There is never a boring moment in the Bitcoin space.

The heated discussions on the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300 (BIP300) has been a thought provoking spectacle.

The debate is in itself a healthy sign.

It also reflects that open protocols create coordination problems that can be difficult to solve.

The BIP300 debate

BIP300 is a proposal which aims at tweaking the core of the Bitcoin network in order to facilitate the development of technical layers that can connect with the core, and which can provide a higher capacity for monetary transactions.

The main argument seems to be that developing such services is too costly today because Bitcoin core is clunky, and that speeding up the development of these services is necessary, because governments might soon find out how they can destroy Bitcoin.

The rationale seems to be that rapid Bitcoin adaption will make it politically difficult for governments to do this.

Changing the Bitcoin protocol involves an unknown risk, and the first counterargument is therefore that the risk has to be close to zero.

The Bitcoin maxis argue that it's more important to maintain a robust core network, than to lower the cost of development of services built on top of the core.

Challenges with open protocols

There are benefits and disadvantages of open protocols.

One benefit can for instance be that they attract great minds, and that more brains produce better ideas.

Another benefit is that these systems don't have a single attack vector that enemies can exploit.

Take out one of the volunteering developers, and ten will replace him - it's a waste of time and money.

A disadvantage can be that it can be difficult for the developers to coordinate themselves and agree on which ideas that are best.

Another can be that it takes time to solve coordination problems when no single person is appointed leader.

The importance of Bitcoin

Bitcoin tries to solve civilization's worst problem:

Governments' manipulation of the money supply.

If it succeeds, it may become a public infrastructure which is as importance to mankind as the open seas.

In this perspective, the impatience that some have with implementing BIPs to facilitate faster and better services built on top of the Bitcoin core feels a bit like someone wanting to mix chemicals into the water in an attempt to reduce its density, for the sake of enabling boats to travel faster.

In this way, one doesn't have to invest so much in the development of boats.

"Smart improvements at the first layer, saves money and time in the development of the second layer."

The benefits of manipulating the water might seem obvious, but the risks are of course unknown and potentially huge.

Central planners

The proponents of rapid development of Bitcoin's core network reminds me of bureaucrats and politicians who always come out in favor of more central planning and technocracy, because they believe free people and non-governmental institutions are unable to coordinate themselves in an efficient way that can serve society.

So they come up with plans with the promise of making huge benefits tomorrow, instead of waiting in years for selfish-minded players to get their act together.

The government threat

Although governments are able to slow down Bitcoin adaption, I have yet to find a convincing argument for how they could be able to destroy Bitcoin.

So the question is, why don't the proponents of BIP300 instead try to communicate clear arguments of how governments could succeed with killing off Bitcoin, and facilitate a discussion about it?

Do they think it's too urgent?

Do we have so little time that we cannot afford to debate the risk first?

Or is the argument that discussing the risk openly increase the risk of governments finding a way to destroy Bitcoin?

I'm not convinced, but please enlighten me.

How to speed up adaption

I do think that there are many other reasons why it is good if we can speed up adaption.

But there is much that can be achieved at the social layer, especially by making it easier for people to understand what Bitcoin solves, how it solves it and how fast it's already solving it.

When I started looking into Bitcoin I noticed that many Bitcoiners said that you need to study Bitcoin and economics for "hundreds" or even "thousands" of hours before you can understand it.

For me this looked like an exaggeration, like someone finally had found their tribe, and that they wanted it to be exclusive.

But this thought gradually disappeared when I began looking at the litterature.

Some of it was pretty good.

But the general impression was that information about Bitcoin and the problem it's meant to solve wasn't communicated in a way that was easily accessible for the general public.

Most of it was written by technical people for technical people.

Other stuff was obviously written by economists for economists.

And a suprisingly big share of the litterature was of a philosophical nature, written by and for people who were deep into Bitcoin, and who already understood its technicalities and the economics.

The information was also very fragmented.

And to make things worse - I often found information that was in contradiction with other information.

To me the overall impression can be summed up as an intellectually noisy environment.

I get the impression that many others have come to the same conclusion, and that things now seem to improve.

I also suspect that we will see noticeable investments flowing into this corner of the Bitcoin space.

Furthermore, the demand for information about Bitcoin seems to grow.

A significant share of the population might soon begin looking for accessible information that enable them to understand what it is, especially if we get another bullrun.

When that happens, we better have to be ready.

Conclusion

Technical improvements of the Bitcoin protocol might be necessary to tighten the network's security.

However, improving the features of Bitcoin core to facilitate a higher adaption speed isn't a compelling argument.

There is plenty room to improve things at the social layer instead, especially with regards to how we communicate what Bitcoin is and what it solves.

I actually think that this is going to be relatively smooth sailing and that the effects will be massive.

The reason why I am optimistic, is the following:

Nothing beats the network effect you get when you combine a sound monetary system with sound ideas that are well communicated.