controversial / possibly dangerous proposals for bitcoin

[tyook]

What bitcoin proposals do you regard as controversial or even harmful ? And why?
These proposals can be both at layer 1 or at above layers (ex: TARO on LN)

For example, I've seen people being strongly opposed to proposal such as covenants and drivechains. I'm don't have a stablished opinion on them, so I'd like to see others' opinions on the topics, be it positive or negative.

I'm starting to notice moderate tension on some bitcoin communities i participate in (twitter, telegram, youtube) regarding proposals to change bitcoin (those 2 topics, as well as other ones) and to extend it on above layers (ceticism regarding lightning network and liquid network, heavy critics to TARO protocol). After reading Blocksize War, it kinda felt that in 5-10 years we could have another "civil war"

I think we need a strong social layer of cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes that promote hidden agendas and could possibly harm bitcoin in the long run. To do so, those with technical knowledge should openly debate the pros and cons of proposals to change/improve Bitcoin (be it at layer 1, be it at layer 2,3,...) so that lay people can be more informed to take decisions. The success of bitcoin ultimately depends not on the success of layer 1, but on the strength of layer 0, the social layer (bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, end users, etc...)

[1714860390]

1714860390

[1714860390]

1714860390

[1714860390]

1714860390

[1714860390]

1714860390

[DooMAD]

It's a difficult line to walk.  On the one hand we want free, open and honest discussion.  But on the other hand, it would be wrong to produce an echo chamber or any form of gatekeeping.  There are also potential pitfalls surrounding collusion and corruption.  If those deemed to have sufficient technical knowledge could be bribed or influenced into pushing certain ideas, that could pose a real problem.  At the end of the day, we are effectively talking about money.  And nothing corrupts more.  I'd also hate to see things devolve into a 'cult of personality' where it turns everything into some sort of popularity contest, which happens all too often in politics, for example.

To be honest, this forum already serves as a collection of "cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes", so I'm not sure we need much else beyond this and all the other varieties of social media out there.  

Controversy is probably inevitable, but it all gets sorted out in the end.  I might come across as overly philosophical or trite here, but that's pretty much what the consensus mechanism is for.  Prolonged infighting usually only delays what was always going to happen in the end anyway.  And it is ultimately a good thing that all ideas are challenged and not simply waved through unchecked.  Even if it gets a little out of hand sometimes.  Either enough people move forward together with a new proposal, or the status quo remains.  

[bitmover]

It's a difficult line to walk.  On the one hand we want free, open and honest discussion.  But on the other hand, it would be wrong to produce an echo chamber or any form of gatekeeping.  There are also potential pitfalls surrounding collusion and corruption.

What bitcoin proposals do you regard as controversial or even harmful ? And why?

I believe that the most dangerous proposals are the ones which offer a trade-off with decentralization.

AFAIK, decentralization  must be protected at all costs, and this is the one thing that makes bitcoin valuable and useful.

[jackg]

Most of the time.the devs keep quiet and seem dismissive about things. At the same time, there's other things coming down the pipeline to replace those ideas.

One of the devs posted a megathread here in 2015 (iirc) about whether blocksize should be increased to 4mb. In 2017 it was realistically enacted due to segwit being introduced and allowing blocks to become that big.

Most suggestions of smart contracting will likely go away if bridges improve or if bitcoin gets its own additional layers (there's no reason someone can't develop a PoS token on bitcoin with its own consensus mechanism).

Further blocksize increases can be obtained from taproot and mimble wimble (there will likely be other ways too to improve throughput).

[AverageGlabella]

I remember the blocksize being increased was a big issue and big discussion at the time.

Most of the time.the devs keep quiet and seem dismissive about things. At the same time, there's other things coming down the pipeline to replace those ideas.

One of the devs posted a megathread here in 2015 (iirc) about whether blocksize should be increased to 4mb. In 2017 it was realistically enacted due to segwit being introduced and allowing blocks to become that big.

Any examples of when developers have been dismissive afaik they are not that involved in the community here on the forums? Is this in the mailing list that they are dismissive?  

[digaran]

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

[mendace]

There are several proposals for changes to Bitcoin that some people regard as controversial or even harmful. Some examples include:

Covenants: This proposal would allow for the creation of smart contracts that can be enforced by the Bitcoin network, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much complexity and could be used for malicious purposes.

Drivechains: This proposal would allow for the creation of sidechains that are pegged to the value of Bitcoin, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much centralization and could be used to attack the Bitcoin network.

