The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation

6127 sats \ 24 comments \ @jimmysong 1 Sep 2023 bitcoin

A common argument in the altcoin community is that Bitcoin isn't innovating, especially compared to newer, "advanced" altcoins. I've debunked this fiat argument in the past, as it equates bribed rent-seekers with entrepreneurs under the label of "developers." These arguments come from non-technical midwits that spew altcoin propaganda and have no interest in providing value.

Unfortunately, this argument has a particularly obnoxious form within Bitcoin where the so-called "moderates" argue that Bitcoin needs to implement more soft forks to continue innovating or progressing or gaining adoption. This argument is flawed for several reasons.

First, it's incorrect to say Bitcoin isn't innovating. Numerous developers are continually working on Bitcoin, not just in Core, but in the many projects building on top of it. Innovation doesn't just mean changes at the protocol level; it also happens in second layers. Innovation is happening permissionlessly.

Second, equating soft forks with innovation is not understanding the long-term consequences. Soft forks are permanent changes to the protocol, and implementing them doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin more innovative or better. In fact, rushing to add new features can introduce security vulnerabilities, a problem often seen in many altcoins. Worse, if the soft fork is a complete dud, we're stuck with it. Reversing a soft fork requires a hard fork. We're essentially stuck with these soft-fork changes forever so we'd better be careful about the changes we let in.

Third, there's a misconception that a lack of soft forks indicates stagnation. This view ignores Bitcoin's biggest strength: its decentralization. Because Bitcoin is not controlled by a single entity, it doesn't have a traditional roadmap or deadlines. This decentralization enables a more organic and safer form of innovation, primarily occurring in layers above the Bitcoin protocol.

Innovation in Bitcoin is not solely defined by the number or frequency of soft forks. The argument that Bitcoin is lagging because it isn't continually implementing soft forks misrepresents how genuine, sustainable innovation occurs. Such misunderstandings comes from a fiat, centralized mindset and the less credence we give to this assumption, the better off we'll be.

view all related items

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 1 Sep 2023

Really good write up. Moving too quickly with money-touching software is dangerous. Consensus across a decentralized entity takes time. Slow and steady wins the race.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ursuscamp 1 Sep 2023

Both things can be true:

Bitcoin is innovative and still innovating.
We do not have the tools we need at a consensus level to scale self-custodial payments for the masses.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 1 Sep 2023

Some people seem to equate "soft forks are better than hard forks" with "soft forks are no big deal". They are definitely a big deal and we should never fuck with the base layer unless absolutely necessary.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IanMalcolmPhd 1 Sep 2023

Metamucil can help with sharts. OR BEEF

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @lightcoin_ 1 Sep 2023

I wouldn't say that bitcoin isn't innovating, but rather that the space of innovation is inherently more limited than it otherwise could be if bitcoin had more capabilities (which can only be added via consensus fork). Some of the potential innovations bitcoin is missing out on -- in the realms of privacy, scaling, self custodial security, to name a few -- would be hugely valuable to me personally and I think to many other Bitcoiners as well.

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @evbosats 1 Sep 2023

Privacy = Unauditable, obfuscation is preferable to privacy on a public ledger Scaling = possible through lightning, fedimint and various solutions that don't require soft forks or big blocks (I see you roger) Self custodial security = What? Bitcoin already has this. Plus there's multi sig and miniscript.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin_ 2 Sep 2023

Privacy = Unauditable, obfuscation is preferable to privacy on a public ledger

"Unauditable" is a misnomer; you can audit the code. If the crypto is implemented properly then there is no need to be able to do simple-coin-count-auditing. Additionally, obfuscation may be preferrable for you but it is not for me (and many other people I know). In any case, if you don't like the strong privacy provided by zero knowledge protocols then you don't have to use them. It can be an optional feature available for anyone who wants to use it, and ignorable by anyone who doesn't want to use it.

Scaling = possible through lightning, fedimint and various solutions that don't require soft forks or big blocks (I see you roger)

Lightning will need more block space as usage increases. Fedimints have a weaker security model than other protocols that could be implemented with a soft fork (e.g. L2 rollups, validia chains, drivechains, Enigma/Ark).

Self custodial security = What? Bitcoin already has this. Plus there's multi sig and miniscript.

I was referring to vaults and smart accounts, which have more flexible spending conditions that enhance the security of self-custodial setups. Multisig and miniscript are useful but can't implement the kind of spending conditions that I would like to have for my coins.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @purpurato 1 Sep 2023

Chi va piano, va sano e va lontano

The fact that this being so aggressively pushed is definitely a red flag + it's not clear who are the people behind it, som are known, but some others are big money investors (moved by profit)

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @huluvublue 1 Sep 2023

The biggest innovation on bitcoin recently has been ordinals. The only other stuff i see is new custodial services solutions. The next biggest innovation to bitcoin will be ETFs and wallstreet custodial services. These open letters are really cringe just talk to the people you are trying to respond to

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @evbosats 1 Sep 2023

Those innovations don't require a soft fork, which changes bitcoin permanently. The push to innovate for the sake of innovating is misguided, particularly in the case of soft forks and changing the base layer protocol

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @huluvublue 1 Sep 2023

No one is arguing to innovate for the sake of innovating we want scalable L2s were users can hold their own keys its becoming obvious the direction this protocol is going is to regulatory capture. A user in 2050 will only have access through centralized custodians without either DC or a number of other improvement proposals that allow for sidechains.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @evbosats 1 Sep 2023

You obviously don't understand Bitcoin if you think that the protocol can be captured by regulators. What the fuck are you even talking about?

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @huluvublue 1 Sep 2023

Please explain to me how you plan to onboard 1 billion users. It will be layers or custodians. Without permissionless sidechains with no federation the only way to scale is with custodians who are BY NATURE regulated... I'm not saying L1 will every be captured, though it's technically possible it's physically and economically infeasible, the capture would occur on scaling layers, if people only have access to the protocol through a centralized custodian I see that as a failure of peer to peer electronic cash.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @evbosats 1 Sep 2023

You said the obvious direction of this protocol is regulatory capture. The protocol is usually defined as the L1 Bitcoin Network. I said that's impossible, which is true.

If Bitcoin grows to 1 billion users, then innovation is warranted. Innovation for the sake of innovation does not make sense. Especially when the future is unknown. Also if I had a gun to my head right now I'd say a combination of Lightning, Fedimints and ETF's, all of which don't require a soft fork.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @huluvublue 1 Sep 2023

Lightning needed segwit. I guess I am more worried about the regulatory capture for new users in the future, like after the US confiscated gold etc, sure rich families and hoarders had some they could access but the avg person saw their wealth inflated away... without self custody scaling solutions the bitcoiners of tomorrow would be stuck with bitcoin certificates in some bizzaro bitcoin backed fiat illusion. A 51% attack is temporary L1 capture it is far from impossible for a state to accomplish... also a state coercing mining pools to censor would be regulatory capture, very difficult, not impossible.

I don't think lightning scales and fedi is custodial, I don't see it working long term, maybe for very tiny communities and edge cases but the masses are almost surely to get stuck with wallstreet compliant BS without other layers. Hopefully we can figure some other way to create trustless 2wp if we can't upgrade further