Is bitcoin’s culture principled or dogmatic?
Between 2015 and 2017 there was an intense civil war within the bitcoin community over the strategic direction of the protocol. In the end, bitcoin’s protocol rules were left largely unchanged, entrenching bitcoin's principles which underpin its value as a reserve asset. But the outcome may also have entrenched militancy into the community with less positive implications. Jonathan Bier covers this important period of bitcoin’s history in his book “The Blocksize War”. I have summarized my key take-homes in this article, which includes a personal commentary on bitcoin culture. (Note: These are personal comments, stimulated from reading the book and observing bitcoin culture. The author does not conduct this cultural speculation). TLDR: Bitcoin stands for itself and it is not controlled by any single party. The blocksize war entrenched these valuable principles but also inserted militaristic dogmatism into the culture.
Conclusions:
The blocksize war was a critical confirmation of bitcoin strategic direction towards stability and security, away from flexibility & low cost payments.
The outcome entrenched bitcoin’s core principles which make it valuable.
Militancy used during the war may have generated tribalism and dogmatism thereafter.
‘Bitcoin maximalism’ has benefits, protecting newbies from scams and ponzi’s.
Bitcoin’s principles and reserve current characteristics stand for themselves.
Toxicity could hamper the adoption path, however.
Close-mindedness is undesirable - there is tones of non-bitcoin innovation in crypto.
Broadly speaking the conflict between 2015 and 2017 centred on 4 key issues
Blockspace: should it be full or have capacity
How does one modify protocol rules
The significance of ordinary node operators and users
Time preference between short-term network goals and long-term
Summary of the two positions: Business friendly payment network vs. secure global reserve asset
Advocates for small blocks (called “small blockers”) were focused on bitcoin's long-term reserve currency status, protecting the key protocol rules like the 21mn supply cap, decentralisation and wanted small incremental technical changes. While there was no suggestion large block advocates (called “large blockers”) wanted to increase the supply cap, small blockers wanted to avoid hardforks altogether because of the elevated risk that the network could move towards supply changes in the future if they compromised on network decentralization (a hardfork is technical software upgrade that forces all users to upgrade and makes old versions of the software incompatible). Small blockers also wanted bitcoin to remain a grassroots movement.
In the other side of the fence, large blockers had more of a tech start-up, venture capital and client centric approach. They wanted to scale the network as soon as possible, keep transaction fees low and use the network for payments to serve demand on the biggest corporate clients. In contrast to the small blockers desire to move slowly, securely and focus on long-term questions, the large blockers wanted to move quickly and optimise for shorter-term challenges to maintain momentum.
There was clear logic in both approaches and support for both sides could be found in bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto's early blog posts.
Come from behind victory for the small blockers
Initially large blockers had more support because an increase in the blocksize was generally accepted as a reasonable idea, but the proponents pushed for too big a change (1MB to 8MB) and probably did not listen enough to the community enough. There was also arrogance shown by the large block leadership which was a detraction. The bitcoin community did not converge around the early proposals offered by the large blocks. Many who supported block size increases were expecting better solutions to emerge.
Exchanges played an important role in the debate. Initially most exchanges were supportive of blocksize increases because they favoured merchant adoption of commercial revenues. But over time a few exchanges took a different approach when they saw the potential risks of the technical choices made by large blockers, which had decisive impact on the outcome through 2017. As each large blocker proposal to increase the blocksize was rejected by the community, support grew for the small blocker approach. It is almost as though the status quo became the favoured path as the challenge of making protocol changes became clear.
Militant RESISTANCE TO CHANGE is a double-edged sword
I view the technical consequences of the outcome of the war positively. Bitcoin is decentralised, resistant to centralised control, and the 21mn hard cap is entrenched. These characteristics lay the groundwork for bitcoin being a potential foundation of a sound digital monetary system, which could have a profoundly positive impact on humanity. This is of critical importance and should not be underestimated! I only focus the potentially negative consequences hereafter because I think it is interesting and worth investigating.
Some sections of the bitcoin community are militant and tribal, attacking intellectual opponents on social media. It is easy to assume that the blocksize war made them more militant and that the success achieved during the war gave them greater resolve in their approach. There are some benefits to this approach because it protects bitcoin’s key protocol rules, but bitcoin can also become quite ideologically dogmatic.
Some bitcoiners are closed minded to non-bitcoin innovation altogether, calling everything that is not bitcoin a "shitcoin". Once again, there is some logic to the approach. There is a tone of junk in crypto, including scams and ponzis, which steal people's capital. Focusing purely on bitcoin is a method to avoid these scams and ponzi's. However, the existence of scams and ponzi's does not imply that everything other than bitcoin is junk/scam/ponzi.
Shitcoin moniker has benefit but cancel culture and close-mindedness are unacceptable
I do not think there is anything wrong with a bitcoin-only investment approach. Bitcoin is clearly the soundest money in crypto, its money supply issuance is entrenched and the protocol rules are resistant to change. Given the extreme negative consequences of unsound money in the 2020s, there is a strong case for focusing purely on the soundest monetary asset. However, a vitriolic hate for everything else is closed minded and can sometimes become obtuse. Some bitcoiners have a history of "canceling" anyone who does not agree with them, which seems to be contrary to the free-market principles on which bitcoin is based.
Nic Carter: apostate from a religious community?
Nic Carter's recent fallout from the bitcoin ecosystem is the perfect example. Nic is a super smart analyst, investor, and voice within the ecosystem. From the outside, he seems ethical and well intentioned too. He is also a major proponent of bitcoin and highlights the weaknesses in many other crypto projects. I.E. His approach overlaps with the vast majority of bitcoiners. I have not seen him punting small tokens in which he is a major shareholder, for example, which is a common practice amongst shady crypto influencers. However, some section of the bitcoin community chastised him because his VC company invested in companies that interact with protocols other than bitcoin. This is ridiculous.
Nic put it quite well saying that his treatment was like that of an apostate being kicked out of a religious community. The fervent way in which some bitcoiners militantly protect the bitcoin-only position can appear religious. This is off-putting for many looking in from the outside.
Does toxicity detract from bitcoin adoption?
‘Toxic bitcoin maximalism' as some people like to call it, can push people away from bitcoin, which seems to defeat the purpose of bitcoin. I think like these 'toxic bitcoiners' could do more to welcome newcomers into the community and win people over to their perspective through an open-minded and inclusive approach. Since the more toxic bitcoiners tend to have the loudest voices, they can also appear to stand for the community at large, which is certainly untrue (there are numerous rationally minded bitcoiners), but it is easy for newcomers to take this view.
Does it matter what we think about bitcoin culture?
I am not 100% sure. One part of me thinks no, because the asset stands for itself and it is not controlled by any single party, certainly not 'toxic bitcoin maximalists'. But another part of me thinks that culture does matter. Open-mindedness and respectful disagreement are important principles on which any successful community is built. Perhaps if more bitcoiners stand up against toxicity it will encourage a more open-minded approach in the broader community? Only time will tell. I do not think bitcoin is going away, no matter the culture amongst certain segments of the community because the foundational principles of bitcoin stand for themselves and are not controlled by any person or group of people. But perhaps a better culture could advance our cause?