TARO (on LN): Some criticisms of this protocol are that it is not a true layer 2 solution, it introduces more centralization, and it could be used to attack the network.

Critics to LN and Liquid: Some people argue that these networks are not true layer 2 solutions, they introduce more centralization, and they could be used to attack the Bitcoin network

It's important to note that these are just a few examples and there are many different proposals being discussed within the Bitcoin community. Some people have strong opinions on these proposals, both positive and negative. It's important for people with technical knowledge to openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals so that lay people can be more informed and make decisions.
As you pointed out, it's important for the bitcoin community to be vigilant and cautious about changes to the protocol, especially those that could potentially harm Bitcoin in the long run. The success of Bitcoin ultimately depends not only on the success of the underlying technology, but also on the strength of the social layer, made up of bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, and end users.

[franky1]

most of the popular sub/side networks are not bitcoin only features

they are bridge networks allowing multiple mainnet blockchain value to be offramped. taking users away from using the mainnets of multiple blockchains and into another network of having to trust their value with

take a few examples
the ones phished as "is bitcoin" can bridge to multiple networks like litecoin and others.. and DO..(there is proof, so not a myth)

but the amount of liquidity pegged to these bitcoin phished bridges(LN/liquid) is far less then say alot of ERC protocol subnetwork bridge to bitcoin

for instance
wbtc has 173,000 btc pegged
btc.b has 5700 btc pegged

however LN has only 5272
and liquid has 3567
..

many people are soo irritated and peed off with the 7 years of waiting for the supposed promised of "LN is the solution to scaling utility" and how flawed and broken those promises are. they end up using other bridges that are phishing with within the ethereum pond

and i am not going to get into the silly hypocrisy of doomads reverse play on his own politics which are the opposite of what he is trying to be onside with now.
he is too late to pretend he is for the things he now suggests after years of being oppositional to it

[mk4]

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

The community definitely cares simply because they have the incentive to care, and the community decides in the end which proposals end up being implemented to Bitcoin Core because the community decides which Bitcoin Core version to run.

[franky1]

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

The community definitely cares simply because they have the incentive to care, and the community decides in the end which proposals end up being implemented to Bitcoin Core because the community decides which Bitcoin Core version to run.

core dont care because their proposals are now all "backward compatible" meaning those that dont upgrade just get a passive, stripped version which just lets new features in as "is valid" without doing full verification

remember how much ceremony and promotion was needed to hype up of taproot proposal to get people interested to upgrade just to activate taproot.. nope? coz there was none.
it didnt need a majority of users to upgrade to activate it..  core bypassed what you speak of..

core have flipped consensus upside down. they have not used satoshis 2009-2016 version of consensus since 2017
(the 2009-16 true version of consensus was a byzantine generals solution.. now its a single 'core'poral in charge)

now new features are treated as "is valid" and accepted without rejection. whereby un-upgraded nodes are not allowed to say no and prevent activation. they instead are pushed out to the edges of the network, and handed data thats stripped or set to just blind accept. and are not completely validating full data.  or rejected off the network,
where they if they choose.. they can upgrade just to again start validating full data that has been pushed into activation without a consensus (consent by mass survey) event of majority activation principles

[Kakmakr]

Well, debate is the only way to go.... without it, we will fall into the same toxic situation where we have people with hidden agendas trying to do a power grab on Bitcoin development and implementation of harmful ideas. (BCash pushers)

I watched the whole fork battle ..back in the day.. and I saw the division it caused in the community, but that is unfortunately what the whole consensus idea is about. (Bitcoin BTC eventually came out on top.... and we stayed in good hands) 

[Welsh]

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

Yeah, I think so. I think the community cares a great deal in which direction Bitcoin goes. If the community didn't care as much, I don't think we'd have as much discussion as we do here. However, the Bitcoin community is much larger than what we've got here, and there's constant discussions on how we can improve it. They might not be right, but you can see that people are motivated to improve Bitcoin.

On the flip side, that also means people don't want to see the wrong decisions made. Ultimately, when it comes to big changes, and therefore hard forks the people get to decide what they want to adopt, and what they don't.

