Author: Jameson Lopp
Translator: LlamaC
Main Text?
In the context of network protocols, rigidity refers to the slowing down of their evolution and change. This seems to be a law of network physics. Essentially, as network protocols gain wider adoption, the "quality" of the network increases, while the effort required to change the direction of the network by coordinating software updates among protocol users significantly increases. Ultimately, the ability to secure any protocol changes is crushed by the immense weight of the network due to the inability to coordinate a large number of decentralized participants.
Thus, the rigidity of Bitcoin is inevitable. However, as of today, we are still debating whether we should proactively make the protocol rigid. I personally strongly oppose this stance and believe that there is still too much room for improvement, and it is too early to abandon changes to the foundational protocol.
I propose to you that Bitcoin can only remain vibrant, relevant, and secure in the long term by being willing to implement reasonable, broadly beneficial protocol improvements in a cautious, consensus-driven manner. Freezing progress at the current point in time is arrogant, dismissive of history, and a rejection of the foresight that originally created Bitcoin. Thoughtful, ongoing evolution is key to Bitcoin's long-term value proposition. The reason digital gold surpasses physical gold is precisely because it is not inert. What I mean is: the properties of physical gold cannot be improved, so financial innovations in gold are achieved through centralized IOUs… but the properties of Bitcoin can be improved, thereby enhancing its permissionless use.
Learning from History
Bitcoin has only 15 years of history and has already undergone many consensus changes and upgrades. It is premature to assume that the current point in time is an ideal stopping point. Protocols need to adapt over time to remain viable.
We should learn from other popular network protocols like SMTP. If Bitcoin becomes rigid, developers will build increasingly complex layers on top of it to add the desired functionality. Complexity introduces vulnerabilities and exploits.
The Death of Decentralized Email: A Historical Review of the Centralization and Evisceration Process of Email Protocols Over Decades
https://blog.lopp.net/death-of-decentralized-email/
This is not a criticism of complex layers like BitcoinOS / BitVM / Botanix's Spiderchain / Citrea's zero-knowledge rollup - they are doing their best to utilize the available toolset. While we do not want Bitcoin to become an all-encompassing protocol, it makes sense to add low-level functionality at the foundational layer if it significantly reduces the complexity of building functionality at higher layers.
Potential Paths Forward
Many ideal features, such as contracts, vaults, and payment pools, require upgrades to the foundational layer. Building these features clearly on the protocol itself is far better than using hacky overlay layers. A foundational layer with more building blocks opens up new design space for Bitcoin.
News about Bitcoin second-layer developers wanting to introduce OPCAT emphasizes the benefits of OPCAT for various projects and how it will accelerate permissionless innovation. He argues that the view that all improvements can be made on other layers outside the foundational protocol is often put forth by those who have not attempted to build on other layers.
https://x.com/lopp/status/1850847485033349390
Cautious, thoroughly tested upgrades, discussed and reached through community consensus, will not undermine property rights or Bitcoin's core stable currency proposition. Upgrades reflect the will of the users, rather than overriding them.
I believe the potential of Bitcoin far exceeds what we have achieved so far. I view the Bitcoin blockchain as a cryptographic accumulator for various systems that can be anchored within it. But we have only scratched the surface of possibilities. If we freeze today, when building permissionless second-layer networks is so difficult, we will bind the hands of developers and greatly limit the experimentation in finding the most valuable uses of block space.
People often say we do not need to change Bitcoin because we can scale through other layers. Of course, it would be great if developers were unrestricted! We simply do not have all the necessary raw building blocks at the foundational layer to easily roll out permissionless second-layer networks. For example, we could make Bitcoin scripts powerful again.
Rusty Russell explains his great script recovery project: Bitcoin's v0.3.1 version disabled many script opcodes, the most famous of which is OP_CAT. Re-enabling these opcodes would unleash a lot of potential, and there are some additional opcodes in modern Bitcoin systems that would complement them well (such as key addition). This talk aims to propose a coherent model to make Bitcoin scripts as powerful as possible while avoiding the traps that led to their initial weakening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSp8918HLnA
Note that we implemented three different forks to enable three different building blocks to create the Lightning Network. Without the functionalities enabled by these forks, the Lightning protocol would be much clumsier, and the game theory would not be as refined.
