Alright. Normally long-form is my game, but this needs to be said succinctly.

So, what is this whole spam thing about?
Put simply:

We are arguing over what the governing bounds of the Bitcoin protocol should be.
What are the parameters of validity and limits concerning arbitrary data?

Should it be zero discretionary space?
A little more?
A little less?
Unlimited?

The root essence of the contention is over tradeoffs:
size, cost, benefit, surface area, and risk.

In Bitcoin, consensus is the mechanism that answers these questions.

This is a big question.

So, the intensity makes sense.

Especially once you understand how we form consensus in Bitcoin.

Satoshi harnessed self-interest, aggregating and harmonizing individual action to reveal the collective good known as consensus.
Forming consensus turns an abstract “ideal” into “real” hard-lined code.

Forming consensus relies on each individual acting in their own self-interest.

Your individual, self-interested actions churn the milk.
And consensus is the collective butter that gets produced.

Consensus exists on the longest chain with the most energy.
It is a greater collective wisdom than any individual person could possess.

I take comfort in that that fact.

No one has to have all the answers.
Bitcoin decentralizes arbitration.
So we don’t rely on any single person.

To hold Bitcoin in any capacity is to participate in its consensus, either directly or by delegation.

If you don’t run a node, if you don’t mine, you are not a neutral observer.

It just means you’re outsourcing your judgment to someone else.

And that’s fine, but just know, that is what you’re doing.
There are no bystanders.

This whole “being a sovereign agent” thing is a different type of game than we’re accustomed to in modernity.
So it makes sense that so many find it difficult.

Consensus is formed by what people do.

What you run.
What you accept.
What you reject.
What you relay.
What you refuse to relay.
How you route your economic life through the network.

All of this matters.

Some participants look at discretionary space and say,
“If I’m allowed to do whatever I want with it, I will.”
So they pursue their own interests.

Other participants look at discretionary space and say,
“Whoa, the tradeoff to do whatever you want threatens my interests.”
So they push back in their own interests.

All sides are pursuing their self-interest.
That tension is the churn.

Bitcoin does not force consensus with coercion.
Bitcoin discovers consensus through persuasion.

The longest chain with the most energy is the scoreboard.

And that’s why Bitcoin is both “immutable” and “adaptable” in practice.

I can propose a BIP to change 21 million to 42 million.
I can propose a BIP that gives me an extra bitcoin every block.
I can write the code. I can publish it.

Totally possible, but it will never happen.

Because it requires consensus from people cutting against their self-interest.

Even if a person wants to maliciously destroy Bitcoin,
they do so because it’s in their interest to kill it.

That’s comforting, because Satoshi was not so naïve as to think no hostile actors would ever come for Bitcoin.

Smart people. Dumb people. Evil people. Good people.

They all exist.
I think the process of forming consensus accounts for all of that.

Bitcoin sorts through this mess and separates the wheat from the chaff.

That is why I am hopeful, and not worried, about the outcome of this drama.
Because I am taking care of the only thing I have control over in Bitcoin: my actions.
I have aligned my actions with my interests.

So yes, I have a side.

And it is my own.

But I am still on team Bitcoin.

In fact, contention is a reassuring sign that consensus is being made.
Each of us has our preferences, incentives, fears, and theories.

I am not shocked that your preferences are not my own.

I do not want any of you to be an NPC and copy paste my interests.

Bitcoin is a protocol of rules, bounds, costs, limits, tradeoffs, and consequences.

You throw yourself at the wall of reality and test your beliefs.
Bitcoin collates the collective splatter and produces a greater wisdom than any of us could possess individually.

So what’s the takeaway?

Don’t outsource your judgment.
Don’t “go along to get along.”
Bitcoin gets weak when sovereign agents stop thinking for themselves and blindly serve another’s interests.

Your duty to yourself is stewardship:
So stir deliberately.

Think about your interests, and act accordingly in the open,
So the network can aggregate your signal honestly.

Run what serves you.
Relay what serves you.
Advocate for what serves you.
And persuade others why it serves them.

And if you can’t persuade them,
that is not something to cry about.

Bitcoin is telling you with perfect clarity
That your interest is not aligned with the collective good.

So, if consensus answers these questions differently than I do,
I will check my ego and accept that Bitcoin produced a better answer than I could.

I will remain in consensus with the longest chain.

But we don’t get the butter of consensus unless we churn the milk with our actions.

Bitcoin is a game for sovereign agents.
If you are going to play the child, either stop or sell.

You do not belong