pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @orthzar 2 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: The Case for a Chain Split bitcoin
A feature being interesting is not a sufficient reason to add it to any program. The feature must contribute to the purpose of the program beyond what the feature costs to implement/maintain. Bitcoin's purpose is very narrow, which is why Satoshi didn't include other interesting features (e.g. a Turing-complete scripting language).
There are plenty of altcoins that provide those interesting features. They work right now and a lot of people are using them.
So you think that having Satoshi had a second chance and equiped with all today’s knowledge he would built Bitcoin as it is now?
reply
He certainly would have made a few changes (i.e. to avoid bugs like the 2011 inflation bug) and he may or may not have made other changes (e.g. smaller blocks).
But his goal of ending monetary inflation would have remained the same. Considering inflation has gotten significantly worse since 2009, Satoshi probably would have been even more adamant that Bitcoin was made to end inflation.
Fortunately, there are plenty of Bitcoiners who have been adamant about that specific goal.
reply
I agree that the core features like fixed supply, pow, high decentralization (aka small rather than large blocks) would stay. Yet lower level features that would enable scaling on other layers are missing (zk, ctv, trustless sidechains, …)
reply