Bitcoin Forum

There seem to be too much development taking place on bitcoin. Changes always being proposed. How are we ever going to be able to trust that bitcoin will never change if people are always trying to propose changes to it and get it implemented.

#1: that kind of ruins the idea that bitcoin is going to be the same today as it was yesterday and tomorrow. today they might be proposing a change to some fee mechanism. tomorrow it might be changing the max supply.

#2: anytime you introducing new changes to bitcoin, you run the possibility that you are introducing bugs. apparently the ability to foresee bugs is not absolute so they don't know what bugs they might be introducing when they introduce major changes like Taproot https://www.investopedia.com/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-5210039 (https://www.investopedia.com/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-5210039).

You can't just keep changing bitcoin trying to make it better and better forever. At some point, it needs to become immutable. So people can know what they are getting. In full. I'm not sure but I'd imagine the codebase for bitcoin is a mishmash of hard to read files. Another not so nice thing. But that's a result of its development style. Adding on new things on top of old things. Or alongside. Ideally you lay out a full blueprint of the entire thing at the very outset and design and develop it once. Done. The rest is bug fixes if necessary but no more.

Anyone that's ever tried and program some simple software and then later on come back and add new things into it it can end up being a nightmare to try and understand and maintain the code...there's alot of bitcoin users out there who don't understand this aspect of bitcoin at all!

Yes you can. That's the nature of software. The risk of introducing bugs is well worth the benefits of updates, if the changes are thoroughly tested, which they are. The argument that changes to the code would normalize removing the supply cap is also wrong. Community can decide to do that even if the development would be frozen for years. Bitcoin is governed by its users. If there's a disagreement over the fundamental things, then there will be a split. We've already seen BCH do that, so we have a good idea how such splits play out.

First of all note that since bitcoin was created, we only had a few upgrades like segwit and taproot to make some improvements. Bitcoin is still bitcoin and will remain bitcoin.
Secondly, it's not that easy to propose an idea and get it approved. The proposal should be supported by vast majority of miners.


In the case by changing fee mechanism, you mean taproot upgrade, note that however taproot makes some transactions cheaper, that wasn't why taproot was proposed. The main purpose of taproot is to improve the privacy.
Also note that maximum supply of bitcoin will never change. To change the maximum supply, we need a hard fork and if that happens, the new coin will be no longer bitcoin.


Every proposal is reviewed by many people and it's very unlikely that an approved proposal causes a bug which ruin bitcoin.

Yeah exactly, this is difficult if you built software that is not well-written and good for future changes or it is flexible when you start building it, this is the most common issue when developing software where at first, they do not anticipated the future changes and that makes the software or project end up being a nightmare.
But with Bitcoin, since it is open-source, I believe that the project is improved all over the time, if you have a proposal or some pull requests that need to be there for any feature/bug fix related it is very possible.

#1 shouldn't be an issue I think since the core features of Bitcoin (decentralized, capped supply, etc.) are something that is a part of Bitcoin itself, if it were to be proposed to change those, the result would not necessarily be "Bitcoin" anymore imo, like what happened to BitcoinCash.

#2 isn't also an issue since changes aren't exactly published as soon as they're made. You yourself seem to know the progress of programming, you should also know more than anyone else that changes are always reviewed a lot of times before being pushed into publication. If there's a process that's involved, you can say that proposing is at the top and publishing it is at the very end.

And this...

So, let's look at some history. When they first made mobile phones you had to carry a briefcase with a phone with you. Wasn't that a burden? Then they kept improving it on and on and eventually we had phones.

IMO bitcoin has to keep changing and going through updates and soft forks otherwise it will become obsolete at one point for the same reason you're not using MS DOS or Norton Commander anymore. For the same reason you're not using a Nokia 3310 and not watching movies on a black and white TV.

This is a good point that people should be aware of.  There's always been an unwritten rule that the Bitcoin supply will never go above 21,000,000.  Communities do change over time though.  I've witnessed Bitcoin go from a strictly libertarian community to one that seems detached from libertarian values.  There is no way to ensure that the next generation of maintainer won't feel that changing the supply limit is the right thing to do.  Even recently we've had another core maintainer step away from the project.  It would be dangerous to assume that these sort of changes aren't possible.

Could Bitcoin remain stagnant forever? Which is better, that Bitcoin permanently remains as it is notwithstanding the changes around it or that it could somehow be continuously developed to cater the ever-changing demands and other circumstances? With the former, Bitcoin faces the risk of getting irrelevant and obsolete. With the latter, it could adapt to the times. However, with the former, the rules are etched in stone. With the latter, they could change.

Everything is corruptible to an extent. Ultimately it's about the blockchain and that can never be changed.

I think the same, bitcoin is not only a form of money, bitcoin is a technology and it would be a mistake to not update bitcoin and give to it more features if there is not risk at all to break it.

Not only that the technology around bitcoin also moves forward and we could run the risk of creating new vulnerabilities for bitcoin that were unthinkable before, so this attitude of not updating bitcoin will simply bring more problems than benefits, while it also makes no sense, because as a society we are always striving to move our technology forward and it makes no sense to somehow exempt bitcoin from this.

I don't know. What about the point of view that to KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Doing one thing and doing it well is better than trying to do alot of different things. I would much rather bitcoin try and stay true to its roots and just be a way of sending electronic cash rather than adding all of this extra features and complexity into it. Let that be something else. There are always going to be new projects that pop up that try and do something else. Let them do it. Let bitcoin be what it was originally and no more.

So if we just need to send electronic cash then we don't need taproot. Legacy addresses are just fine. Keep it simple stupid theory at work.

I guess if quantum computer comes along then well that's a different story but none of the changes that have made it into bitcoin up to this point do anything to mitigate QC anyway.

I prefer a cryptocurrency whose sole purpose is transferring cash electronically. Don't necessarily want it to be anymore complicated than it needs to be. Don't necessarily want it to have anymore features than are absolutely necessary to achieve that goal. How could bitcoin become outdated? math always works.

For example if I want NFTs, I'll try and find something that was built from the ground up for that particular application. But that's another story since NFTs kind of just got patched into ethereum as an afterthought...

.

No Software has ever been through the test of time without getting updated. “Maths always work" Yes, because no one formular is subjected to solving a mathematical problem, the goal is to arrive at the right or correct answer. The Bitcoin you want cannot be removed by the new updates that keeps appearing. Think of Satoshi that created Bitcoin out of cryptography and Vitalik made Eth out of the idea of Satoshi etc. The root is open source and any update can pop out as many developers have personal reasons to bitcoin contrary to what you want. They build as they view and nothing will stop it. Don't think it'll get complicated, just like maths, a new formular will be hard to learn immediately, but, sooner or later you'll enjoy using the formular to solve problems. If the formular is difficult, you can stick to the existing fomular you know how to utilize.