Well, debate is the only way to go.... without it, we will fall into the same toxic situation where we have people with hidden agendas trying to do a power grab on Bitcoin development and implementation of harmful ideas. (BCash pushers)

I watched the whole fork battle ..back in the day.. and I saw the division it caused in the community, but that is unfortunately what the whole consensus idea is about. (Bitcoin BTC eventually came out on top.... and we stayed in good hands) 

Division isn't always a bad thing. It means, that all alternatives are being considered. It's those with the strongest argument or merit to their idea that should succeed. It means, we haven't got just a handful of people making the decisions, but hundreds or thousands of people contributing to the future of development. I would rather have a debate when it comes to important changes, so that all angles are considered, than having a one way discussion where no one else proposes any other ideas.

[coolcoinz]

To me the most outrageous proposal was for bitcoin to abandon PoW and go PoS, like ETH. This should, and I hope that it will, never happen as it would make bitcoin more centralized and more vulnerable to attacks. IMO in the long run ETH users will come to a conclusion that this was a bad idea and it will cost them some money if they hold these tokens.

Probably second on that list would be what BCH was pushing which was a fork and block size change that would result in abandoning the current chain that we're in.

Layer 2 upgrades don't concern me at all as long as the main protocol stays the same.

[franky1]

5 controversial dangerous proposals are and were:

1. changing the consensus mechanism from consent by mass survey(dictionary and byzantine generals solution definitions), to instead activate with less network peer requirement, where its a "abstinence is consent" model, introduced by a core'poral rather then any decentralised 'generals'

2. having mechanisms to reject blocks, and ban peers that do not flag for an activation prior to activation. this falsifies any consensus(consent) count

3. proposal of so called "privacy features" such as:
a. to break the UTXO spend chain of custody movement(remove taint via non accountable tx format) - removing the proof of origins means it cant be proved coins were originally mined, thus opening up risk of creating new coin outside the mining process and also taking coin without ownership permission
b. wanting to put features like mimblewimble on the mainnet rather than a safer 'extended'(side/sub) network/chain

4. increasing the shareable units.
this requires bad code to separate legacy/native value from future format value where the cross overs could bug and cause new coin creation or coin destruction out of circulation, changes the halving cycles and also changes the ultimate maximum units ever mined rules

5. proposing YEARS ago that subnetworks will be the payment utility of all bitcoiners to save the mainnet from being the payment network. whilst years later those subnetworks have still not met their promises to meet the functionality nor capability to handle real usage beyond pizza value amounts, and even those are not 100% guaranteed, secure. yet we still have to "wait and see" before scaling bitcoin (scaling not leaping)

[pooya87]

More dangerous than proposals are the people, more specifically the "hooligans" who only create chaos and effectively prevent technical discussion from growing. The best example is 2017 where we saw scores of them on the internet spreading misinformation at the same time. To this day some people think SegWit "removes" signatures from blocks because of it!

[franky1]

More dangerous than proposals are the people, more specifically the "hooligans" who only create chaos and effectively prevent technical discussion from growing. The best example is 2017 where we saw scores of them on the internet spreading misinformation at the same time. To this day some people think SegWit "removes" signatures from blocks because of it!

fun fact
signatures are now called witnesses
segregating them is actually one of the features segwit enabled nodes can offer
they even have 2 txid's and merkle trees for exactly this function

(it really does pay to read some code and understand the word "segretated witness")

yes
unupgraded nodes that do not understand segwit will have a stripped block not containing the witness(signatures)
(the stripped blocks are filtered to non-segwit nodes from a segwit enabled node doing the stripping for the non segwit node)

it required alot of cludgy code to do this "backward compatible " data striping feature, where it required segwit enabled nodes to do the stripping if they had unupgraded peers connected to them.

pushing the unupgraded peers to the outer hops of the relay network where they dont get to be the normal class of nodes validating everything


..
oh and NO one said all blocks dont have signatures any more. NO one
its just another misdirection social game.
the actual debates were that non segwit nodes lost their "full node status" by being handled differently given a different lump of data than a segwit enabled node got

[Ucy]

What bitcoin proposals do you regard as controversial or even harmful ? And why?
These proposals can be both at layer 1 or at above layers (ex: TARO on LN)

For example, I've seen people being strongly opposed to proposal such as covenants and drivechains. I'm don't have a stablished opinion on them, so I'd like to see others' opinions on the topics, be it positive or negative.

I'm starting to notice moderate tension on some bitcoin communities i participate in (twitter, telegram, youtube) regarding proposals to change bitcoin (those 2 topics, as well as other ones) and to extend it on above layers (ceticism regarding lightning network and liquid network, heavy critics to TARO protocol). After reading Blocksize War, it kinda felt that in 5-10 years we could have another "civil war"

I think we need a strong social layer of cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes that promote hidden agendas and could possibly harm bitcoin in the long run. To do so, those with technical knowledge should openly debate the pros and cons of proposals to change/improve Bitcoin (be it at layer 1, be it at layer 2,3,...) so that lay people can be more informed to take decisions. The success of bitcoin ultimately depends not on the success of layer 1, but on the strength of layer 0, the social layer (bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, end users, etc...)

