The discussion about the limit on the size of the block has given birth to an epistemological question: How do we know what the nature of Bitcoin ? Can this bededuced a priori from our knowledge of the rules defined in the paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, and protocol software coded reference? Or post can only be known through observation and experience? The purpose of this paper is to analyze the question of the nature of Bitcoin from the perspective of rationalism and empiricism in the debate about the limit on the size of the block.
Rationalism argues that some propositions are known to be true by definition and that other proposals are knowable by deduction from the first. Rationalist could sustain the idea that Bitcoin has a limit of 21 million coins or block size limit of 1 MB, based on deductive reasoning from the rules imposed by the Core Bitcoin source code. From the point of view of rationalism, the code represents an immutable truth, and understanding of Bitcoin is clear from the axiomatic inferences from that premise .
The empirical rejects the intuition and deduction of rationality and considers instead knowledge necessarily gives a posteriori, it depends on the observation and sensory experience. Empiricism challenges the notion that Bitcoin has an inherent limit of 21 million coins and, instead, shows that the money supply increased 50 bitcoins per block during the first 210,000 blocks and, from there, 25 bitcoins per block. The empiricist rejects the idea that Bitcoin has some inherent limit the size of the block, having observed that previous empirical limits 250KB, 350KB and 750KB collapsed to the increased demand .
For the rationalist, promoting an increase in size of the block by the empiricist may look like a hostile attempt to destroy the truth that he has taken as self - evident. For the empiricist, rationalist may look irrational because the empiricist has never accepted (and rejected) the premises that the rationalist considered foundational ( "not enough evidence"). Indeed, the debate about the limit on the size of the block is a debate about the very nature of Bitcoin. What is the nature of Bitcoin? It was carved in stone or Bitcoin one creature market ?
Rationalism and empiricism are actually lenses through which we can understand how we acquire knowledge. It is not that one is better than the other; both are important to progress.
In my opinion, the rationalist played an important role near the first halving (halving reward in bitcoins for miners): the empiricist did not think likely the halving could go right (and therefore had no faith that Bitcoin could become a strong currency ). Without our rational part, we would not have the necessary conviction to predict the success of Bitcoin.
Now we have the opposite problem: the rationalist is struggling to maintain a rule that has been confused with an immutable part of the nature of Bitcoin . It is time for the empiricist show that this rule is hurting Bitcoin .