It depends on what you mean by "change". Certain principles of bitcoin will never change no matter what. Such as being decentralized or having a capped supply. Everything else can change like the new script interpretation rules that improve Bitcoin.

A standard rule like fee has nothing to do with a consensus rule like max supply.
Changing the rules involving fee does not even require some proposal, any node can do whatever it likes.

That doesn't mean improvement should be stopped.

Not at all. Bitcoin, like any other computer program, needs to be always improving specially with the new needs that may arise in the future.

That's not an argument about adding or not adding new features to bitcoin. This is an argument about coding style and whether a developer is capable of writing clean and scalable code.

1. Proposing changes and getting them approved are two different things.
2. Having small changes in the Bitcoin code(to keep Bitcoin up to date) and changing the entire concept of Bitcoin are two completely different things. Nobody in the BTC community is going to change the entire concept of Bitcoin Core, because there's no consensus about such change inside the Bitcoin Core community. People like Roger Ver and Craig Wright tried to change the nature of Bitcoin in the past, but they've failed, so they just Forked BTC and created their BCH/BSV altcoins. Most Bitcoin forks failed in one way or another. Bitcoin Core remained the king of crypto.
By the way, it seems to me that you don't know how Bitcoin Core works.

Your idea of Bitcoin development is flawed.... One of the advantages of having a digital currency ..is the fact that it can change over time to adapt to the changing environment or needs of it's users.

You need a technology that can quickly be changed to adapt ...not just to security threats and bugs, but to changing needs in the people who is using it. There are thousands of Alt coins being released with innovative features and Bitcoin has to stay competitive with innovative changes too....or it will be replaced with a Alt coin that has better features.  ::)

I don’t think the changes you speak of are very often.
Whatever changes that have been made must have been carefully thought out and the whole idea of those changes is improving.
Also, these changes are first tested before implementation. They are not unaware of how dicey it could get and how vulnerable it would be if Bitcoin is compromised through bugs.
So I believe they are careful with that aspect and take control of it.

Well for something that's supposed to last forever, having changes every 10 years is huge.

That's the problem. I don't think bitcoin code is very well documented and structured. I've heard it being called "spaghetti code" which if that's the case, that means it is not very maintanable. But I'm glad you used the phrase "been carefully thought out". There's no way you can carefully think out in full detail something that is spaghetti code. What ends up happening is you keep your fingers crossed that nothing bad will happen after putting a few eyeballs on it and maybe seeing if it works in some testnet scenario. That's not really any proof that something won't go wrong though.


I'm sure I would agree with that. Like for example: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-July/020663.html

Tim Ruffing's "X-only Workaround" he admits "This workaround is not exactly elegant either but it may be better than
the other suggestions."

That's the type of things that contribute to bitcoin code being "spaghetti code" when things are not elegant. I'd like to see bitcoin code be modular, elegant, readable, well commented and thus more easily maintainable. If not then I don't see how you can keep going like that with  just patching things that don't work quite right. A patch here, a patch there, ....pretty soon it will be such a mess no one will want to look at it.

But bitcoin isn't having significant changes the way you think it is. Only new features are introduced to make it better.

I'm assuming you are talking about bitcoin core when you talk about code, in that case it is very well structured although core like many other open source software does not have enough documentation.

If we were to think like this then we should have never used bitcoin in 2009 either because there really is "no proof that original version isn't going to go wrong" either.

The "altering the max supply" argument was never taken under serious consideration to begin with. Making discussion about something doesn't mean that something is probably going to be implemented. The significance of bitcoin is that there's no way a change is implemented effectively without discussion. Discussion is, hence, vital for the system to work properly.

And let's not forget that most changes have happened in a backwards-compatible fashion, using soft forks. Hard forks are a big no to the community, which perfectly defaces things such as Bitcoin Cash.

You are right when you say that some changes are happening when it comes to Bitcoin, and we can discuss whether they are good or bad, but as many others have already said, these changes do not change the very essence of what Bitcoin represents. People believe in the Bitcoin that was given to us by Satoshi, but even during the time when he was active, many changes happened and this is a completely natural course of events if you want to improve any product.


The idea of changing the max supply is radical and does not have many supporters, because it is essentially negative and would cause a lot of damage in the short term, but also in the long term. You have to accept that everything in life changes, whether it's about you as a person, the computer you use every day, or the car you drive - so you can't expect Bitcoin to stay the same forever.


The average Bitcoin user will never be able to understand some complicated technical things, but does that mean that you should lose faith in Bitcoin because of that? At the end of the day, no one is in a position to have to believe in Bitcoin, it's a matter of personal choice - if you have doubts try to remove them, or just stop believing.

Updates are necessary to make things more better than before, that's normal to the technology, it is evolving. Technology without updates or can't be updated is small, or we can say that it's not technology at all. Bitcoin is revolutionary, that's why it keeps on surprising people, it is awesome in my opinion. If you have doubt about it, then simply don't invest on it, simple as that.

These are views, so differences and divisions occur. Some people believe that things should remain exactly as they are when Satoshi wrote the Bitcoin code. Others see that things are developing and there are problems that appear and new needs that we have to develop Bitcoin according to these needs. Perhaps you see that this A problem, but others do not see this as a problem. Rather, they see it as a duty to change. Some may agree with you and others do not. This is very normal.

The very beauty of Bitcoin, aside from the fact that it is truly decentralised, is that it can improve and become better. And the ones who make and vote on these improvements are the good people of the Bitcoin community. So basically you have two elements here: Financial Freedom and Financial Democracy.

That alone is something that makes it immutable in my eyes. As well as in the eyes of many Bitcoiners on this forum, I would say.

And obviously the codebase is hard to read, especially for people who have never learned how to read them. But the same can be said for almost any big software. Is the coding of photoshop easy childs play? No, its the result of thousands of people working together to create insane amount of code. The code someone made is stacked on top of code someone else made.

There's a somewhat helpful distinction (in philosophy) between essential and accidental properties. To me, essential properties of Bitcoin are that there's a fixed supply, there's a consensus mechanism, there's no making a fake Bitcoin (like fake fiat banknotes), and there's no central authority issuing Bitcoin or regulating the price. The rest are important tweaks, and they can change a lot over time, but as long as, in essence, Bitcoin remains the same, I'm fine with it. And I also believe that if something essential gets changed, that will cause a hard fork and that essential change will just make a Bitcoin close that does something differently but isn't really Bitcoin. I'm fine with how the changes are implemented and how Bitcoin is doing.

I'm talking about bitcoin things like taproot. Say I wanted to look over the source code for it. I have no idea where that would be. And looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin didn't help at all. So it's not well documented about how to find things.

