There are a lot of proposals to change bitcoin’s consensus at the moment. All of them have good motivations, whether it's scaling UTXO ownership or making self-custody more tractable. I won’t rehash them here, you’re probably already familiar. Some Since years, the development of these products has been ongoing.
The Two such changes have been successfully made to Bitcoin. Segwit The following are some examples of how to get started: TaprootThe deployment of massive engines was fraught with drama. There have been smaller changes in bitcoin’s past, like the introduction of locktimes, but for some reason the last two have been kitchen sink affairs.
The The truth that many Bitcoin engineers do not like to talk about is the fact that they are still in the early stages of development. Taproot, bitcoin’s consensus development was more or less operating under a benevolent dictatorship model. Project Leadership has gone from Satoshi You can also find out more about the following: Gavin to… well, I’ll stop naming names.
Core developers will likely quibble with this characterization, but we all know deep down that to a first order approximation that it’s basically true. The “final say” and big ideas were implicitly signed off on by one guy, or maybe a small oligarchy of wizened autists.
In many ways there’s really nothing wrong with this – most (all?) Major open source projects are run in a similar way, with a fairly clear leadership structure. Oftentimes they have benevolent dictators who just “make the call” in times of high-dimensional ambiguity. Everyone It is not known how to pronounce Guido The following are some examples of how to get started: Linus The basis Christian Sqlite guy
Bitcoin It is not aesthetically pleasing, but this is the way it was up until 2021.
Given Three factors are responsible for the CONSENSUS CUNDRUM currently facing bitcoin:
(1) The old benevolent dictators (or high-caste oligarchy) have abdicated their power, leaving a vacuum that shifts the project from “conventional mode of operation” to “novel, never-before-tried” mode: an attempt at some kind of supposedly meritocratic leaderlessness.
This Change is coupled with the fact
At this point, the design space for bitcoin and what to care about is wide-open. Do You want vaults? Or More L2s needed? What What about rollups? Or How about a generic computing tool like CAT Or Should we bundle generics with applications (CTV+VAULT) to ensure that they really work?
The All of these opinions are valid. They All have merit in terms of what you should focus on and the way to achieve your goal. There really isn’t a clear “correct” design pattern.
(3) A final factor that makes this situation poisonous is that faithfully pursuing, fleshing out, building, “doing the work” of presenting a proposal IS REALLY REALLY TIME CONSUMPTIVE AND MIND MELTING.
Getting Demos, specifications, implementation and "marketing" Material is a tedious process that requires years of experience. Core Even approach
I was paid well to do this job full-time for many years. However, the process left me dismayed by the dysfunction. I had little desire to continue to contribute. This is a common sentiment.
A related myth is that business will do something similar to aid in the process. The The idea that businesses would build on potential forks is laughable. Most bitcoin companies have a ton on their backlog, are fighting for survival, and have basically no one dedicated to R&D. The It is difficult to integrate features that are actually implemented.
Many of the ones who do have the budget for R&D are shitcoin factories that don’t care about bitcoin-specific upgrades.
I’ve worked for some of the rare companies that care about bitcoin and do have the money for this kind of R&D, and even then the resources are not sufficient to build a serious product demo on top of 1 of N speculative softforks that may never happen.
—
This Leadership hierarchies are a result of the kind of situations that human systems face. In general, to progress in a situation like this someone needs to be in a position to say “alright, after due consideration we’re doing X.”
Of What makes this situation seem so difficult is that the Bitcoin Mythology dictates, (rightly), that clear hierarchies in leadership are how you end up, at the end, with the Fed.
SureBitcoin will never change in any meaningful way again ("ossify"). But At this point, it is almost certain that the product will be another financial product which can only be accessed by large institutions.
If You might agree that bitcoin’s rules could be tightened to improve its functionality, but you should also consider that we should move forward. "slow and steady," I also think there are problems with that.
Because another factor that isn’t talked about is that as bitcoin rises in price, and as nation-states start buying in size, the rules will be harder to change. So inaction — not deciding — is actually a very consequential decision.
I don’t understand how this will resolve.
—
There’s another uncomfortable subject I want to touch on: where the power actually lies.
The What determines the current method of changing bitcoin? Core Developers will merge. This of course isn’t official policy, but it’s the unintended reality.
Other The less technically savvy actors, such as miners and exchanges, have to choose an indicator that will tell them when and what changes to expect. They The majority of people are not interested in or able to do the necessary research to determine these things.
My Core This description will make colleagues sneer. They’ll say “we’re just janitors! we just merge what has consensus!” And they’re not being disingenuous in saying that. But they’re also not acknowledging that historically, that is how consensus changes have operated.
This is something that everyone knows semi-consciously but doesn’t really want to own.
Core devs saying “yes” and clicking merge has been a necessary precursor every time. And Now, none of these are possible. Core devs are paying attention to the soft fork conversations – sort of understandable, there’s a bunch to do in bitcoin.
But let’s be honest here, a lot of the work happening in Core has been sort of secondary to bitcoin’s realization.
Mempool work is interesting, but the whole model is more or less upside down anyway because it’s based on altruism. ForAlthough this could be argued, I believe that profit darkpools and accelerations are inevitable. Much The work of the mempools is rooted in a support for LightningIt is obvious that this will not solve the scaling issue.
Sure, encrypted P2P connections are great, but what’s even the point if we can’t get on-chain ownership to a level beyond essentially requiring the use of an exchange, ecash mint, sidechain, or some other trusted third party?
My The main complaint is that Core Has developed an ivory-tower mindset that sneers more or less at people who rip off long-term consensus stuff, instead of actually engaging with the hard issues.
And Bitcoin could fall short of its full potential.
—
I don’t know what the solution to any of this is. I know that self-custody would be a nightmare for casual users and that it is not feasible for them to do. I also know that bitcoin, in its current state, will not be able to scale up to twice-monthly volumes for even 10% of US, let alone the rest of the world.
The people who don’t acknowledge this, and who want to spend critical time and energy wallowing in the mire of proposing the perfect remix of CTV, are making a fateful choice.
Most of the longstanding, fully specified fork proposals active today are totally fine, and conceptually they’d be great additions to bitcoin.
HellA larger block size is probably safe, given features such as compactblocks, assumeutxo, and eventually utreexo. But that’s another post for another day.
—
I've gone back and forth about writing a post like this, because I don't have any concrete prescriptions or recommendations. I guess I’m left hoping that bringing up uncomfortable observations will lead to some progress in reducing self-custody.
All These opinions were probably expressed by @JeremyRubin in his blog years ago. I’m just tired of biting my tongue.
Thanks Please send feedback to @rot13maxi & @MsHodl on this draft.
This This is a guest blog by James O'Beirne. Opinions The views and opinions expressed by BTC customers are theirs alone. Inc The following are some examples of how to use Bitcoin Magazine.
Every trader who trades cryptocurrency on the Binance exchange wants to know about the upcoming pumping in the value of coins in order to make huge profits in a short period of time.
This article contains instructions on how to find out when and which coin will participate in the next “Pump”. Every day, the community on Telegram channel Crypto Pump Signals for Binance publishes 10 free signals about the upcoming “Pump” and reports on successful “Pumps” which have been successfully completed by the organizers of the VIP community.Watch a video on how to find out about the upcoming cryptocurrency pump and earn huge profits.
These trading signals help earn huge profit in just a few hours after purchasing the coins published on the Telegram channel.Are you already making a profit using these trading signals? If not, then try it!We wish you good luck in trading cryptocurrency and wish to receive the same profit as VIP subscribers of the Crypto Pump Signals for Binance channel.
