Bitcoin True Believers

[rogerver]

I'm starting this thread as a continuation of a Bitcoin.com internal telegram group so we can discuss what the future of Bitcoin.com's development path should be in relation to upcoming Bitcoin forks.

One of the most recent comments from that group was:

[ x ] = Controlled by Blockstream

[ x ] /r/bitcoin
[ x ] Manufacture and distribution of hat propaganda
[ x ] github commit access for bitcoin repo
[ x ] Arbitrary consensus metrics for Segwit, e.g. 95% is good but if we only get 30% we are being attacked
[ ] Non-trivial hashpower
[ ? ] bitcoin itself

I don't think anyone does now or will ever fully control bitcoin, but iterations and competing implementations are the only way full control is prevented. I think it's difficult to argue that bitcoin today is 100% currently uncontrolled.

Bitcoin today has an anti-fragile control structure. You get control as long as there is a realized benefit to your control, like monarchs in the English Civil War. If you mis-manage your control, even limited control, you lose it.

And like those monarchs, propaganda is a key part of keeping control. Controllers have mis-aligned incentives in that they need continuity to continue implementing their "best" agenda, so must perform their own Proof Of Work and constantly demonstrate worthiness.

I think the current system in bitcoin is like this, and is about to fragment into multiple competing implementations —> better approximation of uncontrolled.

Debate away!

[GreyWyvern]

In these discussions I always think of the so-called "layman user."

On the one hand, if every time some company, government or group tries to control Bitcoin and those clinging to freedom fork away, then the layman user will live with a nagging fear that he's using/saving the wrong coin and that his retirement wealth many someday be worth nothing. This situation still exists even though said layman gets coins on both forks at the time of the split; if for instance his employer is paying him in the corrupted coin after the fork and both chains manage to survive for some time. This is a bad user experience, especially if the value of the bad coin collapses suddenly.

On the other hand, without hard forks Bitcoin is, without one shred of doubt, doomed. It is inevitable that some will manage to get their claws of corruption into Bitcoin. Maybe not this year, or next year, or 100 years from now, but eventually. And without the ability to hard fork away, ALL Bitcoin will be worth zero because only one chain will exist. It's essential that these things need to be balanced. Hard forks need to be praised by the community of users for maintaining Bitcoin's genetic diversity.

I personally believe the impact on user experience of hard forks is a bit overblown. There will be organizations created that charge a fee to protect and insure users against these things, allowing Bitcoin to continue to evolve via hard forks. But still, the thought of it sounds scary, and until that fear is assuaged, it will be difficult to get people to trust it as a means of wealth storage for the long term. Not even mentioning the risk of having your funds stolen if you leak your private key!

TL;DR: Don't trust people who believe hard forks are a threat to Bitcoin. They are in fact the insurance that keeps Bitcoin alive!

[BytesOfMan]

I think the messiness we see today is inherent with humans and money. Competing protocols will be uncomfortable but effective.

Empirical validation requires multiple experiments.