Eventually the code will get ironed out and some kind of industry standard will become accepted as the base protocol layer for internet money.
We're not there yet, not by a long shot.
What really surprises me, is the anger and spite coming from the Gavin supporters. The vitriol and vehemence with which they attack anyone who has concerns about 20 MB blocks is unsettling.
That's just fine if 'internet money' is the goal (it is probably the most likely outcome regardless of the goal anyway). But it seems we have moved a long way from BTC as a stand-alone currency though with that statement.
I agree, the amount of vitriol in the debate about block size is very unsettling. It is putting personality back into the technology and damaging the idea of 'decentralised' and 'trustless' IMO
I think it's all necessary. I mean, it's necessary for the system to fail before we can move forward. It's good to argue about this stuff now and experiment with different strategies, but if you really want to build an anti-fragile system, you're gonna have to let it go and watch it run it's course. If/when it fails or becomes co-opted you can hopefully analyze and determine where it went wrong, make changes, re-iterate and try again.
We're talking about building something that will disrupt a control system that's been dominant for thousands of years. I'd be astonished if it succeeded in only it's first iteration.