Also, there's alot of "open issues" 479 of them right now. Check it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

That can't be good. Hopefully none of those bugs makes its way into bitcoin. Or did it already get into bitcoin?

i don't think it's very well structured in the sense that I think I understand the secp256k1 curve and how it works but trying to understand how they broke it down and put it into a zillion different files, doesn't make much sense. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src/secp256k1

I think it would be easier for someone to learn how secp256k1 works mathematically and then programming it themself than to try and go through the bitcoin core implementation of it to try and understand how it works. because they put it into so many files you can't really understand what's going on. you get a headache just looking at the list of so many files.



as i said before, i heard someone say that bitcoin is spaghetti codehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code) and they said it more than once and they had a negative implication when they said it. are they wrong? obviously i'm no expert on bitcoin core but when i hear someone talking like that, i need to know why they think that way.

because if bitcoin is spaghetti code i don't see how they can fix that. its always easier to design something right the first time than try and go back and restructure it to make it more modular/readable/understandable later on. as well, when you have to go back and try and restructure it, you run the risk of introducing bugs.

How Bitcoin has lasted in this industry from 2008 until now 2022 and in the years to come are you still doubting? I think you should not doubt my friend. Many people have indeed given suggestions since the creation of Bitcoin, and in those times the only change that I have seen in bitcoin is that it has a so-called BTC segwit address, which is the only change that has been seen in Bitcoin. If it is okay, then there are a lot of suggestions or proposals, are they all done in bitcoin? Is that approved? Yes, I know that at any time there can be a change, but for a long time, those behind this Bitcoin also keep in mind what should be done right and what should not be done, so let's just trust the concept that bitcoin has and I know it's not that will change.

Code =/= documentation. Systemd and the Linux kernel both tried that, the resulting speghetti that came out of it made it difficult for anybody to understand what was going on. Also, modularity has nothing to do with this issue - even fully modular codebases without docs are hard to understand.

Bitcoin Core does not attempt to make the code easy to read. IMO, that is the whole purpose of Doxygen, where you can just put "doc-comments" above a function or class, and a special make target turns that into HTML documentation. Which Core makes some use of BTW.

Secp256k1, is, in fact, is not contained inside the main Bitcoin codebase - it is offset to a separate library (http://github.com/bitcoin-core/libsecp256k1).

Most BIPs that get Finalized often only have a Bitcoin Core pull request as their reference implementation. Some authors are trying to change that by making standalone implementations.

Ultimately, software engineering is a complex task, and changing the language to easy-to-read Python (for example) won't change a thing about its complexity. Developers must suppliment the code with extensive documentation, but this project doesn't have enough active devs for that.

So it would be impossible to have a functioning cryptocurrency in say just one big file with only say 1000 lines of code? What if that was possible? Wouldn't that be better? Why does it have to be millions of lines of code broken into thousands of files?

Complex doesn't have to mean large does it?

You misunderstood my point. This post (the one I'm replying to) seems to be talking about complexity but is actually referring to modularity.

There are many modular codebases on Github that are easy for developers to read and understand what is going on. Core is not one of them (almost all include and source files in the top level src/ dir, and parts of features grouped into a single file with arcane filenames and functions makes it difficult to find what you are looking for).

There are large projects out there like Chrome which are also modular because all the files have an organization. A 1000-line single-file project like the entire SQLite3 source code is not modular (that would be a PITA to extend in a code editor).

Of course, complexity increases with codebase size - complexity simply means that there is more stuff that devs have to learn to know the whole project. But Core could do a much better job in organizing the files and functions in such a way that it is easier to find what you are looking for.

Doubts about bitcoin are considerable, many have doubts about its development, but everything becomes clear when they understand that Bitcoin's limit is what makes the difference in all this, it means that there is never inflation, and that it is reduced to the half is for the miners, there will come a time when all the bitcoins will be mined and it will be another story, and it is possible that I have a very high value in fiat, there is still a long time to see it, but if a study is made of bitcoin every day it will be valued much more.

There will always be doubts with Bitcoin, but many of these have been put to bed over time.  Of course new ones pop up from time to time- some real and some imagined; however, Bitcoin's track record and adherence to the vision since its inception should provide some solace.

the problems i see with the code is not that its in lots of files
infact of certain functions and variables were organised and described well. having them in separate files makes it easier to find them,

its the naming practice of them files that does not always meet the descriptions of the functions variable contained inside

its the cludge of over reusing the same things in many places rather than using a reference variable from one location that then allows easy change without having to look for every instance of its use.

take how they use the /4 as the preset for the silly "weight" cludge math of ignoring actual bytes to fake cheap discount tx's.. this /4 is used everywhere
if there ever was a time to remove the /4 to finally actually utilise the full 4mb of a block.. for actual full tx length and stop miscounting/disregarding bytes. they should not have to read every single file for the /4 usage and instead just change a variable in a header file that then sorts out all instances of the usage of /4

there are other bad coding techniques used. yep lack of comments to explain what each code section function does.
also the naming of certain aspects has no real descriptive meaning.

EG "weight" data/code has no tangible weight(no physical weight). yet they call it weight rather than length/size

EG "witness" a witness is a third party used as WEAK evidence(questionable/able to lie) that the first party done something.. sorry but a signature is not a witness. a signature is made by the person in control. its not a witness statement from some random person walking passed something he just happened to have seen someone else do

for something that declared itself the DEFACTO reference client. they have done a bad job of being a reference client

just awful. maybe that's one reason why i heard someone call bitcoin spaghetti code. but i'm sure he had other reasons too. a beginning programmer doesn't even do silly things like that. unless they want to got fired. right?

now the problem is, when they go back, if they ever do go back and try and rectify this then they run the risk of introducing a bug or not making the change in all the places where /4 appeared not that it would cause a huge problem but later down the line it could. the more i hear about how bitcoin core is written with examples like this the more i don't ever want to look at it at all. i hope other people don't feels that way because bitcoin needs all the eyeballs on its code it can get.


i understand those issues you're talking about too. but what i cannot accept is if the bitcoin codebase is not well structured and professionally written. there are programming guidelines that lead to readable and maintainable code and i'm not sure how well bitcoin has abided by those things. that's a serious concern because well it just is. yes bitcoin just works but I think it's more of a miracle than we imagine.

https://dzone.com/articles/how-do-you-write-code-that-is-extensible-and-maint anyone can google search this kind of stuff and realize it is common sense and even more importantly, essential for larger projects.

we can't rewind the clock though on bitcoin core code. it is what it is. that's one of the problems that happens if you start out on the wrong foot it's hard to get back onto the right one.

