Oddbean

A protocol is never done being developed and worked on. It's a living and breathing thing. Calling for ossification of software means you want it to fail or you can't look into the future. Ossification hinders innovation, leaves software and users open to exploitation, and hurts user experience as expectations change over time.

I think there is a difference between ongoing maintenance of a protocol and anti-ossification. This seems like a straw man towards ossificationoors. I’m not sure what bucket I fit into, but I understand the protocol needs ongoing maintenance. Also, I’m okay with taking our time with big “improvements”. I wouldn’t call myself an ossifioor, but I understand that we don’t want to break the thing too. If adoption is at less than 1%, and devs make up less than 1% of that crowd, we are missing a wide swath of brain power that can potentially come up with some novel way to help or hurt bitcoin with current code. Imo, moving slow and not breaking things is Bitcoin’s greatest feature. Especially now.

The protocol is open source you want to tinker, just fork it and let the free market decide if your version is better than the "ossified" version.....nice use of language to steer the plebs a certain way, btw.

Update the kernel to do what? Update security? Bitcoin core is already as secure and working as it should Fucking around with it to make it 1% faster or better will inevitably fuck it up royally. Fork it or build on top of it

Yes. And yes, that's how it works. People fork and decide if they want to run that version on not. This is going to happen again soon when the clown shoes, I mean wizards, propose their fork. You decide to run it or you don't. I know what I'm going to do.

You just proved my point again. You don’t need to tinker with the base over and over again, only update when it is absolutely necessary not just because you can One line of bad code can wipe out $1T of value in an instant

You keep flip flopping. You want changes and then you don't want changes. Which is iy? You either want ossification or you don't. It sounds like you don't since you keep mentioning scenarios where you'd want changes.

Do you think I'm arguing and advocating for major changes? No. That's very far from my point and I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. Security and maintenance changes must happen for Bitcoin to succeed. It must always be active developed. Over time, development will slow down. This is how all software projects work.

These are all great points and I'm in agreement with the Inscriptions discussion, because that's been my point all along that they're exploiting a vulnerability, but smaller changes need to happen quite often for security and user experience. Larger changes, need to be scrutinized more and longer. It took 11 years for TLS to go from 1.2 to 1.3.

Would you innovate your own genome? Sure the science is already there, you can add or remove some features. This can be so much fun! Add more iron to your blood and cells so you can hold your breath for 10 minutes! Increase your retina's rod cells number so you can better see at night! This is fun until it's not and you fuck up some systems you weren't thinking about which are intertwined with the things you messed with. The point is, dont mess with a working system unless absolutely have to.

Every single protocol and piece of software that you used to send that note, hundreds or thousands of them, has been changed countless times over the last 3 decades. We won't stop building. That's how software dies.

A bug in a chat software is fixed and life goes on. This happens every now and then. Experimenting is great there, because the highest risk is a temporary disruption or some non-fatal leak. Note how vital software(ISS, Hubble, etc.) is devoid of any fancy stuff and is updated only when stuff breaks or it is absolutely necessary. There is no easy way to correct a mistake, if any. Similarly, a bug in BTC core could mean its death. There will be no second chance for BTC after a serious bug. You just can't not realize it. You may build whatever you want, that's the beauty of BTC. It's decentralized, open source and consensus driven. I have huge respect for open source devs who put their time and effort to our good. I also know they can make mistakes, like any other human. If that what you can build can be done outside of the main code, it should be done there. Don't fuck with BTC while it works. I personally regard anyone pushing another BIP as a CIA spook or some other ill-motivated actor, by default. Which can be revised later upon studying the suggested BIP. There's simply too much at stake. We're fucked without Bitcoin. This is our only defense against global elites, their control and tyranny. You do you. I will study. I will vote with my nodes. I will voice my opinion.

No my point is that bugs and vulnerabilities will always exist and need to be fixed, while user experience will need enhancements as needs arise. Do we need major changes? No. But assuming we'll need zero maintenance is just showcasing a misunderstanding of software development.

I don't know of any now, but I don't have a crystal ball to tell me the future. I only have 20+ years working in the information technology field as a baseline. I know unforseen things happen, because ultimately ulhimans write code and humans make mistakes, because humans are not perfect.

With that I totally agree, humans make mistakes. They also act maliciously sometimes. There are powers that understand how deadly is BTC for their privileges. They are sure to try their best to take it down by making it look buggy, sloppy, unsecure, etc. I never said BTC can't be touched. Bugs have to be fixed, including fast track fixes be there the need. What I'm strongly opposed to is adding fancy unnecessary stuff. The more complex a mechanism is the more points of failure it has.

Anyway, what's that urge to add fancy stuff to the L1 when all kinds of stuff can be done and is being done on upper levels? Bitcoin as it is now serves its purpose well enough and will win the world finance without any new feature. This is where I stand.

It's digital money. Digital applications need change because humans invented it and humans are make mistakes. It's basic software development. Humans aren't perfect and will NEVER stop iterating while trying for perfection.