I wish to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core staff’s stance on the ideas 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 staff locations a excessive precedence on sustaining Bitcoin’s safety, guaranteeing that any adjustments 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 would alter Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms or jeopardize its core integrity. I’m additionally conscious of the broad opinions concerning the introduction of good contracts and different utilities on Bitcoin.
What I’m inquisitive about is the staff’s perspective on scaling Bitcoin. Is the final opposition to scaling efforts primarily targeted 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’d name a Bardo Mitosis Layer for Bitcoin, enabling it to perform extra as a peer-to-peer money system—attaining immediate 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 adjustments to Bitcoin’s present protocol, nor wouldn’t it request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s current safety ensures, or have an effect on Bitcoin’s incentive mechanisms in any approach. It could introduce no extra belief assumptions, no committees, federations, or intermediaries. As a substitute, it might make the most of mechanisms like Hashed Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) in a novel approach, working independently on the consumer degree. This strategy would stay totally impartial to Bitcoin’s present transactional construction, guaranteeing it doesn’t intrude with or modify current processes.
Such an answer would permit 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 approach: would any such very best system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s ideas, ever be acceptable to the Core staff? Or, to place it bluntly, is such an strategy merely by no means acceptable no matter its benefit?