I have never placed any doubts on Bitcoin since I got to know it even though there were people who laughed at me when I was new to Bitcoin. Well if nowadays there are still people who place their doubts on Bitcoin when they are new to Bitcoin, I think it is still in a reasonable category because someone might need to learn more to know everything about Bitcoin. But if those who have known Bitcoin for a long time, and they still doubt Bitcoin. I thought it was a mistake.

what kinds of challenges are you referring to here, because i see nothing changing about bitcoin we all have known, it's never centralized, and if what you're talking about is on the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) then you might be getting it all wrong, because if you build a house, you will always want to decorate and beautify it from time to time, such as painting, cleaning and protecting it against Intruders with maximum security. etc. same is applicable here, if am right about what you meant.


bitcoin has a network protocols that work concisely with the blockchain technology and follows the consensus within the network of blockchain such that nothing is manipulated or will have any tendencies of such.


the blockchain is immutable already, such that even the developer cannot alter anything from it, that's why every data is widely distributed across many computer systems connected to the network and same information is displayed all over, no one can manipulate,

no individual can just change the network(especially those outside of the core dev team). correct..
as those individuals just end up throwing themselves off the network or stalling out their nodes by just producing rejected blocks thus not building on new blocks from peers

however
because everyone relies on the core code. if core make a code change, that snowball effect rolls down to everyone meaning core can make changes (and they do)
it has got to a point that only core can decide what should be changed even if the community ask for something else. core have banished lots of people in the community that do not want to follow cores "roadmap".
there have been many manipulative tactics to ensure the core roadmap gets implemented even at the sacrifice of many users.

core have been careful at times to not completely break bitcoin when they add their changes EG not 100% pushing to disable legacy tx formats in favour of 100% segwit. thus allowing people a bit of freedom to remain able to use bitcoin without having to be forced into using segwit. but it only takes one bad decision by core that can ruin the network.

which is why we actually need to be aware of who does and can change the rules. and not treat them as gods that can do as they please, but instead call them out when they do certain things against the community. to atleast keep them from taking things a step too far
EG let the dogs walk in the park, but keep them on a leash..

we should not use emotion of TRUST that they will be honourable. we should use critical thinking and logic and actually be caring more about protecting the protocol, rather then defending the dev like idols

better yet, get back to the practice of decentralisation, rather than just distrubtion
where by multiple brands work at the same level. they have their own gateway for proposals and they share proposals with each other so all brans release a implementation candidate offering the same future feature. and where if the majority of users, no matter the brand choose the implementation of a certain feature. then it activates and all software brands are ready to validate the new change (instead of the current situation of follow the leader)

devs come and go and devs have their own motives. we should not just give them a free pass to do as they please with fake rhetoric that "bitcoin cannot change and no one can change it) you need to be aware that bitcoin is not AI, there are devs that write code and its those devs we have to be mindful of
bitcoin does not write itself

Surely nobody would change that. That would be the end of bitcoin and I think everyone knows that. Therefore this limit will remain forever. Small changes are ok as long as the fundamentals are not changed.  ;)

I think OP raises a sensitive argument even though we believe some many changes could not be effected on the frame as opposed to what we've experienced before hand.

It's no doubt that, the cryptosphere is continually changing and with that, there are needs to adjustment of certain elements to ensure proper functioning of the cryptospace.

Most of the users or adopters of bitcoin  today never truly understands especially the truly newbies and a few others  like myself who is on the path of knowledge upgrade into the technical but, we rather viewed bitcoin to be rigid at all forms and isn't subject to any change or manipulation not being under any individual or groups control. Not like it is anyway buy the possibility of changes on its network if ever would result in people breaking faith.

if core devs ever stepped over the line by introducing changes that can affect the rules of:
the ~21m btc cap.
the (current) 625000000 units created as a blockreward
or
where they introduced a feature whereby , lets say it allowed a certain person to just move UTXO value out of someone elses control without the associated key.

we would truly hope that the community would just avoid using that version of the software and hope core dont find a way to activate the feature.
(eg by including it in every update/sub version they release for next few years where people end up having to download it rather then stay at an old version from years prior)

 or if it did activate, it would just cause rejected blocks where core fanatics find themselves on a altcoin that has only core fanatics on it and no meaningful merchants/exchanges treated that core alt as bitcoin

but instead of relying on the "trust", "hope" and human emotion of adoration, loyalty of honourable intent. we need to actually ensure it doesnt happen by protecting the protocol from certain rules not being allowed to be altered.

yes core dev teams make promises (human emotion) to never let in any code merges that can do such. but we should not use trust and idolism(human emotion) as a tool

People have previously moaned that Bitcoin isn't developed fast enough and now people are moaning that it is being developed too fast?  Just goes to show you can't please everyone.

I suppose it's good that people are curious and want to have a look "under the hood".  But try to keep in mind that. just because it may seem complicated to you on first impression, chances are there's probably a justifiable reason why it's like that.



It's worth pointing out that the person you're speaking to there is wholly incapable of objectivity or impartiality in their assessment on this matter.  They hold a petty grudge and, as such, most people don't find that user remotely credible on this subject.  There's also a perfectly justified reason why this code works the way it does, which was to avoid a hardfork.  It was actually considered a rather elegant solution by most in the community.  

Since the day the bitcoin network went live, every update to the network has originated from Bitcoin improvement proposals (BIPs). These suggestions are made by the members of the bitcoin community, and before they can be implemented, they must be reviewed. If the community approves, a testnet will be run, and if it is successful, a date will be set for the update on the main network. You can see the series of physical algorithms before a single line of code is been changed in the bitcoin protocol. These changes must be made in order for bitcoin to operate more effectively and with more throughput without sacrificing its security or privacy.

Don't worry about supply and the rest, bitcoin is for everyone, not even satoshi will wake up one day and will want to change its supply, it is now people's(the community in this case) digital currency that most developers have to agree on and they can't just choose to destroy what they have built for years with some unnecessary changes.

Bitcoin is a digital currency which is decentralized, and any one who is emphasizing on the changes of cryptocurrency just trying to make it's on emphasis. Because the only measure that can make Bitcoin to change is when it's not been valuable in the world or in the cryptosphere. It's not today that some people have been doubting about cryptocurrency of been diminished on earth but till date it's still in existence.

I don't think you understand the point of development either, if the reasons you put forward are because changes can cause nightmares for bitcoin or its users.
Concept development is carried out if it is needed, based on several aspects of the review.

Ideas and ideas are also not immediately accepted so quickly, for the proposed development to the next stage, there is an approval mechanism for the development, through a review aspect that involves many people and understands according to expertise in their respective fields.

