I'm going to turn a lot of new friends into enemies with this post, but here goes...
I was for #BIP110, and I still think it would've been best for Bitcoin. But it didn't get the hashrate it needed, so it's over.
And I will not be running or using the BLAKE2b Bitcoin.
As I see it, the are 2 types of Bitcoiners:
Type 1: Those who define Bitcoin according to a set of ideals
Type 2: Those who define Bitcoin according to market dynamics
I've long been a Type 1, and it seems to me that this dichotomy was the real cause of the divide in Bitcoin.
To the credit of other Type 1s, Satoshi seemed to be one. Granted, there wasn't a market back then, but he had ideals and embedded them in code.
To the credit of Type 2s, what is Bitcoin if it's not run by a free market? It can't be be one man's vision anymore, nor should it be.
We've seen the darker side of Type 1s before, though, with Roger Ver and others, and are seeing it again now. Such people are principled, honest, and genuinely want what they think is best for Bitcoin and humanity, even if it's not what other Bitcoiners want.
A major problem with Type 1 is that no two Type 1 Bitcoiners have the same ideals of what or how Bitcoin should be. Given enough time, if they refuse to change their views, there would be as many Bitcoin forks as there are Type 1 Bitcoiners!
We've also seen a darker side to Type 2s, with Core devs & others. Such people love freedom, want to try new experiments on Bitcoin, and will go along with whatever the market says, even if it's objectively bad for Bitcoin itself.
Given enough time, Type 2 Bitcoiners would allow Bitcoin to gradually turn into a new form of fiat. The masses that make up the market can be easily swayed with propaganda, so it's a mistake to think this can never happen.
How do we reconcile these two types?
If you stood alone in the knowledge and conviction of how Bitcoin ought to be, would it be right to fork off by yourself?
If the market wanted something obviously bad for Bitcoin, should you just shrug your shoulders and accept it?
And then there's the issue of capture. If devs, miners, and prominent influencers seem compromised to you, and to be working against Bitcoin's interests (and in this case, there's a lot of evidence to support that), then what should be done?
While I definitely see a lot of corruption and collusion in Bitcoin, I've come to realize that those are part of Bitcoin's market forces, as much as nodes, miners, traders, devs, and businesses in this space.
"All is fair in love and war," and nowhere is that more true than in Bitcoin.
So back to the issue of BIP110's failure and the hard fork as a response, I empathize with BIP110ers' Type 1 attitude of stubborn adherence to basic principles, but I also see the Type 2 points that anti-BIP110ers make about the market.
(Side note: I'm 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 an INFP. 😆)
Did BIP110 have at least as much node support, percentage-wise, as BIP148? Yes.
Were there a lot of Sybil nodes on both sides? Yes, but demonstrably much more on the Core side.
Did the miners collude against the nodes? Perhaps. It depends on what really happened with BIP148.
If the miners capitulated in 2017 because a minority of nodes threatening a UASF was enough to scare them into activating SegWit (which is what I thought I witnessed back then), then the only possibility with BIP110 is that they colluded against the nodes.
But if miners had another reason to activate SegWit, then maybe BIP110 failed simply because it didn't have enough node support, and SegWit was only activated because the miners wanted it, and the UASF runners (like myself) wrongly took credit for scaring the miners into compliance.
If that's true, then it's possible the largest mining pools have been compromised since even before 2017, and they just happened to align with the minority of node runners who were threatening a UASF.
Or they weren't compromised then and aren't now, but I find that hard to believe.
So, as a Type 1 who is sympathetic to Type 2s, I'm wondering: with colluding miners, complacent node runners, corrupted Core devs, a zealous Type 1 dev (Luke) leading the charge away from Core, a recently failed soft fork, and an upcoming hard fork POW change, what's to be done?
Hard forking won't solve anything. At best, it'll only delay the inevitable collusion/corruption that'll spring up on its network (which, being smaller, will happen sooner rather than later).
At some point, we have to stop, turn around, and fight the creeping rot head-on.
It's also important to slow down and remember what brought us to this point:
I don't want trash on my node, and spammers have no right to force me to store their junk. Simply not running a node isn't an option, since I use it for payments, and it helps decentralize Bitcoin.
I recently learned about Monetary Nodes, created by @MarketAnarchy21, which (to my limited and non-technical understanding) solves 𝘢𝘭𝘭 the problems with running a node, without needing any fork.
Where was this for the last several months? 😅
MonetaryNode.org
If I understand it correctly, running a Monetary Node would still allow others to do shitcoins on Bitcoin, but I wouldn't have to store any of it, and I'd still be able to run a full validating node.
If that's the case, then that's the technical side of the solution we need!
The other side of the solution is social/cultural. If Type 1 Bitcoiners keep doubling down on what they honestly believe Bitcoin should be, then get ready to see a lot more hard forks in the future, taking some of the best people with them, and ultimately failing each time.
If Type 2 Bitcoiners keep allowing the market to tell them what Bitcoin is, then get ready to see a lot more subtle changes that will ultimately destroy Bitcoin and make it fail in its purpose.
And if both Types keep this up, get ready to be divided and conquered much sooner than later.
So the solution I see is to first find out what Type of Bitcoiner you are, and then do all you can to see the merits of the other Type.
Bitcoin is not just ideal money, and it's not just whatever the market says it is.
𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹.
This isn't a call to stop fighting and just "get along". It's a call to hash out our differences 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, using tweets, videos, articles, and all communication methods imaginable, so we 𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘵 resort to hard forks from Type 1s or market-driven aimlessness from Type 2s.
Getting Bitcoin back on the right track is not a sprint, like a hard fork, but a marathon.
The way I see it, the only way forward is a steep and arduous climb, as we fight against fiat mindedness one interaction at a time.
Anything else will ultimately fail.
Thanks for reading.