We can conduct other soft forks, such as SIGHASHANYPREVOUT, which would greatly enhance the Lightning Network and allow for the existence of channel factories, improving the efficiency of the Lightning Network by several orders of magnitude. We can also conduct some privacy-enhancing forks, such as cross-input signature aggregation. We can also conduct forks like OPCTV to improve the security of self-custody through contracts and vaults. We can see many potential futures, but moving in these directions is becoming increasingly difficult.
On Sovereignty and Self-Custody
Scalability is another long-term issue. Greg Maxwell said in 2015:
If the system's costs are too high, people will be forced to trust third parties rather than independently enforce the system's rules. If the Bitcoin blockchain consumes too many resources relative to available technology, Bitcoin will lose its competitive advantage over traditional systems because the cost of verification will be too high (making it unaffordable for many users), forcing trust back into the system. If capacity is too low, our transaction methods will be too inefficient, making the cost of accessing the chain for dispute resolution too high, again pushing trust back into the system.
Winning the block size debate for verification decentralization is only part of the story. The decentralization of economic participants is also crucial for Bitcoin's long-term success. Remember, it is not the will of the nodes that determines Bitcoin's future, but the will of the economically majority nodes. Bitcoin's economic participants include miners, holders, and traders (including companies and custodians). The key point is - if centralization leads to a reduction in the number of economically relevant nodes, and the majority of Bitcoin users cannot self-custody due to costs, we should expect the "governance" of the protocol to become more centralized and fragile.
Given the current state of Bitcoin, there may only be 100 million entities globally that can access Bitcoin's fundamental properties. In a world of 8 billion people, this situation does not create a new type of decentralized currency that changes the dynamics of value and scarcity, but merely creates a new elite class that, over time, will initially create prosperity and ultimately devolve into bread and circuses, like all elite groups in history. Bitcoin has the potential to do more than just transfer power from one elite group to another, but only if we continue to commit to maximizing decentralization through protocol improvements and enabling more people globally to access Bitcoin's fundamental properties.
Note that the argument "we can do anything we want on other layers" often overlooks the fact that any layer built on top of Bitcoin cannot provide the same security model as the foundational layer. Whenever you build a layer on top of Bitcoin, you need to create a whole new game theory and trade-offs for the self-custody users of that layer.
The Stamp of Rigid Thought
Rigidists believe that Bitcoin has already achieved its core functions as a sound currency and store of value. Further changes, even if well-intentioned, would introduce unnecessary risks that could undermine the characteristics that make Bitcoin valuable. By solidifying the protocol, we ensure that Bitcoin remains a trustworthy, decentralized, and immutable monetary system in the long term.
1. Maintain Trust in Bitcoin's Fundamental Properties:
Bitcoin's primary value proposition is its fixed supply and immutability. Any change to the protocol, even a soft fork, has the potential to weaken people's confidence in these core attributes. Some argue that the ability to change the protocol will diminish people's confidence in inflationary schemes, no matter how well-intentioned.
2. Reduce Developer Control and Centralization Risks:
Allowing continued modifications to Bitcoin would give developers excessive influence over the protocol. This could create centralization risks, as a small group of people might change Bitcoin's attributes.
3. Guard Against Unintended Consequences:
Even well-intentioned and thoroughly tested changes can have unforeseen impacts on the network. As Bitcoin's value and importance continue to grow, the potential impacts of these unintended consequences become increasingly severe.
4. Increasing Difficulty of Changes with Growth:
As Bitcoin's adoption rate increases and the economic value built on it grows, any changes become riskier and more destructive. Rigidists argue that the protocol should reach a stable point, similar to other foundational protocols like TCP/IP or power outlet standards.
5. Maintain Bitcoin's Function as a Sound Currency:
Bitcoin's primary goal is to serve as a new currency system free from devaluation. Rigidity ensures that this core function is preserved without risking changes to its fundamental properties for potentially unnecessary improvements.
Common Arguments for Rigidity
Rigidists believe that Bitcoin is currently operating very well, and the protocol rules should be extremely resistant to change to maintain its core value proposition as a stable, non-inflationary, non-political form of currency. Even well-intentioned changes could pose significant risks that might jeopardize Bitcoin's long-term success and stability.
1. Don't fix what isn't broken
Bitcoin has already succeeded under the existing protocol, growing from $0 to a market cap of $1.4 trillion in just 15 years. There is no need to risk disrupting this success through hasty or unnecessary changes.