Bitcoin will never be the same today as tomorrow, that's the style. Since no one can control bitcoin completely, I think this is good for bitcoin's survival, Ideally bitcoin is developed if the previous influence is no longer appropriate, refer to some aspects of the review

Bitcoin is supposed to be a way to send electronic cash. It shouldn't need too many lines of code to do that. That's why i had asked if you could program something like that with say 1000 lines of code and be done with it forever. KISS principle at work. The more complicated you make something, the harder it is to understand and manage. I think for most people, sending money from point A to point B is all they need in Bitcoin. That's what it was meant for anyway. But if you try and add on alot of extra things, I don't see the point. Might as well make a new cryptocurrency from the ground up to do that.

funny part is there was contention and a hardfork. yep bitcoin cash split from bitcoin due to the event..

it really is funny how Doomad cannot even use data to prove there was no hard fork. and yet there are soo many topics, blockdata, graphs showing the thresholds of the flags that caused the activations. the websites and users talking about the NYA signees, and even code that showed how blocks not flagging for segwit got rejected from core and become their own fork by users that did not run cores upgraded software. which become the fork known as bitcoin cash
(doomad has been linked all this stuff numerous times. and for a while admits to it and settles down admitting he got debunked, for a few months... before getting sudden amnesia and forgetting all the proof/data and the series of events again)

im not endorsing bitcoin cash. im just highlighting the actual events and data that show that the event was contentious hard fork event, that did cause a split
the very fact that bitcoin cash exists. that the altcoin is actually in reality a thing that people can find. is proof enough even if you cant read code. but if you want to read code or blockchain data. that too exists (though doomad will deny it in his ignorant ways as always)

heck even gmax chimed in on the event about how core forgot to set certain things in their upgraded software to ensure the segwit activation( the contentious mandatory split) should actually be coded properly to ensure that after the split there would be no funny business of the non segwit flaggers trying to connect to the network.
he mentioned due to the lack of segwit ready nodes, the decision was made to not stop older node software from connecting. .. as his excuse for why old nodes(not flagging segwit) were using up connection slots of segwit nodes..

he mentions how those not voting for a forced upgrade by not adapting their node. should be the ones that adapt their node to jump off the network.(facepalm at the illogic of that) so that they would not use up segwit nodes connection slots by trying to connect to them

yet reality is anyone wanting to upgrade the network by forced mandate via an upgraded/adapted node software should be the ones that ensure their adapted upgrade software while coding the upgrade, is adapted enough to not cause trouble for those that have not adapted their node

EG if your going to do an upgrade that causes a split . then ensure the upgrade is done in a way that doesnt cause a contention, rather than trying to get people with older nodes to change their node even though their node is already compiled into binary thus not really able to be edited after the fact
because an upgrade requires new software. its upto the new software to do the security and utility changes to avoid contention.

Bitcoin effectively lives or dies based on its network effects.  The more people who use it, the more utility it has.  We can't just cater to the whims of people who want something simple.  It needs to have universal appeal.  What you want may not be what others want.

Also, it's not worth replying to franky1 directly, because they're an unhinged lunatic attempting to rewrite history (and I suspect they just enjoy the attention, even when it's negative).  If you look it up, you'll see that BCH was a planned fork.  They announced in advance that they would launch their network on a set date and then did it.  This was unavoidable because the two camps had incompatible ideas about how to move forwards.  A split was the only way to break the impasse, as neither side would back down.  To this day, I'm convinced franky1 still doesn't know what a flag is because the nonsense they write makes no rational sense.  Mindless technobabble written by a narcissistic headcase.

The idea of bitcoin's blockchain being decentralized is not even about money, it's about exactly what you say; having a consensus by all the users. What people do not understand is that US government could print 1 trillion dollars and buy bitcoin with it, making it super high, and then sell it ALL at the same time on 100 different exchanges and crash it to near zero. They can "manipulate" the price, that doesn't make it centralized, that's just market speculation and that's fine.

Decentralization is literally the consensus where we all decide what to do and we never have to worry about what's going to happen to the integrity of the blockchain itself and trust it forever.

In essence, although I wouldn't personally have worded it in quite that way with regards to "trust". 

I'd simply phrase it so that, at all times, you are in direct control over which blockchain(s) you wish to follow.

Trust isn't required.  You will always be matched with other users enforcing the same consensus rules your chosen client enforces and you will continue building a blockchain together.  Everyone has exactly as much control as they need to enforce their own will without denying others the control to do the same. 

If at any point you no longer wish to abide by the consensus rules, you can form a new chain, although you do generally sacrifice network effects in order to do that.  Everyone is free to do what they want.

It's a great system.  It technically has the potential to yield total, unbridled chaos and hundreds of chain splits, yet the lure of network effects and utility by having people on the same chain means that everyone is incentivised to find common ground and move forward together.

De-centralised from that aspect is not the biggest issue then. Its how things are moved forward that matters. Issue I have with btc is the central log explorer and lack of privacy. Yet no coin hacking can ever be returned - yet anyone can view all transactions. Including organisations with the power to ban btc.
What would have been perfect is something which cant ever be stolen in addition to network immutability. And something that can not be tracked or traced by bad actors. I love btc dont get me wrong - but its been over ten years now.

Man even the nature itself, is not stable. It wants changes, it wants to evolve. The whole universe is the same too. This world was created with big bang, and from that time look where we are now. We can also predict how the future will be. It will not be the same as today or tomorrow. Aren't we accepting that future? Then what's the problem to accept BTC's changes.

I know but that doesn't mean bitcoin is above criticism though. As far as its software architecture and such.

That's a pretty strange thing to say given how interesting and enlightening his posts have been on this thread. But no one took the time to try and argue against some of his points for example this posting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409550.msg60797480#msg60797480

No need to look it up. That's a part of bitcoin history everyone should know about that fork.

Well I've appreciated his detailed input in this thread.

Larry, prepare for his 50 sweet merits to arrive now. You're one of the minimum users who appreciates his point of view.

If you don't have anything to say, you don't have anything to criticize. And by watching the conversation, you don't like SegWit because it made things work more complicated for you. Propose me, then, an improvement similar to BIP141 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki), that is backwards-compatible with nodes that won't upgrade.

Because we've already done it. Like a thousand times. DooMAD (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=DooMAD&content=franky1) even more than me (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=BlackHatCoiner&content=franky1). In fact, we even created a thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.0) dedicated to that psycho, because it was unbelievably annoying to derail and pollute every thread that had to do with scaling, SegWit and Lightning.

That's not the point; obviously everyone knows what's Bitcoin Cash. The point is: If your perspective doesn't come along with others, you don't whine every day on Internet boards, trying to change their mind, just as franky does for the past 5 years. You make that change yourself, and try to make an impact. That's the magical part of consensus: We don't have to make changes democratically; minorities, just as majorities, can fork off the network and start a brand new currency.

True, but there is such a thing as constructive criticism.  If you had a specific example of something you believe could be done more efficiently or tidily, then consider raising it and seeing what the response is.  Generalisations and casual observations aren't going to yield much in the way of progress.  It wouldn't be responsible for devs to start cutting out swathes of code just because someone held the opinion there might be too much of it.

