Should Bitcoin Change or Stay Immutable?

[Lexandroove]

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.

Its base layer has evolved, but this is distinguishable from "change", as its fundamental monetary rules remain the same

Bitcoin's network can only stay relevant by evolving to fit the changing landscape, but outright changing its fundamentals should remain off the table.

[Tamaperdana]

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 clear that when we talk about quantum computers, they could clearly pose a serious threat to Bitcoin. But I know the Bitcoin community will certainly upgrade to ensure Bitcoin remains robust and unhackable by quantum computers. Therefore, I don't think we need to worry about this, as the community will certainly not remain silent. Bitcoin is clearly an asset that needs to be defended and its security maintained.

So, I don't think quantum computers will pose a threat if everything goes well for Bitcoin. However, quantum computers aren't perfect yet, as far as I know, so we don't need to worry too much about this. Bitcoin will certainly adapt, and the community will do that. But correct me if I'm wrong.

[Chinesebaby]

Its base layer has evolved, but this is distinguishable from "change", as its fundamental monetary rules remain the same

Bitcoin's network can only stay relevant by evolving to fit the changing landscape, but outright changing its fundamentals should remain off the table.

Yes, I so much agree with the last statement you just made above regarding the core fundamental principles of Bitcoin, which is what makes Bitcoin unique from our normal banking system. And the moment that core fundamentals of Bitcoin start becoming objects to change, like is total supply of 21million Bitcoin, and the full control it grants users access to their own asset, that's the moment Bitcoin starts the lose the very key component that made it different from our conventional monetary policy system.  

[B-BossMan]

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?

Op, one thing I want you to understand is, the value of bitcoin itself is not just all about the price, the main thing is how far many people have the certainty level on the basics rules of the bitcoin. If at all those rules changes when the founders decided as an agreement, believe you me the bitcoin may begin looking like something that was actually created as an alternative. Mind you that doesn't truly mean that the there wouldn't be an upgrade in bitcoin, there are was alots upgrades in bitcoin since after it was made, in terms of securities, I believe it was totally a different thing from about changing the bitcoin rules, it would be hard to make changes on the long-term rules. Because it's okay the way it is now, than trying to change somethings that may lead to losing of confidence and trust many people build on the bitcoin rules

[Itz-prisigold]

I think the bigger question is, who decides when a change is needed.  When people begin discussing a serious danger, it's straightforward to state that the Bitcoin should change, but once different individuals have different views about the seriousness of the danger, things become difficult.

I think it's a good thing that Bitcoin moves slowly when it comes to changes.  It provides people time to think through the implications of every new idea instead of doing something without thinking. But still I am not really saying that Bitcoin should turn down every upgrades forever though.

[Rhow]

While it is extremely difficult to change the fundamentals of Bitcoin, I am not worried about it at the moment. Rather, I think that if Bitcoin were very easy to change, people would lose confidence in Bitcoin. Because then everyone would be afraid that in the future some party would change the rules and affect supply or other important things.

However, history has shown that Bitcoin has accepted changes when necessary, such as SegWit and the Taproot upgrade. I personally would like to see Bitcoin as it is now. Because that is how most people are gradually increasing their confidence in Bitcoin.

[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?

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.

I agree, and that's actually why I think the quantum question is interesting.

Bitcoin has already evolved quite a bit through things like SegWit and other upgrades. The difference is that those changes didn't fundamentally alter Bitcoin's monetary rules or require a central authority to dictate the outcome.

My concern with quantum computing is that it could eventually challenge one of the assumptions underneath those rules: the cryptography protecting ownership itself.

If developers can address that through a backward-compatible or carefully coordinated upgrade, then I think that's very different from changing the 21 million supply cap or rewriting the consensus rules arbitrarily.

So I agree that there are already people working on this. The bigger question for me is when the threat becomes serious enough that the community needs to act, rather than whether Bitcoin should blindly remain unchanged.

[aoluain]

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?

Why does the OP think Bitcoin isnt changing? Look at the homepage of the forum, almost at
the top of the page in bold text > Latest Bitcoin Core release: 31.1

Thats a lot of upgrades which have happened already! The developers arent ignoring the upkeep
of the network. Same goes for Quantum Computing, if the average Joe or Jane is thinking about
a possible threat you can be damn sure the developers are on it - thats why the network has never
been hacked.

