I wish to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core workforce’s stance on the ideas 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, making certain 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 concerning 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 targeted on altering Bitcoin itself or impacting its core incentive buildings? Or is it extra about preserving the basic 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—reaching prompt finality, censorship resistance, limitless TPS scaling to demand, and totally 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 method. It might introduce no further 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 method, working independently on the consumer degree. This method would stay totally impartial to Bitcoin’s present transactional construction, making certain it doesn’t intervene 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 method: would one of these supreme system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s ideas, 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?