2. Stability is Crucial
Bitcoin's core value proposition is its stability and predictability. Protocol rules should not be changed arbitrarily. Frequent modifications would undermine people's confidence in Bitcoin's immutable nature.
3. Think Twice
Changing the Bitcoin protocol is an extremely serious task, akin to amending a constitution or designing laws meant to last for centuries. Any changes must be made slowly, cautiously, and conservatively, and only after considering all long-term impacts.
4. The Higher the Stakes, the Steadier the Hand
The larger and more successful Bitcoin becomes, the more important it is to remain cautious about any protocol changes. With over a trillion dollars in value and nation-state buyers involved, we cannot afford to make mistakes or take unnecessary risks.
5. The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Even well-intentioned protocol changes can have unforeseen negative impacts, such as harming the economic interests of miners, developers, and holders. The potential risks may outweigh any theoretical benefits.
6. Keep It Simple, Stupid
Not every new feature or improvement needs to be implemented at the foundational protocol layer. Many things can be achieved at higher levels, such as the second or third layer, without jeopardizing Bitcoin's core security model and stability.
7. An Immutable Currency in a Changing World
Continuous "improvements" and protocol changes contradict Bitcoin's promise as a stable, non-political currency and settlement network. Rigidity is a feature that prevents Bitcoin from being captured by special interest groups or undergoing unpredictable mutations.
8. Bitcoin should only serve as a currency
Using block space for non-currency purposes like tokens/NFTs only fuels fads and pump-and-dump schemes, which crowd out legitimate users from utilizing Bitcoin as a currency.
My Response to the Rigidity Argument
Maintain trust in Bitcoin's fundamental properties:
Trust in Bitcoin's properties and the ability to resist implementing bad ideas ultimately depends on the governance process of protocol changes, rather than making changes impossible. Bitcoin is crypto-anarchism; it is a system that defaults to indifference, which is a powerful veto. You either believe that Bitcoin's governance has served us well so far, or you think we have just been lucky, and the whole system could collapse at any moment.
Jameson Lopp - Keynote on using blockchain to disrupt bureaucracies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IMzSCSeM68
Reduce developer control and centralization risks:
Similar to the above, you either believe that the game theory surrounding protocol changes is reasonable, or we have just been lucky so far. Bitcoin developers cannot force anyone to run code they disagree with.
Who Controls Bitcoin Core? Understanding How Bitcoin Development Works.
https://blog.lopp.net/who-controls-bitcoin-core/
Moreover, the internal development process is extremely challenging. Most proposed rules and code changes fail to pass rigorous scrutiny.
A Deep Dive into the Challenges Faced by Bitcoin Core Contributors, Exploring the History of Accepted and Rejected Code Changes in the Bitcoin Core Project.
https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-core-contributor-challenges/
To summarize my research from four years ago:
After traversing all rejected Bitcoin Core pull requests, we found:
- 9,011,209 total lines of new code rejected
- 6,279,435 total lines of code deleted rejected
This means 15,290,644 lines of rejected code changes compared to 3,651,046 lines of accepted code!
This indicates that as of the time of writing, only 19% of proposed changes' lines of code have been accepted into Bitcoin Core.
Prevent unintended consequences:
In my view, the fear of the unknown unknowns and unintended consequences is not a valid argument. Why? Because every decision has unknown unknowns. Modifying the protocol has unknown unknowns. Not making modifications also has unknown unknowns. There are always unquantifiable unknown unknowns, so this argument is actually self-contradictory. Vigilance is key - this is precisely where Bitcoin's anti-fragility lies.
Increasing difficulty of changes with growth:
I believe this is not actually a point of disagreement on both sides. As the network develops and its value increases, it has become increasingly difficult to change, and it will continue to be so in the future.
Maintain Bitcoin's function as a sound currency:
The world in which Bitcoin operates will never become rigid. The world will continually throw new problems at Bitcoin; if it cannot adapt and solve these problems, we should expect rough and potentially centralized solutions to be forcibly added. This is what led to the decline of SMTP. The key is that Bitcoin's characteristics do not guarantee preservation through rigidity.
Don't fix what isn't broken
No one is pushing for hasty changes, nor can anyone make a serious argument that Bitcoin would "collapse" without a specific feature. But what we can say is that the nature of Bitcoin's use will change. Significant changes have already occurred over the past 15 years.