[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?

Op, one thing I want you to understand is, the value of bitcoin itself is not just all about the price, the main thing is how far many people have the certainty level on the basics rules of the bitcoin. If at all those rules changes when the founders decided as an agreement, believe you me the bitcoin may begin looking like something that was actually created as an alternative. Mind you that doesn't truly mean that the there wouldn't be an upgrade in bitcoin, there are was alots upgrades in bitcoin since after it was made, in terms of securities, I believe it was totally a different thing from about changing the bitcoin rules, it would be hard to make changes on the long-term rules. Because it's okay the way it is now, than trying to change somethings that may lead to losing of confidence and trust many people build on the bitcoin rules

I agree with you on the importance of certainty. I think that is one of the biggest things Bitcoin has built over the years. People don't just value Bitcoin because of its market price; they value knowing that the fundamental rules are extremely difficult to change.

That's also why I wouldn't put something like changing the 21 million supply cap in the same category as upgrading cryptography. The former changes a fundamental economic rule that people rely on, while the latter could be necessary to preserve the security of those existing rules.

My concern with quantum computing is precisely that distinction. If the technology eventually becomes capable of breaking the cryptographic assumptions protecting Bitcoin, refusing to upgrade wouldn't necessarily preserve trust. It could actually put the rules people trust at risk.

So I completely agree that changes to Bitcoin's core monetary principles should have an extremely high bar. But I also think there should be a path for the network to adapt when the technology around it changes. The challenge is finding that balance without undermining the certainty that makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place.

[TedMosby]

[...]
When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?
[...]
So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

No need to talk about the potential risk that may come from quantum computing, because even without it, Bitcoin already loses in terms of usability as a peer to peer electronic cash system compared to stablecoins. More volume, more transactions, faster speed, cheap fees. They are more adaptive to new technology (new chains) that exists in this crypto industry. Easier to spend on a daily basis. It's even mainstreamly used to pay wages/salaries.

My stand is still the same. Bitcoin needs to be more adaptive to the world, to people's habits and needs, to make it more relevant for many people, for broader adoption. If we still use the same narrative, to fight banks, to fight fiat, to fight the unfair financial system, it's not relevant anymore because Bitcoin already shifted from being against them to becoming friends with them.

What I want to see from Bitcoin is becoming more adaptive, more relevant to people, without sacrificing what is already good about Bitcoin itself.

[d5000]

My concern with quantum computing is that it could eventually challenge one of the assumptions underneath those rules: the cryptography protecting ownership itself.

I think there is a big difference between BIP-360, which adds a possibility to protect your coins in a different way (and can be complemented by follow-up BIPs in the same way that add post-quantum cryptography like SHRINCS) and proposals like Jameson Lopp's BIP-361, which try to block certain Bitcoins to prevent them from being sold.

In the case of BIP-360 and the possible follow-ups, you get an additional possibility for security. If you don't want to act, you don't have to act. (Avoiding address reuse, as long as you don't move the coins, is safe from today's perspective even if there is a capable quantum computer). So no fundamental rule is changed.

BIP-361 instead is for me an example where the consensus "your coins belong to you and to none else" is indeed altered. If we consider blocked coins "a donation to all other Bitcoin holders" like Lopp argues, then this is enabling collective theft from a minority (those that don't move their coins).

It may have even legal consequences. Let's say some guy discovers in 2040 that he had Bitcoins since 2020 and they are now worth 1 million USD. But they are blocked due to BIP-361. This guy could then be tempted to use 10% of his fortune to demand the money back from the miners who have supported BIP-361. It would be a big mess.

So I agree a bit that some QC proposals do alter the "fundamental rules". But they are not really necessary, from today's point of view.

Proposals like Hourglass where P2PK outputs for example would be subject of special rules like spending only 0.1 BTC per month or so, are a middle ground. IMO they would alter the fundamental rules somewhat but they could be deployed without the legal risks of BIP-361 as an emergency measure because at the end, ownership does not change, only convenience.

[Ambatman]

So I completely agree that changes to Bitcoin's core monetary principles should have an extremely high bar. But I also think there should be a path for the network to adapt when the technology around it changes. The challenge is finding that balance without undermining the certainty that makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place.

