, never be considered, even momentarily, by anyone with the authority to implement such a change, at any time.
In thinking about this, I started thinking about the things that are sacred in Bitcoin. There is, of course, limited supply. Getting rid of that makes Bitcoin essentially pointless. You have to decide from the beginning how much there is going to be, and never go beyond that. Making Bitcoin rare in a digital, provable way is better than any other asset that claims to be rare, such as gold. New gold is mined every year, and they’re going to get gold from space soon enough. True story, it’s going to happen. Meanwhile, with an asset like Bitcoin, there is a guaranteed amount in the world. This is why many people like Bitcoin, it cannot be changed.
Also read: A Bitcoin Fork Should be Avoided at All Costs
There are other sacred features of Bitcoin, as well. One is that Bitcoin should cost less to move since there are no middle-men. While reasonable fees can be paid to miners, and no one disputes that such fees should be paid, after all, this is money you’re moving, and paying a fee ensures that the people doing you the favor make money, all in all these fees should equate to a rate much lower than the other means for a person to send money.
Another sacred feature is that Bitcoin should be fast. This is what has led certain people to believe that block times will be increased, and rewards cut proportionally, but this is unlikely to happen. What would be better is if more services were able to take on the risk of accepting at 0 confirmations, understanding that it takes a severe amount of work to produce a double spend against someone. That would probably be better, but it requires funding to happen, and that of course requires continued interest.
Which brings us to the real current issue, which is how this whole schism that is happening in the Bitcoin community is absolutely catastrophic, and should be stopped at all costs. On its face, it is unnecessary. Nothing should be done until consensus is reached. Eventually the no votes will have to listen to the wider community, which seems to be pushing for at least an increase to 8MB. This includes major miners in China. There is no reason if they believe they can handle the increase, that the increase shouldn’t happen. It will be awhile before the increased blocks will start to be used anyway.
But it doesn’t matter what my opinion or anyone’s opinion is, nothing should be done short of a consensus amongst the developers. If there are still some who are in the no column about any increase, then they must be reasoned with until they agree, or it cannot happen. That is unfortunately the nature of the current structure of development at Bitcoin Core. And really, a more democratic model couldn’t be asked for, no matter how unproductive it may seem at times. The process should be given the respect it deserves, and carried through. A fork cannot happen, under any circumstances, as the results could be catastrophic and we also don’t have any reason to believe it is necessary.
