I wish to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core workforce’s stance on the rules and evolution of Bitcoin, notably 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 method to implementing options that would alter Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms or jeopardize its core integrity. I’m additionally conscious of the broad opinions relating to the introduction of good contracts and different utilities on Bitcoin.
What I’m interested in is the workforce’s perspective on scaling Bitcoin. Is the overall opposition to scaling efforts primarily centered on altering Bitcoin itself or impacting its core incentive constructions? Or is it extra about preserving the elemental logic and strengths of Bitcoin as we all know it at the moment?
For instance, if there have been an answer that launched what we would 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 resolution wouldn’t require modifications to Bitcoin’s present protocol, nor would it not request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s present safety ensures, or have an effect on Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms in any manner. It could introduce no further belief assumptions, no committees, federations, or intermediaries. As an alternative, it might make the most of mechanisms like Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) in a novel manner, working independently on the consumer degree. This method would stay totally impartial to Bitcoin’s present transactional construction, guaranteeing it doesn’t intrude with or modify present 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 one of these preferrred system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s rules, ever be acceptable to the Core workforce? Or, to place it bluntly, is such an method merely by no means acceptable no matter its advantage?
