Topic: The long talk on Ossification would stop when? (Read 89 times)

The debate will never ends. But don't forget some changes such as adding QC resistant cryptography, new OP_CODES or increase maximum block size only can be done on Bitcoin itself.

But layer 2 and similar stuff aren't very ideal option either since it's less decentralized. And for better or worse, there are so many Bitcoin L2 which cause confusion, where some of them are fake L2 or more centralized then their claim.

bitcoin can continue to upgrade via consensus even if there was a diverse nodes of varying versions/brands..

heres the thing, the network doesnt require the essentialness of every user to be a full node voter. infact ever since 2017 its only really essential for the "economic" nodes to do the consensus vote.. where as independent user nodes can stick with old versions or off-brand versions, and just get 'stripped', 'pruned', 'header only' data

by economic nodes, would be the major services such as exchanges and such, along with mining pools. whereby its now more requirement that they agree on a consensus of protocol rules proposed by core devs, and then the user nodes just upgrade when they get an error or have their chain stall out at a certain height, as the usernodes dont actually provide any network wide services essential to the majority

the devs know this, though pretend that its the users that have full control.. but reality which the devs know is that the triad of control is between core(for now), mining pool managers and main economic services

..
its also worth noting that the triad are not required to run core, although right now the game-play of core devs hope to keep the proposal and implementation of protocol changes under the control of core development

other brands could also offer proposals and the best proposals get adopted by all brands and all brands cover there versions of verifying the proposed change and then the network upgrades when consensus is reached. which can be done as a publicised event which has occured before, due to the fact that the essential nodes(dev/economic/mining) want to keep uptodate and review and scrutinise any proposal

the whole pretence of pretending independent user nodes is the blame factor of protocol update delays is a laugh, and i hate how core devs want to shy away from admitting the real triad of control and then turn bitcoin users into the enemy

Yes! Bitcoin actually needs an overhaul. Bitcoin is simply enjoying the first mover advantage. Otherwise, we do have many other coins in the market which are technically superior than Bitcoin.

I think the scalability upgrade and reduction of transaction fees are the most important ones. The second most important one is to remove ordinals from the network. But it seems we are circling around the discussion without any real result.

A few more upgrades would be useful to allow many new features, particularly privacy related features and vaults and covenants.  However with just a few additional opcodes everything can then be built on top of it. 

I had just read about bitcoin a few months before op_cat was disabled and it did make sense at the time to disable it until the ramifications were better understood.  I think 14 years and a few months later they are well understood and with guardrails op_cat and other op_codes could be re-enabled.  My belief is that it (and others) were disabled for both technical and non-technical reasons, both making sure that it doesn't open a backdoor to crash or DDOS the network plus a few non-technical reasons.

I am not that vast or deep when it comes to these kinds of technicalities of bitcoin but I don't think eliminating ways for change is a wise idea. We never know what the future holds. There should always be room for improvement in everything. We might say Bitcoin is peak, but I believe everything has the potential to be better.
In the dynamic world we live in today, it's very easy to get left behind if we don't improve and that goes to Bitcoin too. The change may not necessarily be another coin that becomes better than Bitcoin, it could be a better innovation that makes using coins easier or something of the sought.

If the original creator(s) of bitcoin had wanted it to be unaltered or unimproved, I guess he could have done that. But he had the foresight to see that changes may be needed in the future. The only contact thing is change.
Change is welcome as long as it does not deviate from the original plan of the creator and it doesn't lose its identity.

The debate on solidifying bitcoin's base layer to resist changes from developers is a burning controversy that has no sign of a solution. What is there for the both arguing sides to gain? Today, I read loops take on this struggle and the key point the 'Unknown' he wrote few more times that the future is not yet known. The world might change to a side where the Base layer gets required for a modification. Haven read other parts of his views and other writers, I'll conclude that developers are not convinced of the right choice. The two decisions have its cons and pros.

What do you think will end the debate ? Bitcoin deserves changes, yes, why not do it on layer 2 ?

https://blog.lopp.net/on-ossification/