I just sat and saw this debate between Jimmy Song and Jameson Lopp on Bitcoin Ossification. I don’t even know where to start with regard to absurdity and “logic” broken in every topic that Jimmy has made in this debate. So I won’t try, I will focus on a specific argumentation line he made.
“Money should not change, it should be predictable.”
He spoke specifically in this sense as regards “to let things mature” in this space from a technical point of view and implicitly affirm that updates to Bitcoin “extract the carpet from under” existing developers who build things.
Jimmy doesn’t understand how bitcoin updates work? We have been using Softfort for over a decade in particular to face the concern of compatibility backwards. That is, to be able to say 100% certainty that everything that has been built so far will continue to work exactly the same way. All updates to Bitcoin are opt-in, everything that existed before will work well and nothing must be changed to support new features if a developer or a user does not want it.
There are no technical bases for Jimmy’s statements or topics in this sense. New features that allow the construction of new protocols or tools does nothing to inhibit the continuous operation of pre -existing systems.
So what is saying? For me it seems essentially a topic for economic protectionism. There is no threat, a risk or a problem created for pre -existing systems after an update with the exception of the possibility that the upper systems can be built after an update and users would choose to use those instead. This is the only coherent topic that must be extracted from those statements.
So are we seriously at the point where the “pro-obsession” are supporting the protectionist decision-making process for existing investments in current levels and systems?
Look yourself and decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo10- hcdvy
This article is a Take. The opinions expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.