Besides that, I'm fairly confident that the developers themselves could work things out between them if one was having difficulty reading another's code.  As long as it's not impeding their work, then I'm not unduly concerned if some people think the code is a little scruffy in places.

But specific examples can lead to general observations and conclusions about bitcoin and its development model. For example it seems like people have been proposing something called stealth addresses to try and make bitcoin be more anonymous. But bitcoin was not designed from the very beginning to be anonymous.  Trying to layer these type of features on top of bitcoin just seems like a poorly planned thing. Why not design things from the very beginning with all the features you're going to want/have? A properly done programming project does things that way by using a master specification and then bases everything on that master blueprint.

Would an architect try and redesign  a scyscraper after it had already been built? of course not.

maybe they could maybe not. we don't know how complex bitcoin code will become and so we can't really know how difficult it might become to maintain in the future.

That's a false equivalence, though.  First and foremost, code is clearly more flexible than steel, concrete, glass and whatever else they construct skyscrapers out of these days.  And secondly, no one is suggesting completely rebuilding Bitcoin from the ground up.  The closer analogy would be a refurbishment, which happens all the time in all manner of buildings.

Arguing in favour of ossified code is always going to be a losing battle.  Particularly in an open-source environment where such things are uncontrollable.   

As technology changes, so should BTC, there is nothing wrong with that. I would say thinking that BTC was made perfect from the start is false and anything can be improved on. Sure, forcefull changes just for the sake of changing something, are not good, but implementing new concepts and ideas should be welcomed.

aww blackhat still cares about merit and thinks its important. i give away merit to even gmax, oeleo,doomad, your other chums and as satire,
.. oh wait. yea i sent over 250 to gmax, over 130 to doomad.. over 100 to oeleo
..and oops 0 to blackhatcoiner.. aww now i see why blackhatcoiner is upset..

so its not about ass kissing. (unlike your desires for merit)
merit is meaningless.
but i now see why you are jealous of why other people that are not you get given 50merit..

and its pure comedy that you think its something to use as bribery..
well to you you use it as bribery. and a way to give your friends a hug for defending you even when you are wrong

but in your mind people only give merit as payment of loyalty, kiss ass, or bribe them into following your small minded idea.. sorry thats not how everyone works.. but it seems its your experience so its how you see the world

and as for people that share minds
its actually about a dozen that sheep follow echo chamber your mindset, to such a degree its like a scripted song you all sing..

however there are THOUSANDS of people that have independent minds on this forum..
there are thousands that want whats best for bitcoin.

its not a competition.. i dont like ass kissers or copy/paste scripters.. i prefer to see people think for themselves.

yep thousands of user wanting bitcoin scaling not bitcoin offramps.. but they are not sharing my mindset because i am not shoving song sheets down their throat they all want BITCOIN SCALING for their own reasons.

but it is now obvious by your admission you want followers that sing your little choirs  nursery rhyme songs of lullabies..

compared to wallets/software apps.. running a bitcoin full node is about fully validating and archiving all block data.
as thats the very point of a full node. its the needed security to protect the network!


for something to be backward compatible it requires being able to be fully validating and archiving for older(backward) nodes..
segwit doesnt do this for older nodes..

the trick segwit activated nodes done was to strip the witness data away, to pass to older nodes thus oldernodes were not archiving all data
thus segwit is not campitable with blockchain full data for older nodes..
  - thus older nodes are not part of the initial block download available nodes..
  -the problem is that if nodes do not have full block data and are distributing stripped data. this can cause big issues for the network. if there was a network of stripped data.
the next trick was to treat older nodes as incompatible.
EG segwit nodes wont relay segwit unconfirmed transactions or request block data from an older node.
thus not compatible.

as for the post-confirm segwit transactions in blocks. older nodes cannot validate all the currently activated rules, thus not compatible.
blindly accepting a segwit transaction as valid. is not good security.
relying on another node to do the validation and then trusting that the transaction must be good because someone else done the validation. is not good security.

thus segwit was not backward compatible because it made older nodes not compatible to continue to do their job, (be full validation nodes)

try to read the details of it.. even gmax, lukeJR admit to it when they say people need to run a segwit node and then have their old node 'downstream'/bridged' if they want to be a full validator(at segwit node/upstream level) whilst also prefering to run an old node for reasons someone might have wanted to at the time(incase there was a bug in segwit code)

stop with the deception blackhatcoiner, stop learning things through your buddy group narrative and instead read code and do research of actual source data.
yep even the core devs admit to the trick games played

oh and one other things. until they amassed enough segwit nodes around enough merchant and mining pool nodes to do the stripping and bypassing tricks. core learned (yep via my rants) that they could not release a segwit transaction because segwit to a network of nodes not segwit ready to strip/bypass data.. AKA too many older nodes at the heart of the network topology. would see segwit transactions as anyone-can-spend. which can cause alot of issues if they released the wallet feature of segwit too early. which is why they didnt release the ability to make segwit transactions until 2018

they new their games to push segwit too early were controversial and they had to play many games to get it going. where they had to play the dominos in a certain order. which meant there were many many many risks and problems that could and did happen in 2017-8

it was not soft by any means


someone that pretends to want freedom of speach and openness. wanted to create a tpic and try to force me to only talk in that topic where he could just delete the whole topic
yea you are a nasty person
many topics were about BITCOIN scaling. and you lot chimed in and derailed it to say bitcoin was unfit to scale and then you lot advertised your other network..
.. completely off topic derailments by you.
yes you hate it how i out your failed networks by pointing out the flaws. and yes when you advertise services and features that can mess with people you cry more. i get it you hate me for outting your agenda.. but the real bitcoiners need to know the risks and not just your uptopian dreams

..
and it is funny how there are THOUSANDS of topics of many different users that want to talk about scaling BITCOIN where their opening topics are about wanting more utility ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK yet there are only a dozen or so LN dedicated topics with the same usual dozen people ass kissing each other about how they love LN. but need to recruit more people over to that network to get rid of the liquidity issues and bottlenecks you lot have..

