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.

[d5000]

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

The users decide on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of a major threat, like the 2010 overflow vulnerability, and quantum attack danger, it is very unlikely that the consensus of the users [1] will refuse a change that makes sense.

In the case of "new features", like Segwit, there will often be two opposing camps in the user base, but eventually one will reach a majority in most cases. I can't really a feature where really about 50% would be in favour and 50% against. Perhaps something privacy-related ... In this case it is best to wait until the dust clears, the proposal is very mature, critic points have been solved, and then it is possible that the "upgrade camp" achieves a majority. If not, then the proposal cannot be added reasonably (nobody would like a 52:48% chain split, everybody would lose!), it either has to be refined even further, or abandoned (although you could say that a proposal can come back the number of times it is necessary, there is never a "hard deadline" when the proposal will be "rejected forever".)


[1] "The consensus of the users" is often misunderstood. Not miners and "nodes" (by number) are those that have power in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but those people and entities who 1) accept Bitcoin and 2) hold Bitcoin.

Those who accept BTC can refuse to do so if a controversial decision is taken, and they can choose the other side of the fork (or simply accept an altcoin instead, or no crypto at all). This reduces demand and has negative pressure of the price of the "controversial" fork.

Something similar can be said for those who hold Bitcoin: they can sell the BTC of the fork they don't like, also creating bearish pressure.

If we take the example of BCash: the way BTC ("Core") really won at the end is because BCH was refused to be accepted as "Bitcoin" by the majority of the users, and after the fork many BTC/BCH holders sold the "airdropped" BCH. While the majority of the miners followed BTC, this was only because they could predict (due to community sentiment) that BCH would be dumped and thus would lose the game. Something similar happens to BIP110 now ...

[Crypto Library]

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 is a big difference between changing the rules and upgrading them. It is not that the Bitcoin network has not been upgraded in line with the times, but we have seen updates to the Bitcoin network from time to time.

For example, Segregated Witness (SegWit), which was upgraded in 2017 to improve block space efficiency, fixes transaction malleability and provides the foundation for second-layer protocols such as the Lightning Network.
At the same time, Taproot was introduced in 2021 to strengthen privacy, efficiency, and scripting flexibility.

Don't you think we'll see more updates like this on the Bitcoin network in the future?

I believe we will see more updates like this in the future, maybe when quantum computers are discovered; maybe some upgrade will come to the Bitcoin protocol with the help of that quantum computer?

[Alpha Marine]

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.

What makes you think Bitcoin is Bitcoin has refused to upgrade? We've seen upgrades in the address that have made transactions faster, we've seen the block size rule be upgraded. So what makes you think Bitcoin cannot upgrade?
Becoming a centralised coin or being owned and issued by one entity is not the only upgrade that can happen. There have been so many upgrades in Bitcoin over the years.

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

Bitcoin is immutable in the sense that its transactions cannot be changed, not that it cannot be upgraded or adapted. If it were so, there would be no need for Bitcoin core developers.
As long as the core values of Bitcoin are maintained, then I don't see a problem. As long as it's still relatively less expensive to run a node, It's still decentralised, and other core values are maintained in any update, then I don't see a problem.

[Dunamisx]

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

There is nothing changing about bitcoin network and the emailability is about the blockchain technology it uses because the network is immutable, it cannot be altered except any changes comes in line in concenss with the protocol.

Therefore, bitcoin is more of what provides solutions to every challenges regarding trust and accountability in financial economy

[iBaba]

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 guess the big issue here is not whether bitcoin can change but if people can agree that a change is really necessary, that is where it can get difficult. We could slowly lose what makes bitcoin reliable if every new technology becomes a reason to upgrade it. So upgrades should only happen when there is a serious problem, developers and users should have enough time to test the solution properly.
It is very important to prepare early than to wait for a real attack, but rushing to change can create a problem on its own.

[davis196]

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?

Here we go with another forum thread about quantum computers and BTC. We must count all the forum threads about that particular subject. I'm sure that the number would be at least 5 digits. First off, quantum computers won't be coming anytime soon. I've read some news stating that quantum computing is still heavily underdeveloped and we would need at least 20 years for that technology to go mainstream.
Anyway, to answer your question. Yes, Bitcoin should adapt and improve in terms of security and stability, but the core principles around the Bitcoin protocol should remain rock solid.

[Pablo-wood]

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.

Consensus isn't done by developers alone, miners, node operators, and the broader economic majority all have to sign off before any change actually takes place. Developers can write code and propose upgrades, but a BIP or client release is just a suggestion until people choose to run it.

Miners can signal support or oppose a change by choosing which chain to mine, but they don't get to make the final decision, if for any reason they start producing blocks that break the rules, full nodes will simply reject those blocks. Node operators enforce the rules by validating every block against them.

[Lexandroove]

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?

My question to this is: Why change what has worked so well so far?

What distinguishes Bitcoin, in my opinion, is its established structure, which remains uncompromised.

Fixed supply, permissionless access, and decentralised consensus should be extremely difficult to alter, and from what we’ve experienced, the most plausible route for security exploits has been Bitcoin’s sidechains/infrastructures.

For its base layer, it should stay immutable.

[hmbdofficial]

I guess the big issue here is not whether bitcoin can change but if people can agree that a change is really necessary, that is where it can get difficult. We could slowly lose what makes bitcoin reliable if every new technology becomes a reason to upgrade it. So upgrades should only happen when there is a serious problem, developers and users should have enough time to test the solution properly.
It is very important to prepare early than to wait for a real attack, but rushing to change can create a problem on its own.

i absolutely agree with the point you made. Bitcoin isn't that complicated with issues like this, but i also do not see adding more features or more protection as a change entirely but rather an upgrade that should be done if there be a need to do so, just like you said that bitcoin might lose it core values if every new technology becomes a reason to upgrade. but the bitcoin community will not also watch other advanced technology becomes a serious threat to bitcoin also. that is upgrade are made to meet the present security protect challenge. and fixing issues like swift transaction or better said as transaction malleability.

My question to this is: Why change what has worked so well so far?

there are many changes that can be mention, for example moving from the p2pk addresses to the p2wpk was a change that was made and it worked just fine.

[Pumpsta]

Nah man, when the world changes BTC should stall & suck it up what do u think happens if everyone's too stubborn to upgrade? Yea, it's exactly what you think...