Is Bitcoin still experimental?

[Meitzi]

When you go to Bitcoin Core source readme file ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin )
You will see very early line

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone,

In my opinion, whole word is an experimental.
In that sense, I do not see why BTCitcoin would need to state itself as an experimental.
It is more than 10 years old. I would just say it is in active development.

[1714037741]

1714037741

[1714037741]

1714037741

[1714037741]

1714037741

[vjudeu]

It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing

[n0nce]

It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing

Wait for real? I just noticed this, that it went from 0.21.0 to 22.0! Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.

[achow101]

It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing

The version number is not an indicator of experimental or beta status.

Bitcoin Core still (intentionally) contains a line that says "this software is experimental". The line saying that Bitcoin Core is beta software was removed in 2014.

Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.

It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate.

[n0nce]

Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.

It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate.

Alright, but even then I wonder who decided on that and why etc., I mean sure it's just a version number, but I wonder how I missed this change completely..

[BlackHatCoiner]

Hey, Meitzi, you should note this:

Bitcoin Core still (intentionally) contains a line that says "this software is experimental".

If you're asking if Bitcoin is still experimental, then I'd gently respond it'll most likely be until the whole world adopts it. But, saying that the software, the Bitcoin client developed by the Bitcoin Core team, is experimental isn't the same thing.

Look, they both are in an experimental stage, but there's difference between the currency as a social experiment, and the software, as a developing project. They obviously have a connection, since the whole thing relies on the software, but Bitcoin could still be experimental while the software entirely idle and considered “completed” from significant changes.

[achow101]

Alright, but even then I wonder who decided on that and why etc., I mean sure it's just a version number, but I wonder how I missed this change completely..

The PR is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20223.

I wrote the change, and 12 other developers (including most of the maintainers) ACK'd it. It was also discussed multiple times in some issues and on IRC.

The why is primarily to stop the constant questions of "when 1.0" every time a release is made. Additionally the change aligns the version number with our actual process (we were incrementing the minor version number for versions designated as major releases) and how many people perceive the version number (I see a lot of people who wrote and said the version number without the leading 0).

[n0nce]

Alright, but even then I wonder who decided on that and why etc., I mean sure it's just a version number, but I wonder how I missed this change completely..

The PR is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20223.

I wrote the change, and 12 other developers (including most of the maintainers) ACK'd it. It was also discussed multiple times in some issues and on IRC.

The why is primarily to stop the constant questions of "when 1.0" every time a release is made. Additionally the change aligns the version number with our actual process (we were incrementing the minor version number for versions designated as major releases) and how many people perceive the version number (I see a lot of people who wrote and said the version number without the leading 0).

Interesting. I skimmed the IRC log and it's like 4 people arguing about it for 30 minutes and then the meeting is just ended lol. I get the GitHub approvals but then what's the purpose of the IRC chat, that poor guy's questions about standard versioning method are just ignored basically. I myself like just dropping the 0, it's the easiest and aesthetic choice, but had no issues with keeping the 0 either, I don't think it implies there should be a 1.x eventually.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

They said in the MIT lecture11 about fees (min 6:30 in https://youtu.be/wXWbdiOBW5w) that there is a bug from the original Satoshi code and was still there till the lecture time April 2018 that
When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first


So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?

[odolvlobo]

When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first.

So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?

It is still there. It has nothing to do with the version number.

It will never change because it is not really an issue, and changing it would require a hard fork. FYI, there is also a bug in which the new target computed each 2016 blocks is computed incorrectly. It will also never change for the same reason.

[pooya87]

When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first

This may not even have been a bug. Instead it may have been done intentionally for scalability. It is an arbitrary item that is popped from the stack and ignored, a soft fork could have been introduced to interpret that item too. For example an extra script so that each OP_CheckMultiSig(Verify) would need to perform additional checks.

[Shymaa-Arafat]

This may not even have been a bug. Instead it may have been done intentionally for scalability. It is an arbitrary item that is popped from the stack and ignored, a soft fork could have been introduced to interpret that item too. For example an extra script so that each OP_CheckMultiSig(Verify) would need to perform additional checks.