and yes them same dozen love to chime in and defend and back up each other like a sheep echo chamber of misguided and misunderstood rhetoric where you want to ignore the thousands of people that want bitcoin scaling. and pretend "its just franky".. to then derail the topics of bitcoin scaling to advertise an entirely new network that uses units of measure that are 11decimals deep... which bitcoin does not use nor understand..
yep LN is not bitcoin. no bitcoins ever leave the bitcoin network.. LN is not a bitcoin feature. people need to convert bitcoin to a pegged balance of msat where they play around and onion route msat amounts..
LN is not bitcoin and not a solution for bitcoin. its an altnet. pure and simple. an altnet that likes to brand steal just to try to recruit people into using the altnet instead of bitcoin
(a solution to bitcoin scaling is not to tell people to move away from using bitcoin)


goodluck with your little echo chamber protect a human buddy system.. with your rhetoric crap that you want to say bitcoin is not fit for normal use, unless its used in the maner you want...
but i would rather concentrate on bitcoin and actually not be blind to risks and trickery.
i dont try to lull people to sleep to ignore risks. and just dream utopian dreams

id rather people know what to watch out for and be critical of your games and be risk aware and help secure against attacks. rather then dream that everything is fine while allowing certain people to do things that can harm/affect others


consensus is not about using forks to turn people against each other if there is a disagreement

GET A DICTIONARY ATLEAST
consensus is about coming to an agreement.. where by rules change by agreement. not by sacrificing the objectors so that only the loyallists survive to fake a 100% approval

this means if core had a good idea under true consensus they would have to have got a majority acceptance naturally for an activation..
(they did not achieve even 50% before the mandatory mechanisms and NYA gameplay went into affect)
. if they did not get a natural majority. instead of mandating a split. they should have gone back to the drawing board and altered their proposition into something the community would accept. without any fake promises of 2x and then back out of the compromised but more acceptable proposal

---

.. now take your loyallist chummy, protect a person/hug a person hat off for this next part

dont reply like a loyalist to an agenda you have supported for the last few years
and for once think about the protocol protection

core have demonstrated they can change the network without majority requirement. using contentious splits rather then natural consensus agreement, thus they have bypassed consensus with that mandatory contention trick, causing them to be the defacto full node brand of central decision making ever since..

now learn about the difference between:
the byzantine generals problem satoshi found a solution to. (consensus via agreement of different implementations)
vs
core as the general/chief making the orders.(loyal following of one implementation)

and how the 2 vs statements are for vs against decentralisation


then realise now as a defacto controller via loyalist following a central point implementation
they have the tricks and mechanisms to do it again.

i hope you genuinely stepped outside your agenda mindset..
now imagine them doing it with a feature that breaks something YOU USE.
EG. we know you love LN. so what if core next decided that they wanted to remove the features LN needs to bridge to bitcoin.
EG we know you love mixers. so what if core next decided to change something that made mixers not work like(coinjoin) by removing a feature that allows multiple outputs(batching)

nope dont reply that they human devs will never do that to you because [insert human emotion adjectives of loyalty/trust].. instead imagine that they did mandate something that changed bitcoin without majority agreement (using contentious split.. )

how idol adoring and loyal would you remain then.
knowing they can do it without needing true majority

would you protect their whims to control/change the code they way they can without majority..
or would you then care that core are too much of a central point of failure

I have heard this somewhere, “Change can be scary, but you have to keep up the pace”. This applies to the modern bitcoin too. Worlds always changing the way we live, thrive, make changes to daily stuff and this is happening since many years.

On shorter note, bitcoin just began its journey in the world of chaos where it’s either getting accepted or dominated and the tug of war continues to diminish its importance. Developers know how they can tackle it, and simple explanation is by “changing” or by modifying it with better version. However all we can do is the way it’s getting transacted or used but parent chain remains as it is.

Every technology will continue to develop and get better, but the core of the technology will certainly be the foundation. A simple example of smartphone technology used today. Telecommunications equipment continues to be developed from what was originally only able to make one-way voice calls, but now thanks to increasingly rapid technological developments we can make video calls from wherever you want. and the essence of all that is to connect with each other, establish a good 2-way communication.

It's the same as bitcoin technology which is currently being developed. Bitcoin technology certainly changes and becomes more sophisticated because some new programs are added, but still bitcoin will not change and the main bitcoin chain will not become another chain, bitcoin remains decentralized with limited supply and is not regulated by anyone. just think of some of the changes that exist only as accessories that complement and update the appearance, but the essence of it will not change.

Like for example, silent payments. I saw something about that not too long ago but i didn't like the solution which requires scanning the blockchain for payments. seemed like it might take alot of time and be intensive procedure. but that's what happens when you try and introduce "hacks" to get new features that bitcoin didn't originally support or be built to do I guess. you can get hacks which are not really elegant and well yeah no one has to use that feature if they don't want to.

Bitcoin and Electronic Money are different, people's failure to understand this problem will actually make assumptions, indeed bitcoin and electronic money are both used as virtual currencies, do not have a physical form and are recorded on the network, but in fact they are different.
Bitcoin is not centralized in a single ledger or server and bitcoin is located in a decentralized blockchain network, while electronic currency is registered in an open that is controlled by a single entity, the two are actually not the same even though they have similar functions..

I understand the distinction you are making. But it wasn't what i was trying to highlight but anyhow.bitcoin adoption will needing to increased in order to compete more with "electronic money" as you have defined it. it will also have to compete on cost merits aka, fees need to be in line and not larger than just using "electronic money" or else why would someone want to use bitcoin to do a transaction? with a credit card or your bank, you have protections and might be able to do chargeback if you got scammed, not so with bitcoin. no buyer protection there.

What makes bitcoin different is that we set up our own security system, either through an exchange or through a wallet.
It is called decentralized bitcoin, because it has the freedom to set up a financial security system, without any authority like banks and other financial institutions, and this gives freedom to anyone.
Of course there is a degree of weakness, but I think the benefits are greater in practice that I experienced.

Regarding fraud, cases of fiat currency also often occur, so the benchmark is not seen from there, when you make transactions using bitcoin, we automatically understand the impact, on the problems we must avoid

That's just one part of the decentralized part and that's why I like it. Another part is that fiat is controlled by governments and as we all know politicians are bad, slimy, corrupt, terrible people who would do anything to get their votes up, most of the time that means making the nation worse for the short term in order to win elections and terrible for the long term.

This is why it's always better to have a chance at what we can do with crypto since politicians can't touch it. They can ban it, or allow it, but they can't do anything with it. Bitcoin is the king of this, it can be seen as the biggest thing that governments will lose against, since it will give people financial freedom away from their governments all around the world.

