Should Bitcoin Change or Stay Immutable?

[Tiaramane]

Bitcoin's biggest strength might be the fact that it is so difficult to change.

No CEO can wake up and change the rules. No central authority can simply decide to increase the supply.

But that creates an interesting question:

When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?

Quantum computing is one example. If the cryptographic assumptions Bitcoin relies on eventually become vulnerable, refusing to upgrade could become a bigger risk than upgrading.

So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

[Livingleged]

Bitcoin's biggest strength might be the fact that it is so difficult to change.

No CEO can wake up and change the rules. No central authority can simply decide to increase the supply.

But that creates an interesting question:

When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?

Quantum computing is one example. If the cryptographic assumptions Bitcoin relies on eventually become vulnerable, refusing to upgrade could become a bigger risk than upgrading.

So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

There has been a lot of changes or let me say an upgrade in so many aspects of bitcoin before now, it was only old legacy wallets that were available. Nothing like the Segwit address until 2017 when the idea was implemented after a consensus was reached by the community. This type of upgrade is often called layer 1 or 2 upgrade, If there is any need for an upgrade, it will definitely be done without changing the core bitcoin protocol and in general consensus.
Worrying about quantum threats is definitely something that should be of concerned, and I can tell you that there are many developer here and outside the forums making research on how to contain the threat.

[BitMaxz]

Since you are looking for changes or upgrades to the current Bitcoin, why not become a contributor? Anyone can contribute, but let the core developers decide if they want to include those codes or upgrade you talking about. 

Submit those changes you want to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
And let them know if all core developers agree they might consider it.

[Accardo]

That's the job of BIP, bitcoin is not immutable, for about 13 years bitcoin core was dominant, today, it is still dominant, but some core developers are exploring bitcoin Knot to fight Arbitrary data. Bitcoin works with Majority, so some changes doesn't get noticed, only vital proposals get introduced into the core network, developers who submit proposal and feel like it was sent into the thin air, prefer to build new networks to add their initiatives, then choose to answer a different name, and bitcoin goes through things like this too often, isn't it adaptation?

[Orpichukwu]

There are changes which are made to the code, but it's not like a project CEO who wakes up and decides about any type of change they want. They are developers who make the decision they agree on and decide on what should be implemented just as there is already progress for quantum computing resistant. The protocol is not just their without any update being done especially in aspect of security it's being constantly upgraded.

[X-ray]

Bitcoin isn't exactly static, it's upgradeable through BIP and consensus, the immutable part is the historical ledger.

In the case of quantum computer, there has been many proposals and and BIP-360 is one of them.

So if the world changes, Bitcoin will changes too but not on a whim.

Quantum computing is one example. If the cryptographic assumptions Bitcoin relies on eventually become vulnerable, refusing to upgrade could become a bigger risk than upgrading.

From these sentences, I believe you already know that Bitcoin is upgradable.

[WhatIf2]

Bitcoin's biggest strength might be the fact that it is so difficult to change.

No CEO can wake up and change the rules. No central authority can simply decide to increase the supply.

But that creates an interesting question:

When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?

Quantum computing is one example. If the cryptographic assumptions Bitcoin relies on eventually become vulnerable, refusing to upgrade could become a bigger risk than upgrading.

So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

I am not sure whether one of the biggest market narratives for quantum computing is a threat to cryptography, or especially to Bitcoin. Still, I am very sure that quantum computing is not being developed solely to break the chains of encryption.

Bitcoin has always been in a phase of evolution while keeping the fundamental principles intact. I don't think that the question of drawing the line between immutability and adaption it should when and how.

[Darker45]

I think it's not either-or, OP. Bitcoin is both immutable and changing. It may sound paradoxical but that's how it is.

At the base layer, the rules are etched in stone. That there are 21 million coins, for example, can't be changed. To change it means to create another coin which, of course, isn't anymore Bitcoin.

At the surface level, however, changes are happening. The main software performs upgrades, patches, and whatnot. There are current researches and experiments pertaining to the possible threats of quantum computing. As a matter of fact, there was recently an experimental transaction on the mainnet which is claimed to be quantum-safe.

In other words, Bitcoin isn't refusing to upgrade, OP. But the foundation is solid. If it changes every once in a while, Bitcoin would have been dead by now.

[fullfitlarry]

Bitcoin's biggest strength might be the fact that it is so difficult to change.

No CEO can wake up and change the rules. No central authority can simply decide to increase the supply.

But that creates an interesting question:

When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?

Quantum computing is one example. If the cryptographic assumptions Bitcoin relies on eventually become vulnerable, refusing to upgrade could become a bigger risk than upgrading.

So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

It's not that Bitcoin can't change, but there is want we call consensus, wherein all entities that are involved in the process will have to agree on the changes. So it means the stakeholders, like the miners, those that run the nodes, developers.

Remember BIP-110? They still go with it even without the support and it didn't last that long.

As for the quantum computing for what's it worth, there has been a lot of discussion. Sooner or later they will come up to a consensus as the threat is getting nearer by the minute.

[SPIDERMAN008]

Whether quantum computing will actually be able to break Bitcoin's security in the future is not yet proven. And quantum computing has not yet been properly implemented. Today's quantum computer is not strong enough to extract the Bitcoin private key. No one can accurately predict how strong it will be in the future. And Bitcoin's seed phrase can be used to access the wallet. Without it, it is not possible to access the wallet. And hacking it is not so easy, which no one has been able to do even after trying for so many years. So, it should not be guaranteed that it will be possible only with quantum computers.

And Bitcoin's monetary policy should be created in such a way that it can adapt to any economic situation in the world in the future. People themselves will use Bitcoin as it suits the time. Bitcoin's most valuable innovation may not be the ability to add new features. Rather, it is the monetary rules that are very popular with people now and will continue to grow in popularity in the future.

And finally, my thought about quantum computing is that before Bitcoin's security is broken, the security of banking wallets used in the world will also be under threat. And what I think is that a lot of talk about quantum computing is being done to intentionally artificially instill the negative aspects of Bitcoin into people's minds.