What My Ear Taught Me About Bitcoin

[Exitoral]

I recently learned something about the human ear. It has a cleaning mechanism that cleans the ear by pushing the wax outside the canal. The problem people create for themselves is that they think them doing the cleaning is actually cleaning it but creating problems.

It got me thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a mechanism that needs no human inference. But we as humans always have the instinct of improving things. And that's were a new problem can be created.

What if intervention creates problems for Bitcoin? As people are scared about quantum computing. Many people are thinking Bitcoin needs more security against quantum computing. What if it doesn't?

For me, I think the difficult thing is knowing when to actually intervene in a system.

For example someone can be changing his DCA strategy just because the market is changing. Which will create problems. As to when he can change his strategy as regard his income. You see were intervention matters.

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

[Hypnotizer]

The Mechanism of the Human ear is kinda different to that of bitcoin, we’ve seen good improvements that have made the system more better over the year since from Bitcoin inception and after Satoshi left.

I don’t believe “Bitcoin has a Mechanism that needs no human intervention” as you’ve said, Bitcoin was created by humans and it was created to adapt and improve over time as it grows and that’s why we have the bitcoin developers.

And let me ask you a question, is there any Bitcoin improvement proposal that was implemented which has created any new problems?

Bitcoin would sure need more security in the future against Quantum Computing. And btw every decentralized or centralized network needs improvement and interventions to further grow and develop the network because time evolves very fast and if you don’t improve you’ll be left out.

So your comparison is actually a bad analogy.

[AgriTrack]

Positive improvement is or should never be a problem for a system, because there is always room for improvement in everything, and if someone knows what changes can only provide positive results and they know this because of the knowledge they have, and apart from that, it's not the decision of a single person to make changes in Bitcoin's blockchain or network, developers can only propose changes, and it is up to the miners to accept or reject those changes.

If developers believe that they can roll out an update that can increase the security, and then if miners think that the developers are right and it can be a positive change, they accept it and then it gets added. So I believe we don't need to worry about that, and I don't agree that it should be left alone, because positive changes can be made.

There is no doubt that what Satoshi created is in itself very good, but as I said, there is always room for improvement in any system or any thing that has been created.

[adultcrypto]

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

As far as science and technology is concerned, there will always be continuous improvement and anyone who fails to embrace this fact is doomed. This means even bitcoin will somehow need to adapt to the newer technologies to remain protected. Consequently, there are already deliberation on how to navigate the through the threat of quantum computers and when the threat becomes a reality, a consensus will be reached to protect bitcoin.

[tbct_mt2]

For example someone can be changing his DCA strategy just because the market is changing. Which will create problems. As to when he can change his strategy as regard his income. You see were intervention matters.

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

People need to prepare their finance well so that they only use money that they can afford to lose for investment, and they already have money reserved for other purposes.

With DCA strategy, and investment with it, they can buy bitcoin regularly but it does not mean something turns to terrible for their investment if they stop DCA. If it is your discussion about that: stop buying bitcoin for a while or changing it from weekly, monthly to something longer like quarterly, it's just well and no problems for your investment at all.

When your income becomes smaller, you can stop DCA or do it with longer time like changing from monthly to quarterly, but it is still DCA.

[snowpega]

...
What if intervention creates problems for Bitcoin? As people are scared about quantum computing. Many people are thinking Bitcoin needs more security against quantum computing. What if it doesn't?
...

Not everything can be seen with the same lens or point of view.
Because sometimes improvements in the system are really helpful and sometimes not. This highly depends on the situation and time-consuming analysis, so the decision should be made accordingly whether further development is needed or not. On the other hand, there are a lot of speculations regarding this matter right now about whether quantum computing will damage Bitcoin technology or make it stronger. And if I have to share my point of view on this, then I would say this will highly depend on the person who will be using that technology, whether he uses quantum computing against Bitcoin technology or in favour of this technology. Other than this, I don't have any technical answer about this technology. So let's see how this technology plays out in future. CMIIW!

[Faisal2202]

You do have a good point, but it also works to a point. You said BTC does not need human intervention, but don't you know it was deliberately created and maintained by humans? There is an important distinction in what you're saying because "changing BTC because there is a demonstrated problem" and "changing it because we are afraid that something might happen" is different, and we definitely have to understand it. You can't just say what if quantum computers are not a risk at all because there is nothing to assume.