Like extra bits for future use, seems a good argument to explain it,
 I suggest should write it as a comment on the lecture for other learners

[mindrust]

When you go to Bitcoin Core source readme file ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin )
You will see very early line

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone,

In my opinion, whole word is an experimental.
In that sense, I do not see why BTCitcoin would need to state itself as an experimental.
It is more than 10 years old. I would just say it is in active development.

It is. You still can lose all your money over night and nobody will bail you out. Most people that invest in crypto are not aware of this. It doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing as long as you don't invest more than you could afford to lose.

[HeRetiK]

Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.

It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate.

I was slightly amused to see this release happen just a few weeks after I stumbled upon this website on "Software's most popular versioning scheme": https://0ver.org/

Almost as if you guys felt called out However even then Bitcoin was already marked as having left the school of ZeroVer, so whoever runs the website seems to have been aware of your pull request.

[20kevin20]

Both Core and Bitcoin itself are probably still experimental. We barely have it as a legal tender and proper regulations anywhere in the world. There is a very small number of countries trying to help, but from here to mass adoption and to the real test (worldwide real usage, not just crypto fans) is a long way to go. I think only mass adoption would make it non-experimental.

[Dabs]

Give it about another 20 to 50 years. Until then, people will continue to call it experimental. One could say fiat money is experimental and is failing, but it lasted a hundred years. There are plenty of science experiments with people that have been going on for decades.

[n0nce]

Give it about another 20 to 50 years. Until then, people will continue to call it experimental. One could say fiat money is experimental and is failing, but it lasted a hundred years. There are plenty of science experiments with people that have been going on for decades.

You could even argue capitalism itself is still an ongoing experiment
Right now, it's not going too well in fact, with an ever increasing gap between poor and rich.


I don't know any other open source software project with as many talented devs, thorough security analysts and general global attention as Bitcoin and yet any other software project that comes near to Bitcoin in one of those aspects is long out of experimental stage. So I'd say Bitcoin is quite humble in still calling itself experimental

It has resisted a ton of attacks, you could even argue it's the software project that should be the most profitable to attack, yet it's still secure, still decentralized and still increasing in interest, adoption and price.

Experiment is going well so far!

[Dabs]

You could even argue capitalism itself is still an ongoing experiment
Right now, it's not going too well in fact, with an ever increasing gap between poor and rich.

We're going a little off topic here, but I'd argue the other one called "communism" is an ongoing experiment with several countries, and almost all of them I would consider to have failed already. The fact that there are poor and rich in capitalist countries reflects on either the people or the circumstances of the people, not the government or the businesses. Lot's of self-made millionaires were born into poor families. Lots of people born rich are now poor. It goes both ways.

[n0nce]

You could even argue capitalism itself is still an ongoing experiment
Right now, it's not going too well in fact, with an ever increasing gap between poor and rich.

We're going a little off topic here, but I'd argue the other one called "communism" is an ongoing experiment with several countries, and almost all of them I would consider to have failed already. The fact that there are poor and rich in capitalist countries reflects on either the people or the circumstances of the people, not the government or the businesses. Lot's of self-made millionaires were born into poor families. Lots of people born rich are now poor. It goes both ways.

I agree; also did not want to go off-topic, just show that almost anything can be called experimental basically... It's hard to define or say if something's 'not experimental anymore'.

I think only mass adoption would make it non-experimental.

Even then, you could argue it's still an ongoing experiment (like literally capitalism and communism themselves; both are mass adopted and in a way still experimental).

Let me explain: every time a milestone is reached, like 'legal tender', 'mass adoption', 'global reserve currency', ..., the circumstances are completely changed and we're in a new kind of experiment. For example, let's say BTC exited 'experimental' status in El Salvador and it is mass adopted globally, it'll be again experimental, because it's a whole different situation, economy, size, scale, political system and landscape; so it'll be 'experimental' again and it's not guaranteed that it will work globally the exact same way it works in El Salvador.

[buwaytress]

I've used that term myself on occasion. Call it what you want, but I consider my involvement and interaction with Bitcoin as experimental.

And for as long as there's going to be fresh tech and fresh usage (segwit a few years ago, coinjoin for me a while back too, and Lightning use more recently), constantly evolving entry and exit points (fiat conversion I mean), I daresay those adventures in finding new ways to interact with Bitcoin, very much a huge social and financial experiment.