A personal note to the Bitcoin community

(The following is personal opinion, speaking only on behalf of myself)

The book Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin was personally very transformative. As an animal lover, it taught me to see the world from a different perspective, to step into someone’s shoes and see the world as they see it. The book also reinforces principles of basic science, of observable field data and outcomes.

In one example, the book outlines an agricultural case study on cows. Grandin observed that the government and industry mandated inputs into beef production: X amount of feed, Y antibiotics per day, Z amount of movement across stalls. This regulation of inputs was, however, not leading to a good outcome: high quality meat. Grandin proposed replacing government mandated inputs with observations based on higher level, desired outcome — are the cows healthy? Basing actions on outcomes observed in the field is just good, basic science — and cuts through all the B.S.

An entirely predictable and avoidable outcome — skyrocketing fees and network at max capacity — has come to pass, with the predicted results. Base block size was not increased, despite having years to plan the upgrade, years to avoid the preventable consequences of high fees driving away use cases and users away from Bitcoin. Failure to increase a temporary DoS limit — base block size limit — has direct, measurable, negative economic consequences.

It does not matter who played a role in this, or why. The outcome of upgrading base block size did not occur. Measurable outcomes and Occam’s Razor trump silly conspiracy theories. Data cuts through spin.

The SegWit2x Working Group has a specific charter, with a specific, openly stated goal: SegWit + 2M base block size increase. The community should judge these efforts based on outcome: Is the SegWit2X reference implementation progressing towards the stated goal?

Specific example: A reference implementation was produced on Sunday, that satisfies the stated WG goal. This was a starting point. Feedback has indicated that “BIP 91 on bit 4 + bit 1 + bit 4 2M HF” may be an even more compatible approach than the WG implementation produced over the weekend. Adopting that BIP91 4+1 approach appears to satisfy all goals [assuming claims are borne out]. If the outcome maximizes compatibility even more, re-uses existing testing even more, that is a win. Forward progress.

It is my hope that the Bitcoin community will see those who act, and produce measureable outcomes — and how that stands in stark contrast to personal attacks, fear-spreading, smears and conspiracy theories.

I ask everyone who wants a better, brighter, more positive Bitcoin community to start here: Be Good To Each Other and let’s build good code.