I have a doubt about Bitcoin

[larry_vw_1955]

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.

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!

[hatshepsut93]

You can't just keep changing bitcoin trying to make it better and better forever. At some point, it needs to become immutable.

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.

[hosseinimr93]

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.

today they might be proposing a change to some fee mechanism. tomorrow it might be changing the max supply.

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.

#2: anytime you introducing new changes to bitcoin, you run the possibility that you are introducing bugs.

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

[GreatArkansas]

(....)
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!

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.

[Wexnident]

#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.

[darkangel11]

#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.

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.

[OgNasty]

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.

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!

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.

[Darker45]

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.

[BitcoinBarrel]

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

[wxa7115]

You can't just keep changing bitcoin trying to make it better and better forever. At some point, it needs to become immutable.

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.

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.

[larry_vw_1955]

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.

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.

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 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...

[Accardo]

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

.

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.

[pooya87]

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.

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.

might be proposing a change to some fee mechanism. tomorrow it might be changing the max supply.

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.

#2: anytime you introducing new changes to bitcoin, you run the possibility that you are introducing bugs.

That doesn't mean improvement should be stopped.

You can't just keep changing bitcoin trying to make it better and better forever. At some point, it needs to become immutable.

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.

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.

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.

[davis196]

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.

[Kakmakr]

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. 

[Esther C]

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.

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!

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.

[larry_vw_1955]

I don’t think the changes you speak of are very often.

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

Whatever changes that have been made must have been carefully thought out and the whole idea of those changes is improving.

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.

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.

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.

[pooya87]

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

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

I don't think bitcoin code is very well documented and structured.

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.

That's not really any proof that something won't go wrong though.

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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

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

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.

[Lucius]

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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!

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.