Stability is crucial
Since Satoshi left the project, Bitcoin's rules have never been "arbitrarily changed." Satoshi made unilateral changes without consulting others. I have noticed some influential people disparaging Bitcoin developers as "patchers," which is far from the truth. We can observe that due to the extreme caution of developers, the pace of Bitcoin's changes has significantly slowed over the years.
Think twice
Indeed, slow and steady improvements that are thoroughly validated are precisely what innovators are asking for.
The higher the stakes, the steadier the hand
We should absolutely strive to avoid mistakes. We should also have confidence that mistakes are not irreversible. For example, Bitcoin Core has introduced many bugs, all of which have been patched without causing incidents. Even when the Bitcoin network encounters consensus failures, it can recover within hours due to the vigilance of network participants. This is the fundamental characteristic of Bitcoin's anti-fragility.
Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum. In a sense, it is a living organism. No life form can thrive through stagnation.
Bitcoin is the mycelium of money—By Brandon Quittem
https://brandonquittem.com/bitcoin-is-the-mycelium-of-money/?ref=blog.lopp.net
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
I believe this is another self-contradictory argument. The Bitcoin ecosystem is extremely complex, composed of countless active parts and participants. As parts of the system outside the protocol itself continue to change over time, we should be prepared to deal with the unforeseen consequences that these changes bring.
Keep it simple, stupid
I think this is another point of general agreement on both sides. The most important changes for the foundational layer should be those that can have a significant impact on other permissionless layers, allowing them to experiment freely without worrying about issues at the foundational layer.
An immutable currency in a changing world
This seems to be another issue of disbelief in the game theory behind Bitcoin governance. I believe that if you do not trust the inherent checks and balances of the system, then you do not truly believe in Bitcoin.
Jameson Lopp points out in his post that public permissionless consensus systems (like public blockchains) allow users to use them without trusting any single individual, but users must collectively trust all participants.
https://x.com/lopp/status/747087056141164545
As I will mention later, rigidity itself could also potentially allow Bitcoin to be captured by special interest groups. The answer is not paralysis, but vigilance and the ability to adapt to new pressures and adversaries!
Bitcoin should only serve as a currency
The debate over which use cases of Bitcoin should be considered spam has been ongoing for a long time. I do not find this debate particularly interesting, as it ultimately boils down to people arguing about subjective value, while we can empirically observe that non-financial uses of block space have objective value to people—they are willing to pay for that privilege.
From a technical standpoint, Bitcoin is a form of data storage; the blockchain is essentially an append-only log with several other interesting characteristics. Therefore, people have been using Bitcoin for non-financial purposes for over a decade. As I wrote eight years ago, it is the credibility of the permanence and non-overwritability of this data that attracts people to use it for non-financial purposes.
Bitcoin: The Trust Anchor in a Sea of Blockchains. Bitcoin is the most powerful permissionless blockchain in terms of computational security because it invests the most resources to ensure its security through a proof-of-work process.
https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-the-trust-anchor-in-a-sea-of-blockchains/
We do not know what the long-term market for block space will look like—that is, which uses of block space will be found to provide the greatest utility and value. With each halving, this question becomes increasingly important. I believe that more features and more layers running experiments mean we are more likely to find the highest value use cases for block space. For example, perhaps this could be powering zero-knowledge rollups. We do not know yet, so I think we should allow innovators to continue exploring potential design space.
In my view, what do all these arguments ultimately boil down to?
Jameson Lopp explores the relationship between "settlers" and "innovators" in the Bitcoin ecosystem on X.
https://x.com/lopp/status/1851219428374954363
Frequently Asked Questions
What if all these non-bug-fix protocol change ideas are "nice but unnecessary"? Is this merely a case of Bitcoin tech geeks running wild in their ivory tower of technical interests, which are not strictly necessary for Bitcoin to one day become a global currency?
I do not think this is a question of necessity versus non-necessity. I think it is a question of finding pathways, exploring Bitcoin's design space, and maximizing the value of the system. It is important to clarify that we can let Bitcoin become rigid now, and it will continue to function normally for a long time until we encounter critical issues like quantum computing or timestamp overflow points. However, due to developmental constraints, Bitcoin's nature will evolve in different ways.
