I want to higher perceive the Bitcoin Core crew’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 crew 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 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 interested by is the crew’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 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 would name a Bardo Mitosis Layer for Bitcoin, enabling it to perform extra as a peer-to-peer money system—attaining instantaneous 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 wouldn’t it request a BIP, alter Bitcoin’s present 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 a substitute, it may 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, making certain it doesn’t intrude with or modify present 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 manner: would this kind of best system, rigorously audited and aligned with Bitcoin’s rules, ever be acceptable to the Core crew? Or, to place it bluntly, is such an method merely by no means acceptable no matter its advantage?