I would say BIP110 fork was unnecessary intervention, and now it is failing or failed, but many gave it a try for free money haha. But intervention should be made only when it is worth the risk.

[laspol65]

Look, Bitcoin is designed with the future in mind, where Satoshi has designed this Bitcoin so updated and future-proof that you don't need any intervention from me. I'm saying from my perspective that at this time you can only hold Bitcoin to change your own destiny, but yes, everyone needs to know about security.
Yes, but Bitcoin is still evolving and there are developers who are constantly updating Bitcoin to the latest and greatest.

[BIT-BENDER]

I recently learned something about the human ear. It has a cleaning mechanism that cleans the ear by pushing the wax outside the canal. The problem people create for themselves is that they think them doing the cleaning is actually cleaning it but creating problems.

It got me thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a mechanism that needs no human inference. But we as humans always have the instinct of improving things. And that's were a new problem can be created.

What if intervention creates problems for Bitcoin? As people are scared about quantum computing. Many people are thinking Bitcoin needs more security against quantum computing. What if it doesn't?

For me, I think the difficult thing is knowing when to actually intervene in a system.

For example someone can be changing his DCA strategy just because the market is changing. Which will create problems. As to when he can change his strategy as regard his income. You see were intervention matters.

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

You can't improve or try to improve the whole of Bitcoin because there is no head administration for the whole of Bitcoin, what you can do is try to improve the way you hold your own Bitcoin which is what people have been doing and you can see people who keep their Bitcoin on and exchange, those who prefer cold storage wallets alone and others.
How you hold your Bitcoin and use it is within your control.
For me you have to prioritize security, I don't believe DCA strategy should be fixed, it should be subjected to changes based on what ever circumstances.

[Byebyebtc]

Bitcoin is now significantly part of the world, and people wouldn't just go and making intervention without a good proof of what the problem is.
There has to be an evidence that this problem will definitely happen if intervention is not carried out, and with that the intervention is justified. I don't think any one will just go doing anything to Bitcoin, when there is not a significant problem detected.
And when I mean significant problem, the one that can not be fixed by itself. Even in your in your ear there are problems that it can not fix by its self, you don't just have to focus on the wax it'self, how about ear infection? That one definitely needs intervention hu 

[Bluedrem]

Since people want to improve their lives and do not want to be stuck in a rut, why wouldn't they invest in Bitcoin when the modern world is becoming more technology-dependent and digital? In that case, won't the economy also become digital?
And if the economy becomes digital, will the first digital currency invented in the world be neglected? Of course, that is not the case because economists may have got the idea of modern economy from Bitcoin.
And when it comes to the security of Bitcoin, no matter how much discussion and criticism there is about quantum computers, there is also considerable doubt about whether it will ever be possible to create them. And if it is, then technologists may find some methods for the security of Bitcoin where the quantum computer itself will provide security for Bitcoin. In fact, we do not know what will happen in the future, but we save for the future. Suppose we are planning for the next 20 years from now, but two days after the Earth, a large meteorite hits the Earth, what will happen to humanity? And it is unlikely that this will happen. So no matter how many obstacles, no matter how bad the chances, people take risks and save and move forward. Shouldn't the same be true for Bitcoin?

[Renampun]

What if intervention creates problems for Bitcoin? As people are scared about quantum computing. Many people are thinking Bitcoin needs more security against quantum computing. What if it doesn't?

This is why, whenever a new issue arises, developers don't rush to make immediate changes to the network.. they always choose the best solution to address the issue, specifically regarding quantum threats, it's not that developers don't recognize the risk, rather, they prefer to monitor the situation first and do not view it as an urgent matter immediately changing to the network.

That's why, so far, no proposals have been implemented, because developers are making sure that any changes are safe and effective in resolving the issue. and when the time is right, we may already have a solution ready to address the problem appropriately.

[348Judah]

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leave the system alone?

Everyone is permitted to make use of his personal strategy with his bitcoin investment and also determine how far could be profitable in using that same pattern, it is just for us to accept it as it is and we cannot help with anything that has to do with alteration to bitcoin network, is either we aligned ourselves to the right part of profitability in its adoption or leave it as it is, but nothing can be influenced or changed and that is why we must keep learning about Bitcoin on relevant areas that is best applicable.