There's no path or system without its trade off
With such threat it would be relatively easier for centralized system to move to quantum cryptography
Unlike Bitcoin that's decentralised and has the follow the majority.
One of the issues many are facing is how to go about Satoshi coins
Whose pubkey are already publish being P2PK.

It would take time doesn't mean Bitcoin won't have to change.

[Localhostspeed]

While it is extremely difficult to change the fundamentals of Bitcoin, I am not worried about it at the moment. Rather, I think that if Bitcoin were very easy to change, people would lose confidence in Bitcoin. Because then everyone would be afraid that in the future some party would change the rules and affect supply or other important things.

However, history has shown that Bitcoin has accepted changes when necessary, such as SegWit and the Taproot upgrade. I personally would like to see Bitcoin as it is now. Because that is how most people are gradually increasing their confidence in Bitcoin.

OP is just running around the bush. There is nothing to worry about Bitcoin right now, even with the worries of AI hacking safe save, there is no single place in Bitcoin that was found to be vulnerable, that is to tell you that Bitcoin wasn't build for anyone to play around and think they can make change that will affect the network, the Quantum computer they used to scare people will have it's solution before the time comes and when it comes, there will be a solution to counter it.

The changes he is taking about is not going to be decided by one person, it's the devs that put ideas together to provide a solution. If it is okay, they implement it and if it's not, they discard it. This is why everything about Bitcoin work chronologically, it's decentralized from the Bitcoin blockchain to how Bitcoin is buy and sold on exchanges.

[Alphakilo]

[...]
When the world changes, should Bitcoin change with it?
[...]
So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?

No need to talk about the potential risk that may come from quantum computing, because even without it, Bitcoin already loses in terms of usability as a peer to peer electronic cash system compared to stablecoins. More volume, more transactions, faster speed, cheap fees. They are more adaptive to new technology (new chains) that exists in this crypto industry. Easier to spend on a daily basis. It's even mainstreamly used to pay wages/salaries.

My stand is still the same. Bitcoin needs to be more adaptive to the world, to people's habits and needs, to make it more relevant for many people, for broader adoption. If we still use the same narrative, to fight banks, to fight fiat, to fight the unfair financial system, it's not relevant anymore because Bitcoin already shifted from being against them to becoming friends with them.

What I want to see from Bitcoin is becoming more adaptive, more relevant to people, without sacrificing what is already good about Bitcoin itself.

Even if Bitcoin decides to become adaptive to the world as it is, I don't think the 21 million cap would change in any bit. It would remain same even if it has to be upgraded by developers to survive the threats of QC because I believe that there still exist the consensus mechanics that can be developed upon to improve its design so as to avoid or resist any such threats.

[Churchillvv]

Now this is a matter of perspective and information, like most people like d500 has mentioned bitcoin has received a lot of upgrades and improvements over time but are not necessarily the entirely the base changes but on different directions yet this changes and upgrades are in bitcoin, I perhaps I have limited knowledge on bitcoin technical aspects but I know that the BIPs are the upgrade and changes proposed for bitcoin however some are applicable because the community accepted them, which answers your question about adaptation because the accepted proposals are the adaptive changes and upgrades in bitcoin but still does not change the underlying principles or mechanisms of bitcoin.

[drangos]

I believe the key difference is there is a difference between changing the rules of Bitcoin, and improving the implementation of the rules of Bitcoin. The useful properties that make Bitcoin safer, or more efficient, can be helpful. But altering properties like the limit on the number of bitcoins in circulation would be another story altogether. If all the rules of the game can change during tough times, that's where Bitcoin's predictability is undermined and that's where its value is diminished. To me it's adaptation when there's a real security issue. But really hard for me to change the principles that people have when they are picking Bitcoin to begin with.

[serjent05]

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?

The technology can be upgraded to adopt with the ever changing technology but Bitcoin can go with the world changes without changing its core features.  Yes, there will be an upgraded version of what Bitcoin is using now in the future just like how Bitcoin legacy address improved with segwit, taproot or what we called Bitcoin output/script types are improved without affecting the core features like decentralization,immutability, transparency and so on.

Bitcoin adopting ever-improving technology can be done without sacrificing any core features that make what Bitcoin is.