The story I want to tell today is one of confusion.
I have been a software developer for various decades and in that time the way that I start a new job or a new task is similar. It is one of learning. When I started in a company that creates medical hardware I ended up spending quite some time reading through books meant for nurses. When I started in a company that makes a stock-trading platform I had to learn about the financial industry. The knowledge of being a software developer is similar to knowing English or Russian as a novel writer. It doesn't mean you have anything interesting to write. You need to learn.
This is why I love my profession of software developer. I get to do something completely different on a regular basis.
Learning about Bitcoin was surprising difficult. I've been learning for
almost 4 years and I am certain I will continue for many more.
I would have to say that from all the industries that I studied, learning about Bitcoin details has been the hardest.
I have been talking to quite a lot of people over these years, from forums like reddit and 8btc to chat, email and VOIP talking to the experts. I found that I was not alone with my difficulty of discovering pertinent details about Bitcoin.
The following scenario would happen on a regular basis: A couple of random
people on the internet are in a discussion about some detail. For instance
they talk about the claim that miners would never willingly break the
Bitcoin consensus rules.
After some time an expert comes in and resolves the conflict by stating some fact. In our example, he could say that after the 2012 halving there were various miners for some hours that continued to mine blocks with 50BTC reward.
I've always wanted to be so wise and learned that I knew all those facts in the hope that I could become an expert.
In Bitcoin there are currently a very small number of experts. This generates a handful of problems. The most obvious problem is the one I outlined above, it makes it hard for new people to enter Bitcoin and become productive. New people need known experts to help them. Many other problems are more subtle.
Problems we face today:
With the experts having more information than the rest of us, those experts become authority figures. We need their Ok because we will likely do things wrong otherwise.
Bitcoin is a field that spans Economy, Finance, the history of Money, Psychology, various fields in software architecture (databases, peer-2-peer networking, cryptography) and probably more. It is impossible for any one person to be an expert in all of those. Yet, when we talk to our Bitcoin experts I never once heard any of them say that they would rather defer to someone more knowledgeable than themselves.
Discussions about Bitcoin can be about opinions or about well researched facts. In the current world it is impossible to differentiate fact from opinion because we can't independently validate those facts.
I have become convinced that the first big step we need to make to create a more healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is to make access to currently well hidden facts completely open for anyone to access and contribute to.
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
I think that goal is inspiration that Bitcoin could use very well. I would like to see a Free Wikipedia for Bitcoin technology.
There are quite a number websites today that have a small amount of information, typically on one topic for one specific group of users. For instance people new to Bitcoin. But nothing that combines those ideas and facts.
A special mention should go to the bitcoin.it website which has a lot of in-depth information. Unfortunately most of it is hopelessly outdated and looking through the discussions it becomes obvious this is because it has been strictly guarded by a small number of people that would remove without discussion any opinions not already known to them. This kind of behavior is the death to cooperation.
The secondary goal, then, should be to create documentation that can not be censored or controlled.
Git is a tool used for many years by enthusiasts and professionals alike to create a distributed workflow. Anyone can create changes and offer them to the world to accept or reject based on merit only. Git allows anyone to start contributing without permission. It also removes the central ownership. No longer is it needed to convince one group of the worth of your changes, there may be various groups each creating what they think is the best version.
While git allows the actual required working together, it is just a basic
layer. Many end users don't want to use git, and that should be perfectly
Much like Wikipedia allows a user to do everything from a web browser, we need a way to do the same in order to not scare off people that could really contribute but don't have the technical knowledge to install and use tools on their machine.
In my search for a solution I found a tool called ikiwiki. This is a tool that combines the concept of a wiki and the concept of distributing control using git. What one person changes on the website can be merged with what another person makes at another time. Even when those people use a different website or a different team to do the work in.
To start somewhere I present a website that has all the content (including all revisions back until its start in 2010) copied from what has so far been the main Bitcoin wiki. I put them online for now at bitcoinwiki.github.io. This is a simple website and editing is currently disabled. The wiki database is converted to be markdown, which is a more modern alternative than the old wiki used. This is also the native format that ikiwiki uses. Don't worry, you likely are not going to have problems with it as you may already know it quite well. Markdown is used at many places like github and Reddit.
But even with the full historical content, I do believe we need some heros to step up and do some major work. Many pages are hopelessly outdated and there are quite a lot of flaws in the actual content.
Next to that, many pages use rendering-templates that have not been ported over to the git repository. I would suspect that most of them are in fact irrelevant. Some closer inspection is needed.
In my own humble opinion the goal of the old wiki is wrong, it highlighted all companies in the space which included all gambling sites and places selling hardware. This is fast-changing information and frankly serves nobody but the companies. Likewise, pages about people feel out of place. It so quickly becomes about being better than anyone else. I don't have a wikipedia page and I think I'm better off without it.
Actual technical information, backgrounds, overviews and historical facts would be useful to write down. In my opinion it should be a source of information where fresh content is shared and research published.
We need people to go in and slice up the bad stuff, move pages to better locations and move out useless content. I have already spent too much time, time I could spend on writing better Bitcoin code. So I hope others can pick up the baton and fork my the bitcoinwiki project on github and work on making it ready for more and more people to come in add their work and content.
Following the title of this blogposts, sharing how Bitcoin works and sharing knowledge about many of its darker corners will allow the conversation to shift back into a less emotional one. It is always easier to discuss topics when opinions are not confused with facts and facts are not fought with opinions.