Why haven't you looked at many other projects, they're keep on developing and you're only focused on bitcoin? A project has to keep on developing because that's how it must be. If there's no development, there will still be some complaints to be made. I may agree to you that when it's too much, it doesn't look good but that only is what I think if the development isn't attached to its purpose and current status. But as for bitcoin, it isn't really that much of development and it's still good as it was and this is why it has a consensus.

the thing is those "protection features" of credit cards.. are also abuse features.
many many times scammers actually use those chargeback features to scam..
they buy a product. then pretend their account was hacked to get money back. thus get product for free..

yep chargeback scamming happens alot. many retailers have to add in extra things to then reduce the amount of chargeback scamming. (extra protection at fund recipient end)
meaning fiat is easy to send, but easy to return which then needs an extra step tp protect against the easy return at the recipient end(3 step process and still not immutable/free of risk)



bitcoins finality and immutability of settlement is good security. its a 1 step. where by people need to actually control their spending and they themselves have to be risk aware and secure about their fund store right from the first step.

rather than relying on middle men to take on the risk/control your value, where then the recipient then needs to protect against the middleman ability to reverse

you can ofcourse use custodians and have that system.. but then its a 'not your key not your coin'. so why pretend to say you are a bitcoiner

That's true, but this time I don't want to go too far into the government system, there are many problems in that system, friend?
which in real practice, bitcoin has advantages over the existing system, people like bitcoin because it is decentralized, we become kings in managing our own finances.
Of course not everyone gets the chance. But for people who know, they will definitely choose bitcoin as the best asset

When Bitcoin increases then other projects will also increase, so apart from paying attention to the projects you said, I think Bitcoin is also very important to pay attention to. and the development of Bitcoin was very influential on other projects. it's true that every project will need development and they should grow, and I think the development of Bitcoin will help these projects.

You don't have to think about it because bitcoin is the main attraction in the market. I've just mentioned the other projects because of the upgrades that they do for so many times. As you say about the increase, it's probably the price that you're talking about. It's always like that when bitcoin's price increases, then the rest follows.

All of them rides to bitcoin because it is famous and most projects are relying on it. This is the reality so whether there will be or there's no development for bitcoin, they'll remain the same as what the other projects do.

That's why we need to avoid the rest shitcoins and only focus about Bitcoin, because shitcoins didn't help Bitcoin at all and it just make the crypto environment bad due to exit scam project. Bitcoin protocol could be changed, but everyone who're the creator and the contributors on Bitcoin technical development wouldn't agree and will stick with the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. This mean Bitcoin has no chance to scam, but the centralized exchange and scam wallet is.

That's right. BTC code is spolied now and now BTC is not original bitcoin

These monkeys made so many changes that BTC is no longer the same

Bitcoin has reflected massively in the current era and everyone has become tolerant of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is one such crypto coin that has taken the cryptocurrency world by storm. You may notice that Bitcoin is one of the most reflective of its only perceived cryptocurrency.

You cant really stop the inevitable considering that Bitcoin did really gain up much attention and since there are developers who could really make their own coin similar to this then this is where things do start.
Lots of shitty coins that we do have in the market but there are projects which are relevant and actually able to get some market share and dominance in the market and since people do really loves on diving
into things which is more cheaper then they are really going into those alternatives and consider on making out investment with it.When you do have doubts on bitcoin then it is your choice
but to look on the other side where there's a huge support on it.

dont doubt - buy now  ;)

100% agreed there mate, there is no person who would be hurt by a bitcoin "payment" system, you will be able to get money from all around the world if you did that and that's great. But on top of that the decentralized version would make sure that you can reach out to the whole world and yet nobody can reach out to you at the same time.

I can sell something to a person on the other side of the world, but my own government can't touch a single cent of my crypto if it's in my own wallet (may block exchanges or something so it is better to have it on your own wallet). The existing system just sucks, big time, it allows 1% to be rich, and 90% to be poor and only small percent to be "decent".

Everyone has a different understanding of Bitcoin, also beliefs, we are on the internet in an intangible world, but you can see, Bitcoin has different feelings for everyone, if you believe or not believe, do it or back off, it's your risk whichshadow yourself.

The unpredictable nature of the cryptocurrencies is a major reason why we are able to make money through trading. If the market was not moving, there would not have been any chances of making money.

Agreed. Thats why I like it. But emotional attached - no. Its actually easier to track/trace, and block everything you do with blockchain. Networks could easily be seized by central banks if they were not manipulating the price being the biggest market movers lol.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand, though?  This is a discussion about development, not markets.  Go waffle about speculation somewhere else, please.  It's not like we don't have enough of those topics already.



Ditto for this.  It helps if you actually read the thread before replying.

Bitcoin must continue to change and be dynamic. The best form of bitcoin is not gotten yet, and that is the beauty of open source protocol. Apart from the coding part of it, bitcoin is still a young technology, it is barely a decade old, for it to be successful on the long run, it must continue to be updated and that is the only way to solve totally the scalability problem of bitcoin.

new features in the last 5 years like segwit/taproot were not added to give new features to bitcoin.
taproot was done to strengthen the weak bridge to liquid, to then grow the liquid network
same was so for segwit, to strengthen the weak bridge to LN
(both of them are still weak and the pegging mechanisms of both still have flaws. thus still a risk to not treat those altnets as a safe store of value. and instead should only be thought of as niche service networks for temporary use for specific limited usecases(as long as people are risk aware while using them))

over 5 years bitcoin fee's have not dropped to sub penny prices like promised. instead people have to offramp away from bitcoin and use other networks for sub penny fee's

over 5 years bitcoin transaction count has not exceeded the max tx possibility that was called out in 2010(7tx/s) yep

BITCOIN (not talking about the name borrowing subnetworks pretending to be bitcoin 2.0)
bitcoin has not had much development that actually allows more utility ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK

if we start to let 'msat' or LBTC tokens to be the measure of value. where people are locked into those other networks for months/years/forever, then it will make bitcoin irrelevant., because those other networks are already designing ways for people to obtain those measures direct from fiat without ever having to buy/hoard bitcoin.

the dev politics of sponsoring devs to spend the last 7 years concentrating on ways to create subnetworks that offramp people away from bitcoin. has caused alot of dev politic controversy while not letting bitcoin, as bitcoin to evolve in-of-itself

we should not be complacent and just let things happen with human emotion of trust and loyalty that "core" know best. we should actually care about the bitcoin protocol and be on the watch out for those in central control, and keep them under our watch and not fear calling them out when they are not helping the bitcoin community and he protocol

even the lead maintainer is calling out on the centralisation of core, and also how things need to start evolving,
getting back to a place of a decentralised network not a distributed network
getting back to a open gated network, not a open source

yep saying open source is like saying "an open newspaper". its just means you can read the inside pages, it doesnt mean anyone is able to be a reporter/editor

i am a bitcoin maximalist. i fully support bitcoin(the protocol) and want to protect it. i am not a business loyalist.
i am a realist i dont spout out over promises and utopian dream sales pitches of exaggerations.. nor do i fear calling out the limits and flaws.

bitcoin has great potential but the last 5 years has stalled, that needs to change

i'm not smart enough to know so much about LN and liquid and dev issues but if all of this is true then bitcoin has some problems. i think it's a good place to wrap up this thread and lock it. and leave people with your thoughts on the matter which i have enjoyed getting to learn about throughout this thread. i hope people will take them seriously.