Recently, I engaged with this fascinating debate featuring Jimmy Song and Jameson Lopp focused on the topic of Bitcoin ossification. I found myself at a loss for words due to the illogical and flawed reasoning presented by Jimmy during the discussion. Rather than dissect all of his points, I will concentrate on a single, notable argument he made.
He stated, โMoney shouldnโt change; it should be predictable.โ
In this context, he emphasized allowing innovations within the Bitcoin ecosystem to develop at a natural pace from a technical perspective, implying that updates to Bitcoin essentially disrupt the existing frameworks that developers have established.
Is Jimmy unaware of the mechanics behind Bitcoin upgrades? For more than ten years, we’ve utilized soft forks specifically designed to ensure backward compatibility. This means we can confidently guarantee that all previously built applications will continue to operate seamlessly. Each Bitcoin upgrade is optional; prior versions remain intact, and users or developers can choose whether or not to adopt the new features.
There is absolutely no technical foundation to support Jimmyโs claims regarding this issue. Introducing new functionalities aimed at facilitating the development of innovative protocols or tools does not hinder the functionality of existing systems in any way.
So, what is his actual point? To me, it appears to be an argument rooted in economic protectionism. There is no threat, danger, or issue created for established systems following an upgrade, other than the chance that more efficient systems could emerge, prompting users to prefer them. This seems to be the sole reasonable interpretation of his statements.
Are we genuinely at a juncture where “pro-ossificationists” advocate for protectionist strategies regarding current investments in existing layers and systems?
Feel free to watch for yourself and form your own opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUO10-HcdvY
This article is a Take. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
