jimmysong on Nostr: Ossification and the Burden of Proof ----------------- Bitcoin has already proven its ...
Ossification and the Burden of Proof
-----------------
Bitcoin has already proven its immense value. Over the course of 14 years, it has shown its potential as a store of value at the very least. Beyond that, it offers various use cases that deliver significant benefits to its holders. And these are not insignificant implications; it's dramatically shifted the global conversation about money.
Bitcoin's decentralization sets it apart. With no central authority or control, even a majority can't force decisions upon the entire network. This differs vastly from most other systems we're familiar with, which are centralized and only require the consent of specific decision-makers to implement change.
Hence, anyone proposing to change Bitcoin must bear the burden of proof. There are two primary methods to meet this requirement.
The first is through economic, permissionless proof which involves the market. Anyone can create a market good based on Bitcoin, and as every entrepreneur knows, the onus lies on you to convince your customers that you're offering something valuable.
The second method involves making protocol changes, which should be extremely rare and executed with utmost caution. Bitcoin's usefulness means that anyone opposing your changes can simply refuse to accept them - regardless of the majority. This sets a very high bar, and it only rises as usage increases. The logic is simple: the more people use it, the more challenging it becomes to reach a consensus.
In the traditional financial system, altering base rules is much easier than persuading the market to accept a new product or service. This mindset originates from the centralized control of money by central banks. Consequently, many opt for the second route - altering the rules, rather than innovating a product or service. I believe this approach is misguided, a futile endeavor in a realm where politics holds little sway.
If the proposed changes are truly advantageous, why aren't proponents capitalizing on them in a market-driven manner? Although it might be inconvenient, and the user experience may not be optimal, you can still achieve your goals without changing the rules. Validate your idea by proving there's a market willing to pay for a less refined version of the same feature, then we can discuss potential protocol changes for improvement.
Until now, I've yet to see anyone do this. No one has gone out and proved a use case with the market and then proposed the protocol change. The few projects which have created a degraded version haven’t succeeded as far as I can tell.
The resistance to change in Bitcoin stems from the vast number of people already using it to store value. They have a say in any protocol changes, just as much as the developers, since it's their money at stake. Until they're all won over, they're unlikely to budge.
So, any clamor for sweeping changes is ill-advised. People save in Bitcoin precisely because it’s unlikely to change. The feature they want is knowing their savings won't be debased. Regardless of how beneficial your proposed feature may appear, it's not a guaranteed win-win for everyone. Each update carries the risk of unforeseen bugs and network degradation, and there are holders who would prefer not to take on that risk.
So to those that want to change the protocol, I would challenge you to prove your product in the marketplace before asking for protocol changes. Because until then, you’re not going to get most of the people who have savings in Bitcoin to budge.
-----------------
Bitcoin has already proven its immense value. Over the course of 14 years, it has shown its potential as a store of value at the very least. Beyond that, it offers various use cases that deliver significant benefits to its holders. And these are not insignificant implications; it's dramatically shifted the global conversation about money.
Bitcoin's decentralization sets it apart. With no central authority or control, even a majority can't force decisions upon the entire network. This differs vastly from most other systems we're familiar with, which are centralized and only require the consent of specific decision-makers to implement change.
Hence, anyone proposing to change Bitcoin must bear the burden of proof. There are two primary methods to meet this requirement.
The first is through economic, permissionless proof which involves the market. Anyone can create a market good based on Bitcoin, and as every entrepreneur knows, the onus lies on you to convince your customers that you're offering something valuable.
The second method involves making protocol changes, which should be extremely rare and executed with utmost caution. Bitcoin's usefulness means that anyone opposing your changes can simply refuse to accept them - regardless of the majority. This sets a very high bar, and it only rises as usage increases. The logic is simple: the more people use it, the more challenging it becomes to reach a consensus.
In the traditional financial system, altering base rules is much easier than persuading the market to accept a new product or service. This mindset originates from the centralized control of money by central banks. Consequently, many opt for the second route - altering the rules, rather than innovating a product or service. I believe this approach is misguided, a futile endeavor in a realm where politics holds little sway.
If the proposed changes are truly advantageous, why aren't proponents capitalizing on them in a market-driven manner? Although it might be inconvenient, and the user experience may not be optimal, you can still achieve your goals without changing the rules. Validate your idea by proving there's a market willing to pay for a less refined version of the same feature, then we can discuss potential protocol changes for improvement.
Until now, I've yet to see anyone do this. No one has gone out and proved a use case with the market and then proposed the protocol change. The few projects which have created a degraded version haven’t succeeded as far as I can tell.
The resistance to change in Bitcoin stems from the vast number of people already using it to store value. They have a say in any protocol changes, just as much as the developers, since it's their money at stake. Until they're all won over, they're unlikely to budge.
So, any clamor for sweeping changes is ill-advised. People save in Bitcoin precisely because it’s unlikely to change. The feature they want is knowing their savings won't be debased. Regardless of how beneficial your proposed feature may appear, it's not a guaranteed win-win for everyone. Each update carries the risk of unforeseen bugs and network degradation, and there are holders who would prefer not to take on that risk.
So to those that want to change the protocol, I would challenge you to prove your product in the marketplace before asking for protocol changes. Because until then, you’re not going to get most of the people who have savings in Bitcoin to budge.