It has been said cryptocurrency coins, like Bitcoin, would be worth either millions or zero in the future. The model is a work in progress, only slightly more solid than a novel experiment with each passing day. We learn as we go forward passionately into an unknown future.
Bitcoin Cash, as we all know, is meant to be a continuation of the original Bitcoin project. Should Bitcoin Cash (BCH) even need to exist? We're now in the midst of yet another community crisis (over leadership and the IFP) and I realized much of the problem we're having may stem from not having ever recognized a formal "charter".
A charter is a sort of legal writing which defines a body. Let's review this in the context of cryptocurrency.
I believe a charter should be written into the genesis block of any given cryptocurrency, so all parties looking to find consensus have an unambiguous reference. What we've been doing is instead using software as the guiding principle. That's wrong, because empowering the software means empowering the recognized creators of the software. Take a look at history:
Bitcoin BTC
The Bitcoin white paper defined Bitcoin, but it didn't do so in clear enough fashion. It left some items open to interpretation. It doesn't explicitly say there should be no limit or some formula used to determine block size. It doesn't even specify a total number of coins. Instead the cryptocurrency community has always looked to software to determine what formed consensus. This opening allowed disputes to result in community and chain splits, and inconsistent resolution of group ticker award.
This allowed Bitcoin Core to control Bitcoin BTC, add in SegWit and limit blocks permanently to 1MB. While none of that is in the white paper, the fact is most exchanges and most of the crypto community recognizes that blockchain as the original "BTC" Satoshi created.
Ethereum ETH
Ethereum famously split when a smart contract bug allowed someone to divert funds away from what investors thought they were funding. The mantra of Ethereum was always 'the code is the law' without adding an exception for flaws or bugs. However, Ethereum split and the ticker did not go to the 'code is the law' group, but instead with the recognized software from the recognized leader, Vitalik Buterin. Here again we see random dispute resolution. Communities split to resolve disagreement, but always in messy, unpredictable and inconsistent fashion, harming confidence in the crypto model overall.
There must be a better way.
Clear Charters
Now imagine the Bitcoin white paper said there was to be a 20MB block size until the year 2020 and an "adaptive" block size, one controlled by miners which could increase by some formula thereafter. Would the Core devs have ever been able to win the BTC ticker if that was written in the genesis block? No way! The reason is the emerging consensus would clearly be compelled to center on what everyone believed everyone was signing up to. A clear charter eliminates ambiguity and along with it the associated room for messy, inconsistent chaos.
Hindsight is 20/20. We can't rewrite the white paper, but we can learn from mistakes and maybe even cushion damage from future problems.
As relates to Bitcoin Cash it's unfortunate that we never had a clear charter. However, I wouldn't say we've left absolutely everything open to interpretation. I believe there is enough evidence in existence to make a case for what should be seen as more likely defining Bitcoin Cash. I propose this starts with the white paper as the outline, and extends to the roadmap everyone has said from day 1 they believed in. The IFP isn't on the roadmap. For that reason I don't believe it could ever be said to be representative of consensus "Bitcoin Cash".
No comments:
Post a Comment