Last time, I was detailing the reasons why Bitcoin requires a constitution, or a corpus of its own, in order to avoid any such existential debates about its vision in the future. If we can avoid excessive hard forks, then we can surely safely lower the ‘jump to default’ risk of the Bitcoin network. Any other type of risk would surely happen slowly and gradually, whether it be a slowing of adoption, or an increase in transactions. This is not to say that we should be ignorant of those risks, but just that if we are all cognizant of them, we won’t be boiled like all of the other frogs in the kettle.
This is not a radical new view, many in the core dev group feel the same way, as you can see in Jeff Garzik’s prelude to his BIP100 proposal. He clearly defined the dangers of both action and inaction within the context of block size limits. He also quite succinctly commented on the lack of a clear definition of what Bitcoin is. I agree with this opinion, and it drove me to appeal to the core devs on revisiting the dialog about creating a manifesto or a constitution for Bitcoin. Having such a guide for all future protocol changes would only serve to make such discussions easier, for everyone can agree on what Bitcoin’s priorities should be.