I just sat down and watched this debate between Jimmy Song and Jameson Lopp on Bitcoin ossification. I don’t even know where to start as far as the absurdity and broken “logic” in every argument Jimmy made in this debate. So I won’t try, I will focus on one specific line of argumentation he made.

“Money shouldn’t change, it should be predictable.”

He specifically spoke along these lines in regards to “letting things mature” in this space from a technical point of view, and implicitly stating that upgrades to Bitcoin “pulls the rug out from under” existing developers building things.

Does Jimmy not understand how Bitcoin upgrades work? We have been using softforks for over a decade specifically to address the concern of backwards compatibility. i.e. being able to say with 100% certainty that everything that has been built to date will continue functioning in exactly the same way. All upgrades to Bitcoin are opt-in, everything that existed prior will work just fine and nothing needs to be changed to support new functionality if a developer or user doesn’t want to.

There is zero technical basis to Jimmy’s statements or arguments along these lines whatsoever. New functionality enabling the construction of new protocols or tools does nothing whatsoever to inhibit the continued functioning of pre-existing systems.

So what is he saying? To me it essentially sounds like an argument for economic protectionism. There is zero threat, risk, or problem created for pre-existing systems after an upgrade except for the possibility that superior systems could be constructed after an upgrade and users would choose to use those instead. That is the only coherent argument to be drawn out of those statements.

So are we seriously at the point where “pro-ossificationists” are arguing for protectionist decision making for existing investments in current layers and systems?

Watch for yourself and decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUO10-HcdvY

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.