Where do you draw the "stop point" for changes? When is Bitcoin considered good enough?
We should continue to improve Bitcoin until we can no longer improve it. We have seen a sharp decline in Bitcoin Improvement Proposals since 2017—averaging less than one per month since then. Moreover, many proposals do not even come with activation guides because developers do not want to go through that rigorous review. As a result, we are losing talent in protocol development, further exacerbating the slowdown.
Should protocol changes be limited to "bug fixes and maintenance," excluding "new features"?
This is certainly an option, and perhaps we will eventually go down that path. But I believe we should not settle for the status quo.
Describe a possible scenario in which the Bitcoin ecosystem might agree to support and push for soft fork or hard fork changes.
Any critical issues that jeopardize the continued operation of the system. However, the nature of rigidity may make urgent fixes in the distant future very tricky.
- Imagine that we have not made any changes to Bitcoin's consensus rules for decades. Therefore, perhaps the current batch of Bitcoin protocol developers has never truly experienced modifying consensus. In this case, this is not a good sign for us.
- Considering that there are some potential issues, we do not know exactly when they will become critical. The nature of rigidity means we will keep postponing addressing these issues… possibly until it is too late. I recommend watching my recent talk on quantum computing for a concrete example of this situation.
Jameson Lopp discusses the risks posed by quantum computers in his keynote speech "Protecting Satoshi's Vault" at the 2024 Bitcoin Future Conference. This is a must-watch for anyone seriously protecting their Bitcoin holdings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUzpR_mxAg
Conclusion
We should strive to change Bitcoin to enhance its functionality and allow more permissionless systems to anchor to it. I think we all agree that Bitcoin should not become a hodgepodge protocol like EVM-based networks, but as it stands, innovative developers find it difficult to innovate without creating extremely complex and cumbersome logic.
Rigidity is complacency. Yes, we all agree that Bitcoin is great. But I disagree that Bitcoin has reached its full potential. I believe complacency is one of the biggest threats facing Bitcoin - we cannot rest on our laurels.
Technology is inherently deflationary. Bitcoin's consensus rules should prioritize security and maintain decentralization of the system in as many aspects as possible. This includes not only node operators but also users of block space. After all, if someone cannot use block space due to price, they certainly won't run a full node. I also believe we should enhance developers' ability to build permissionless second layers so that we can continue to explore the potential use cases of block space as a cryptographic accumulator, thereby increasing opportunities to find sustainable demand pathways and permanently pay for the thermodynamic security of block space in Bitcoin.
Should we let the future of Bitcoin be driven by optimism or pessimism?
Jameson Lopp expressed on X his views comparing the positions of Bitcoin innovators and rigidifiers, arguing that Bitcoin's anti-fragility or fragility depends on individual beliefs.
https://x.com/lopp/status/1851616186468884788
It is important to clarify that caution is crucial. You will never see me claim anywhere that "Bitcoin must implement feature X, or it will fail." In my view, the very factors that make Bitcoin successful also make it harder to improve.
Jameson Lopp presented a viewpoint in his post that Bitcoin's exchange rate may continue to rise even as its unique characteristics are gradually eroded. He warned against allowing newfound wealth to make us complacent.
https://x.com/lopp/status/1851236425632551392
But if we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear, we will sacrifice potential pathways forward, greatly limiting the exploration of Bitcoin's design space, which I believe will naturally lead to restrictions on its adoption, use cases, and valuable attributes.
The torment of precaution often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. - Napoleon Bonaparte
I want to remind you, as I see conflicts ahead. Consider the motivations behind why someone would want to improve the Bitcoin protocol. The only reason you care to do so is if you are a direct user of the protocol. In other words, protocol improvements are only interesting to those who self-custody. If you use a trusted third party to store your funds, you won't care how they use the protocol.
Jameson Lopp tweeted on X, pointing out that traditional finance (TradFi) does not care about enhancing the protocol and expanding the network for Bitcoin adoption, as they are not interested in self-custody. He predicts that the next struggle for Bitcoin's future is about to begin.
https://x.com/lopp/status/1837472391364051419
Perhaps Bitcoin has already become rigid, and everything written above is in vain. We can only determine this when we have enough retrospective perspective. The world will never stop evolving, and we must ask ourselves whether we want Bitcoin to evolve with it or be left behind.
Let us move forward together.
Onward.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