The issue is mainly with the way things are handle... Sometimes it feels like kindergarten children who aren't sure who is right or wrong fighting over crayon.
They should handle things the way responsible adults in National assemblies handle things by introducing a set of Bitcoin Principles or Rules that are not to be violated whenever they are proposing ideas or building things on Bitcoin. There will be less conflict and more harmony if everyone is proposing ideas that are according to the set principles the Bitcoin system is based on. If everyone agrees that this is not about changing or deviating from the hard-coded rules Bitcoin is built on participants can then harmoniously build applications within the set boundaries.
And conflicts will drastically reduce if there is well defined rule every activity is based on. Whenever there is deviation from the rule, there will automatically be a uniting force (united by the rule) against it...

[franky1]

proposals should not be "procesed"/filered/moderated within one brand/group that has all the power of moderation at every level and is also then made to be the main reference client. as thats centralisation

if there is to be moderations. let the moderators not be the same guys that also control the code merges of the centralised code brand. make it independent and not incentivised censorship mechanism to push one agenda forward and ignore all other opportunities

there SHOULD also be multiple full node brands. and they are all offered the ability to make and SHARE proposals. where they all offer a implementation so that people can stick with their favoured brand but have a choice that includes proposed code. and when there is a majority then it activates knowing there is a safe tolerance of alot of peer nodes with the actual proposed code able to actually verify a new ruleset, without having silly "isvalid" defaults for unupgraded nodes to bypass verification

the issues with relying on all proposals being filtered through one brand moderation and developer group, is the other brands become second tier nodes, following as an after effect rather then being at the same level as a certain brand

EG
imagine there was a new proposal by any brand. and all brands are show it. then all brands develop their brands version with the proposal and a same version without the proposal(flag default on or off)

brand C 25.0.P(bug fix code + proposal code + flag default on)
brand C 25.0.1(bug fix code + flag default off)
where P is brand C's node with proposal code included. and .0.1 is just the normal bug fix version without proposal

brand L 25.0.P
brand L 25.0.1
where P is brand L's node with proposal code included. and .0.1 is just the normal bug fix version without proposal

it also helps to have 2 codebases per version..  if a proposal is buggy, malicious, not voted to activate. the brands can continue work on the 0.01 versions without having to re write/undo.remove their proposal code if it is not activated

and they can instead just work on the next proposal. without having to undo code  to get back to status quo

this then allows them to not be soo determined to push or force activations and instead easily say "ok people dont like that idea lets listen to what they do want and tweak things to meet community need".. instead of it took 2 years to write this and will take another 6 months to remove the code to get back to uncludgy status. so we need to force an activation., purely out of time irritations"

[Flexystar]

We don't need protection from any threats considering the nature of bitcoin which is based on public power and thus very hard to take down easily. However, the fact that we need to "evolve" it is equally and rigorously true in the long run. What I mean is, we got a code for the bitcoin in the form of blockchain being its highway however, this code is same and running since it's inception with few forks now and then which were also only the additions to overcome the transaction speeds at the time. Now things are moving even faster and we need to protect it's true nature by evolving it up to the benchmark of current needs and desires of investors. Since it's public based ledger, it has to be checked time to time for its fulfilment as per the users.

[DooMAD]

2. having mechanisms to reject blocks, and ban peers that do not flag for an activation prior to activation. this falsifies any consensus(consent) count

I've still not seen a single person other than you on this entire forum who believes that actually happened.  Anyone remotely sane understands the reason why some nodes were disconnected and that was to prevent replay attacks.  Repeating your delusions for years on end does not magically make them true.  Consult with your psychiatrist to adjust your dosage.

there SHOULD also be multiple full node brands.

Then make one already, you whiny, impotent manbaby.  No one is stopping you.  Code what you like and publish it here on the forum.  Use whatever review process you like to approve or deny code.  Oh wait, you're never going to.  Because all you do it bitch and complain forever, because no one cares about your awful, totalitarian ideals.  Everything you've ever proposed is dangerous for Bitcoin.

I'll even give you a hand if you're too stupid to figure it out:



You can call it FascistCore.  Best of luck.