As I defined in a Take two weeks in the past, I feel the risk (or promise, relying in your perspective) of protocol ossification is considerably exaggerated, no less than at this time limit.
Sure, the speed of sentimental forks has slowed down considerably over time, the final one having been Taproot in 2021. But it surely appears this has extra to do with a scarcity of curiosity within the potential upgrades that’ve been proposed since then, somewhat than it being as a result of lack of a great course of for deploying protocol upgrades. (Though that’s not precisely a solved drawback both.)
Bitcoin Core builders are usually funded on a no-strings-attached foundation or outright volunteers, that means they’re not required to work on any particular a part of the codebase. As such, their time and power shall be devoted to no matter they discover most attention-grabbing or necessary to work on. Thus far, that hasn’t actually been any of the tender fork proposals: the assorted covenant-style opcodes aren’t unequivocally perceived to supply the kind of groundbreaking use circumstances that deserve prioritization, and whereas Drivechains sound nice in idea, their main draw back remains to be that miners can in the end steal cash from them.
However even when Bitcoin Core builders aren’t , that doesn’t imply it’s inconceivable to improve Bitcoin. For higher or worse, anybody with the appropriate skillset (admittedly not a really low bar) can all the time deploy a tender fork by another shopper, at the same time as a consumer activated tender fork (UASF). But, regardless of some rumblings infrequently, nobody has completed this but.
I think that is no less than partly as a result of the proponents of those tender forks aren’t satisfied a UASF would really achieve success. And if a UASF wouldn’t achieve success, possibly the improve is just not price doing within the first place…
This text is a Take. Opinions expressed are totally the creator’s and don’t essentially replicate these of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Journal.