[Donneski]

When you talk about the possibility of making of trying to improve Bitcoin, the main focus should be if making any change will solve any real problem. The Bitcoin network isn't something that should be modified just because something newer or better comes along. Making improvements will only make sense when there's a genuine or scalability issue and that must be carefully done with proper consensus.

[Spaceman1000$]

I recently learned something about the human ear. It has a cleaning mechanism that cleans the ear by pushing the wax outside the canal. The problem people create for themselves is that they think them doing the cleaning is actually cleaning it but creating problems.

It got me thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a mechanism that needs no human inference. But we as humans always have the instinct of improving things. And that's were a new problem can be created.

What if intervention creates problems for Bitcoin? As people are scared about quantum computing. Many people are thinking Bitcoin needs more security against quantum computing. What if it doesn't?

For me, I think the difficult thing is knowing when to actually intervene in a system.

For example someone can be changing his DCA strategy just because the market is changing. Which will create problems. As to when he can change his strategy as regard his income. You see were intervention matters.

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

I've not really seen the effect of quantum computing on Bitcoin, however I've seen more narrative that seem like a threat to bitcoin existence whenever quantum computing is mentioned. I honestly feel this narrative has been overstressed for too long, the Bitcoin community have lots of experts that will always guide you on how to keep your coins safe.
Bitcoin is not breaking, if you feel unsafe about your assets, you can ask specific questions on what to do, and trust me you will have answers that will definitely help you.

[Fiatless]

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

If, after investigation, it is discovered that the Bitcoin network is under threat. The ideal step to take is to seek ways to avoid or overcome the challenge. It is not wrong to advance the security of the network by taking some steps. Upgrading the Bitcoin network protocols to quantum-resistant will reduce the quantum computing risk. Any intervention that will help keep the system safe without affecting the original design is good. The recommendation to move Bitcoin to proof of stake as a solution to high power consumption was rejected. Every intervention should be in line with Bitcoin's original design.

[Stepstowealth]

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

Just as a drug that was effective against a particular sickness many years ago may no longer be as effective against that same sickness currently because the sickness has undergone some sort of growth or mutation and has become more resistant to a certain drugs, there is a need to constantly make tweaks or modifications in a system to make it maintain its effectiveness against changing systems and conditions. Interventions and some modifications to Bitcoin is targeted to make the system more resistant to challenges of today because if these changes are not made or modifications, it will become kind of difficult for bitcoin to adapt comfortably to situations. This is also why applications have versions and modifications that make the application better as the version increases.

[Hazink]

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

The human body and Bitcoin, which is developed by humans, are not same thing. There are things which naturally regenerate and fix themselves. You can say the same thing when it comes to code. Bitcoin doesn't need to be allowed to be the same way it is.

The more technology is advancing so should the code be upgraded for security reasons the only aspect where the team of developers could have got it wrong is implementing something which allows censorship that could have been totally against what Bitcoin stands for.

[batang_bitcoin]

For example someone can be changing his DCA strategy just because the market is changing. Which will create problems. As to when he can change his strategy as regard his income. You see were intervention matters.

So my question is whether there is a possibility of trying to improve Bitcoin cause it to break?

Or

Where do we draw the line of intervention and just leaving the system alone?

Change is constant and so as human intervention. If we happen to change our approach in due time, that's because it depends on our situation. And for an improvement that needs to be done for Bitcoin, there have been discussions about it. So, we as typical investors doesn't have to intervene with it, we can be aware and read those matters but what we can offer to improve it? I think if it's individually done, what we can do is just to focus on ourselves and our accumulation rather than of those technicalities that we have nothing to do with.

[Cryptomultiplier]

When you talk about the possibility of making of trying to improve Bitcoin, the main focus should be if making any change will solve any real problem. The Bitcoin network isn't something that should be modified just because something newer or better comes along. Making improvements will only make sense when there's a genuine or scalability issue and that must be carefully done with proper consensus.

It's good developers are on deck and weighing every possibility of the threat of quantum computers before it gains ground, because we can't really know the damage it could do just yet and for investors to lose hard earned funds may just be another reason why safety has to be taken into account before QC comes onboard fully.

However, the capacity for any good system to absorb stress without human interference is the sign of a great working and efficient system. Bitcoin systems has been built on a great protocol and for now, if developers start rushing to try to make adjustments to its protocols, it could pose a threat before even QC tries to become one. So it's better to let things play out first and make adjustments or improvements along the way as QC comes on board.