I wish to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core workforce’s stance on the rules and evolution of Bitcoin, significantly in relation to Satoshi Nakamoto’s imaginative and prescient as outlined in “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Digital Money System.”
From my understanding, the Core workforce locations a excessive precedence on sustaining Bitcoin’s safety, guaranteeing that any modifications align with the ethos of “if it’s not damaged, don’t repair it.” There additionally seems to be a cautious strategy to implementing options that might alter Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms or jeopardize its core integrity. I’m additionally conscious of the broad opinions concerning the introduction of sensible contracts and different utilities on Bitcoin.
What I’m inquisitive about is the workforce’s perspective on scaling Bitcoin. Is the final opposition to scaling efforts primarily targeted on altering Bitcoin itself or impacting its core incentive buildings? Or is it extra about preserving the elemental logic and strengths of Bitcoin as we all know it right this moment?
For instance, if there have been an answer that launched what we’d name a Bardo Mitosis Layer for Bitcoin, enabling it to operate extra as a peer-to-peer money system—attaining on the spot finality, censorship resistance, limitless TPS scaling to demand, and absolutely trustless operation—would such an answer be supported?
To make clear, this hypothetical answer wouldn’t require modifications to Bitcoin’s present protocol, nor would it not request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s current safety ensures, or have an effect on Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms in any manner. It might introduce no further belief assumptions, no committees, federations, or intermediaries. As an alternative, it may make the most of mechanisms like Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) in a novel manner, working independently on the consumer stage. This strategy would stay fully impartial to Bitcoin’s present transactional construction, guaranteeing it doesn’t intrude with or modify current processes.
Such an answer would enable customers to seamlessly transfer between Bitcoin as a retailer of worth and this new layer as a digital money counterpart, inheriting Bitcoin’s safety and censorship resistance. I’ve by no means heard a transparent reply to this query posed on this manner: would this sort of superb system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s rules, ever be acceptable to the Core workforce? Or, to place it bluntly, is such an strategy merely by no means acceptable no matter its advantage?
I wish to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core workforce’s stance on the rules and evolution of Bitcoin, significantly in relation to Satoshi Nakamoto’s imaginative and prescient as outlined in “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Digital Money System.”
From my understanding, the Core workforce locations a excessive precedence on sustaining Bitcoin’s safety, guaranteeing that any modifications align with the ethos of “if it’s not damaged, don’t repair it.” There additionally seems to be a cautious strategy to implementing options that might alter Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms or jeopardize its core integrity. I’m additionally conscious of the broad opinions concerning the introduction of sensible contracts and different utilities on Bitcoin.
What I’m inquisitive about is the workforce’s perspective on scaling Bitcoin. Is the final opposition to scaling efforts primarily targeted on altering Bitcoin itself or impacting its core incentive buildings? Or is it extra about preserving the elemental logic and strengths of Bitcoin as we all know it right this moment?
For instance, if there have been an answer that launched what we’d name a Bardo Mitosis Layer for Bitcoin, enabling it to operate extra as a peer-to-peer money system—attaining on the spot finality, censorship resistance, limitless TPS scaling to demand, and absolutely trustless operation—would such an answer be supported?
To make clear, this hypothetical answer wouldn’t require modifications to Bitcoin’s present protocol, nor would it not request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s current safety ensures, or have an effect on Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms in any manner. It might introduce no further belief assumptions, no committees, federations, or intermediaries. As an alternative, it may make the most of mechanisms like Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) in a novel manner, working independently on the consumer stage. This strategy would stay fully impartial to Bitcoin’s present transactional construction, guaranteeing it doesn’t intrude with or modify current processes.
Such an answer would enable customers to seamlessly transfer between Bitcoin as a retailer of worth and this new layer as a digital money counterpart, inheriting Bitcoin’s safety and censorship resistance. I’ve by no means heard a transparent reply to this query posed on this manner: would this sort of superb system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s rules, ever be acceptable to the Core workforce? Or, to place it bluntly, is such an strategy merely by no means acceptable no matter its advantage?
