What's the Worst Possible Change to Bitcoin You Would Accept? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

What's the Worst Possible Change to Bitcoin You Would Accept?

942 sats \ 22 comments \ @kilianbuhn 13 Jan 2023 bitcoin

The worst possible change to Bitcoin that you would disagree with but would still accept?

Bitcoin is decentralized and everyone can play by his own rules theoretically ♟️. This isn't a huge deal in reality since there is a consensus that most Bitcoiners agree with because there is a logic/mentality/spirit behind it.😎

But imagine the world 🌎around you changed. You are an alien looking through milky glass and all alone. Everyone agrees to a surprising change that you disagree with but nobody wants to listen to you. We live in a society - and you accept it because it's not actually deal breaking.

What is this change?

view all related items

552 sats \ 4 replies \ @rothbardllc 13 Jan 2023

I get this is a theoretical but isn't it the right answer that you NEVER have to accept a change?

You can just keep running the same node and go with whomever else agrees with you and runs that same code.

And ideally (for me, and those running my same code) that's still the longest chain with the most people and value.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kilianbuhn OP 14 Jan 2023

I was hoping nobody answers what you answered 😂

You're technically correct. I was explicitly asking about a scenario where everybody changes their mind and you are alone (see 3rd paragraph).

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @21millions 16 Jan 2023 freebie

I have mixed thoughts about tail emission as stated by Peter Todd.

If an inplementation solves issues in the long run I will be Ok so long there is a 1 time change and doesn't open the door to future changes. Though the ethos of the 21M hard cap is a part of the culture now so even if we imagine for 5 minutes that TE is desirable, it would be a crapy change.

That is the most that I can think of I would accept given the right circumstances.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rothbardllc 21 Jan 2023

The tail emission idea is an artifact of having lived in an inflationary world for an entire lifetime, to this point. Most people, for example Peter Todd, simply can't imagine a world where there is no inflation. It makes them worried about the future.

There is every reason to think that the emergent bitcoin economy will adjust naturally to any and all circumstances, from the bottom up. Not from Peter Todd's top down management ideas.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rothbardllc 14 Jan 2023

OK then, I think pretty easy answer to this thought experiment:

We will all have to accept whatever soft changes come along, provided there is no change in the underlying 21 million BTC supply hard cap. The value as a currency and dollar replacement lies there, in this supply hard cap.

You can rage quit over some feature or idea but you'll only hurt yourself.

137 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 13 Jan 2023

EVM

46 sats \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn OP 13 Jan 2023

Let me go first:

Blocksize. I disagree that blocks should be bigger. I don't think it solves scaling Bitcoin, I doubt it would increase the monetization of miners, I think current blocksize is enough to open channels.

But if I look back at where computer tech was 10 years ago💾 and imagine where it could be in 10 years - I would accept to use Bitcoin after a doubling or quadrupeling of blocks.

Nowadays a raspberry pi + 1tb of hard drive are really cheap with a used computer almost free even... Quadrupeling to 4tb and used hardware in a few years would not be a huge deal. A 10x of block size or something would be catastrophic tho, that would be too much 😐

7 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 13 Jan 2023

That is probably the obvious one, and a decent answer I'd say. Though it's always important to point out that segwit already increased the blocksize, both in practice, and even more in theory.

But the smallest change I'd accept while disagreeing is probably less impactful than that, like a slightly inferior version of a specific OP code upgrade or something. Kind of a boring answer though :)

11 sats \ 3 replies \ @ExponentialBTC 13 Jan 2023

Using "bits" as a unit (i.e., 0.000001 BTC, or 100 sats). I would accept it, but I certainly wouldn't like it.

25 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn OP 14 Jan 2023

Wdym? E.g. How many sats would be 1BTC

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ExponentialBTC 14 Jan 2023

There's no change to the units, just a change in which units to make the default.

1 bit: 0.000001 (1,000,000 bits per BTC,) 1 sat: 0.00000001 (100,000,000 sats per BTC, 100 stats per bit)

There are some people pushing for "bits" over "sats". They think normies can't deal with prices such as 45,000 sats for a hamburger. They'ld rather see a burger costing 450 bits. Even though they are both the exact same, in BTC terms (0.00045000 BTC).

Units https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @21millions 16 Jan 2023 freebie

This will be the only generation to deal with such high numbers, I hope I can ever see a 1-to-1 ratio of the moscow time, at least in my local currency but in USD would be neat too.

23 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 13 Jan 2023

Probably an OP_CODE that wasn't harmful in terms of validation but wasn't useful either.

Other things like tail emission or block size or merge mining are super context dependent.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 14 Jan 2023

Other things like tail emission or block size or merge mining are super context dependent.

"Anyways if it turns out that fees alone don't look like they're supporting enough security, we have a good amount of time to come to that conclusion and do something about it."

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-January/021316.html

It looks like more and more people realise rn, what is important but what is more important - to keep Bitcoin not exposed on unnecessary risk.

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 13 Jan 2023

I appreciate Bitcoin Script for its simplicity. I t would be dangerous to extend it since it provides additional attack surface and attack vectors. But if the community agrees on extending it with programming-language-features and smart people have them well thought out .. I'd be on board

7 sats \ 1 reply \ @ursuscamp 13 Jan 2023

Slightly dynamically adjustable block sizes.

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn OP 14 Jan 2023

dynamic is interesting 🤔🤔

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @selfish_gene 13 Jan 2023

начинать увеличивать скорость блоков сначала это 9 минут потом сделать 8 через день 7 минут между блоками... ведь инфляция не страшна! комиссии могут быть равны и 1 сатоши. этого достаточно для работы 1 майнера на 1 год. и далее сделать 1 блок 1 минуту и даже 1 секунду. а потом начинается самое интересное... блок 0.1 секунду... и так далее до самых быстрых моделий на сколько это позволяет возможности. и дальше уже думать что привело к ограничению в 0.0000001 сёк? почему нельзя быстрее...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2minutebitcoin 14 Jan 2023

Nothing that's bad. "Worst" can mean good relatively, but it's confusing

It's a very slippery slope. Thankfully, we have to thank the network's design as to how hard it is to do so.

Bitcoin, the computer network, comes into existence when many people run bitcoin implementations following the same rules. This practically rules out any controversial changes, which could never get broad social consensus.

This makes Bitcoin resilient to disputed/bad changes but open to good, obvious incremental improvements.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chungkingexpress 14 Jan 2023

No compromises.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ricalamino 13 Jan 2023

Some kind of government faking participation or interference... Maybe US govt will try to pretend they control Bitcoin somehow, maybe participating in mining operations or taxing mining, when there is no way back. But that could be good for adoption... I don't know....

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @21millions 16 Jan 2023 freebie

There already exist gov participation in bitcoin, mining in particular. A venezuelan guy I know always says that the gov run its own mining business, the fun fact is that the incentives of bitcoin are such that being an "honest" participant in the network is in the best interest of the gov. (yes, is weird write honest and government in the same sentence).